Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2011
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giants2008 (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 11 December 2011 (Promote 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 16:06, 11 December 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Neonblak talk - 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As usual, any issues will be addressed in prompt manner. Neonblak talk - 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Ref. to Ref(s), as it uses more than one ref at some players.
- Headers should use scope="col" and the players in the table should use scope="row", not to forget the table cation (+XYZ) and plainrowheaders so they wont center and bold. see the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (S) as an exemple from two bellow this list.
- † and § should be converted to thier templeate for ACCESS (due to JEWS readers), with alt aswell. Exemple †, to all that located there.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A note: the use of the plainrowheaders class is optional and the choice of the primary editor, and the § symbol is read properly by JAWS (I assume this is what you refer to above) and does not require substitution by template. — KV5 • Talk • 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the appropriate changes noted here. If the table is fine, I will leave it as is.Neonblak talk - 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The table does still need row headers, captions, etc. The only optional things are the addition of the PRH class and the swap of symbols for templates. — KV5 • Talk • 01:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Table switched over, not sure if this is an upgrade though, but whatever people want :) Still have issues with it, such as the position key needs to moved to the right, player photos don't line-up flush with the table, a large gap between the table and the player photos. If you have any suggestions on how to correct these, please let me know. I will have time later today to work on this.Neonblak talk - 14:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The table does still need row headers, captions, etc. The only optional things are the addition of the PRH class and the swap of symbols for templates. — KV5 • Talk • 01:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Format the table like the Myron Allen entry is formatted. Albacore (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the appropriate changes noted here. If the table is fine, I will leave it as is.Neonblak talk - 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Used albacore's fix, resolved the position key issue (deleted it, expanded positions in table), and added team photo for lead, move Hamilton down to list.Neonblak talk - 03:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Fantastic. — KV5 • Talk • 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comment from User:Muboshgu |
|---|
|
- Support – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - yep well done.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 16:06, 11 December 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Michael Jester (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. This article has been researched a lot and finished an extensive peer review a month ago. Michael Jester (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Looking very good. Just a few thoughts:
Again, nice work. I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these very small issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comments, I have replied to all of them.
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
I appreciate your comments and I believe I have addressed them all. |
Comments: Not much to pick at, but I did find a few things:
LEDE: In "Love Always peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[2] and number two on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[2]", it's proper to speak of the Billboard 200, but I would either leave out the "the" before Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, or add the word "chart" after it.LEDE: I happen to know what the ARIA charts are, but really only because I fiddle with music articles on Wikipedia a lot. I suggest you change "ARIA" to "Australian", parallel to Swiss, Canadian, UK, etc. (Keep link to ARIA.)LEDE: The above comments for the 1st paragraph apply for the 2nd graph, too.- Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more R&B thingy in the 2nd graph.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LEDE: In "including "Tell Me It's Real", which peaked at number two on the Hot 100", you could provide a link for Hot 100. Also, perhaps slip in a reference to the U.S., as, e.g., "including "Tell Me It's Real", which peaked at number two in the US on the Billboard Hot 100."- Done
LEDE: I would hyphenate "three times platinum" to "three-times-platinum".- Should this be done? I don't think I've seen it hyphenated like that before (I may be wrong though). Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I feel confident about this (although I do see it without hyphens more often than not on WP). You could go with "triple-platinum" here, if that makes it easier to swallow. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. However, can you explain why? I'm not that good when it comes to hyphenating words. Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning is that three-times-platinum is one whole term, and it's jarring to read (exaggerating now to explain) "...it was certified three. Times. Platinum." You have to go back a couple of times to see that it wasn't certified three like reaching a peak of three, but was certified three times. Well, that sounds good, What certification did it repeatedly receive, three times? Ah, platinum! Oh, I see, it was certified only once, but at the three-times-platinum level.
- Done. However, can you explain why? I'm not that good when it comes to hyphenating words. Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I feel confident about this (although I do see it without hyphens more often than not on WP). You could go with "triple-platinum" here, if that makes it easier to swallow. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this be done? I don't think I've seen it hyphenated like that before (I may be wrong though). Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it seems like I'm stretching the point here (and I realize many normal humanoids don't care either way), but those little hyphens make a difference to those sensitive to the details. (And BTW, a triple-platinum record might actually get certified three separate times in the platinum area [after getting a gold cert, presumably], so it may seem that my example of repeated certs up there matches life pretty closely, but sometimes the certs come all on one day, and the platinum and double-platinum are just formalities to get to the actual award level at certification time.)
- Adverbs (ending in -ly) don't usually get hyphenated to the words they're modifying (we use "a quickly running man" rather than "a quickly-running man"), but the "triple" or "three-times" here are adjectives modifying the "platinum", so we still hyphenate. There does appear to be a slow trend away from hyphenating borderline cases, though. Some spell-checkers tend to suggest dehyphenating some words. I agree it can be tricky. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! That was a very good explanation. I wasn't expecting that lol. Thank you for explaining it in depth. I understand it more now. Michael Jester (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the two albums tables, the Title columns seen unnecessarily narrow (8em). They don't have to be as wide as on the singles tables (16em), but how about bumping them up to 12 em for those two tables?
