Jump to content

Talk:The Only Ones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Notinasnaid (talk | contribs) at 07:15, 5 April 2007 (→Band photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).


Albums

I have added a couple of album pages (The Only Ones and Remains) but they're very brief, just a track listing and an image of the album cover, so if anyone wants to expand them feel free. BTW, 'Babys Got A Gun' in the Remains page track listing is spelt that way (without a " ' ") on the cover and LP itself, so it's not a typo on my part. Ian Dunster 14:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band photo

The band photo currently in use isn't free, and seems to have a dubious fair use claim. Does anyone have a genuinely free (e.g. self-taken, public domain) picture that could replace this before the current one is picked up and deleted? Notinasnaid 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that photo is scanned directly from an official release. I don't see why it's use is not fair use. Just as well photos of this band are hard to find let alone self-taken or public domain. Case 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the claim made for it on the image page? The words make a claim that simply is not valid. "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of videotape covers to illustrate the videotape in question ... qualifies as fair use". This picture is illustrating a band article, not an article about a videotape. It seems pretty clear cut. Notinasnaid 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Less obvious, but still a major problem, the image has been cropped so as to remove the video name etc. An cover illustration, even if used under a valid claim for fair use, cannot be cropped for detail. Notinasnaid 08:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then perhaps an original scan of the entire cover will suffice? If labeled properly as an image of the band found on the cover of an official release? Probably not so feel free to shut me down and delete the image.Case 05:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A scan of the entire cover will probably be OK if you are specficially illustrating something that is talking about the product (video?) in sufficient detail, at least as the rules are usually enforced today. It can't be used as a band photo per se. I suspect, in fact, almost all fair use video and CD covers will in time be removed, not because of a change in the rules, but because the existing rules will be more strictly enforced. Notinasnaid 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

I am forced to semi-protect this page for one day, the amount of spam originating from multiple IP addresses is very high. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.network54.com/Forum/285921/ has been repeated deleted from the external links by a "spam bot" which has been programmed to remove all network54 links. It is the most active Only Ones forum on the internet. There are no Only Ones Official or Unofficial websites. Does anyone have a legitimate reason for it not to be listed here? If there is no objections within the next 7 days, I will re-instate the link.

172.214.142.142 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Per Links normally to be avoided at [[WP:EL]]:
That's a legitimate reason for it to be removed. --Onorem 17:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the question does not lay with users to exclude, the Burden of proof lies on the inclusion of the link, not exclusion. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The link had been there for months. A spam bot removed it as they were getting rid of network54 links. I re-instated it as there are so few dedicated Only Ones sites and is worthy of inclusion. The spam bot started to revert my edits, then you started repeatedly reverting the edits whils refusing to discuss the matter.

172.214.142.142 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before just because it was there doesnt mean it should have been there in the first place. Also you only left a note on my talk page after you called me a vandal and had jumped several different IPs. I left a note on one of them. But you still havent explained why it should be linked to since WP:EL states that it shouldnt. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline only says "normally to be avoided". It doesn't say a forum cannot and mustn't be linked to. If there was an official website and forum and numerours fansites there would be little need for the forum to be linked. As it stands, there are no Only Ones websites at all, official or unofficial. It is the only solely Only Ones dedicated website or forum on the internet.

172.214.142.142 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current links cover what need to be covered. relevant material can be found on those sites. Just because its the only dedicated site means nothing. There is no valid reason to add that link except to promote a fan forum, provide un-reliable information, and to have your favorite site linked to on wikipedia. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re-insertion of the LyricWiki link. 4.4.07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveritt (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Only_Ones&oldid=120432155"