- 8em is what WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests to have, but I do see your point. Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the point of the examples at WP:DISCOGSTYLE is not to say, "these columns must be 8em wide", but to show how tables might best be marked up, with visible examples of the output. The more important rule is that we do what's best for an individual article, and aim for consistency among similar tables (so we aim for equal widths of the Title columns of the albums tables). That one sample albums table happens to use 8em, because it suited that particular table. (Any suggestions you have about how to make WP:DISCOGSTYLE clearer are more than welcome, be it here or on that Talk page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohh I get it. Thanks. Michael Jester (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the point of the examples at WP:DISCOGSTYLE is not to say, "these columns must be 8em wide", but to show how tables might best be marked up, with visible examples of the output. The more important rule is that we do what's best for an individual article, and aim for consistency among similar tables (so we aim for equal widths of the Title columns of the albums tables). That one sample albums table happens to use 8em, because it suited that particular table. (Any suggestions you have about how to make WP:DISCOGSTYLE clearer are more than welcome, be it here or on that Talk page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 8em is what WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests to have, but I do see your point. Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs: You've used names for the respective works like "Australian Charts Portal", "Dutch Charts Portal", etc., but it seems these aren't part of the actual sources. These shouldn't be made up, but should reflect actual identifiers from the sites themselves. That'd be "Australian-charts.com", "Dutchcharts.nl", etc. There are several of these.- Refs 16 and 22 and 2 and possibly others: The titles here are like "Australian single certifications", but the actual pages provides a clearer title like "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 1999 Singles". Again, we oughn't make things up, even if our descriptions are better summaries than what some dopey webmaster put up there.
- I'm using {{Cite certification}} and that's the title it generates. I don't know what I can do about that? Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. I'd like to take a look at that, but won't get to it right away. I hope you can be a bit patient. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can be patient. Michael Jester (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for waiting. I've finally looked at the
{{Cite certification}}template and I think I've refined at least the Australian case to resolve my complaint about that example here. In any case, it's not your fault that the template still needs a bit of work, and it's the nature of templates that the page shouldn't suffer through the use of imperfect templates (which will only improve over time). Consider this a non-problem, then. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- No problem about being patient, I know we can be busy at times. Also, I saw what you did with the template. It looks nice. Thanks.
—Michael Jester (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem about being patient, I know we can be busy at times. Also, I saw what you did with the template. It looks nice. Thanks.
- Thanks for waiting. I've finally looked at the
- I can be patient. Michael Jester (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. I'd like to take a look at that, but won't get to it right away. I hope you can be a bit patient. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using {{Cite certification}} and that's the title it generates. I don't know what I can do about that? Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the Swiss sources, look at using swisscharts.com instead of hitparade.ch. The swisscharts.com is the English-version of the same site, even if you'll see a few German-language graphics or texts leak over into the English one. With swisscharts.com I think you can remove thelanguage=Germanparameter. (Make sure the data still verifies, though.)
That's all I'm seeing right now. Looks very nice, otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I believe have addressed them. If you find any more, let me know.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, here's a new one about capitalization: AllMusic (my preference; see the title bar on their site) or allmusic, but not Allmusic. See what I mean? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, allmusic is how it's stylized. Also, it comes after a period, which would require it to be capitalized. So it cannot be allmusic, per that and MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. Their website also shows AllMusic, but in every discography FL that has passed in 2011 has used "Allmusic". Lastly, the Wikipedia article on it uses the "Allmusic" type.
—Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know what to say here. Their site seems to use exclusively AllMusic in text, but their so-stylish graphics are either allmusic or ALLMUSIC. I don't usually go out of my way to capitalize lowercase deliberately terms in refs just because they follow a period; "ITunes" just looks wrong (and seems to be not required by MOS, so it's a poor example). But if we are going to capitalize (and I think we should) then why not in keeping with AllMusic's apparent naming convention?
- Those are my rambling thoughts, for what they're worth. Ultimately we come to the CamelCase bit under MOS:TM#General rules: it's a judgment call. So use your best judgment; it's editor's choice! (I won't oppose because of this one thing.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, then Allmusic it'll stay. Michael Jester (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, allmusic is how it's stylized. Also, it comes after a period, which would require it to be capitalized. So it cannot be allmusic, per that and MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. Their website also shows AllMusic, but in every discography FL that has passed in 2011 has used "Allmusic". Lastly, the Wikipedia article on it uses the "Allmusic" type.
- I believe I can now support this article being featured. Good work, Michael. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, John. I appreciate you for all that you have done. Michael Jester (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment Why the red links? — Status {talkcontribs 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In J Milburn's comments, it will explain why.
—Michael Jester (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In J Milburn's comments, it will explain why.
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Mild oppose too many little niggles for me at the moment.
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good to go--♫GoP♫TCN 11:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Pumpkin for the support.
—Michael Jester (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Pumpkin for the support.
- Support nicely done! One of my favorite duos :-) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Jona for the support.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 20:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Jona for the support.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:18, 4 December 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria; it acts not just as a stand alone source of information in its own right, but also as the 'header article' for the canon of James Bond films. SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;
|
Fixed all (though the actual/adjusted columns is unsortable because the sorting is kinda broken... and I could've kept the rowspan in the actors and it would still be sortable, but decided not to), even if I somehow object on the RT removal - in film series articles the rating for all installments is always there on a reception section. igordebraga ≠ 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sorting was not working correctly so I fixed it. Jimknut (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So I guess the downside of having to have sortable columns is that we have to over-wikilink everything? SchroCat (^ • @) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Comment
- I don't agree with the removal of the Rotten Tomato scores. The reason that "readers can look them up on the individual articles" doesn't wash with me; on that basis we could scrap the box office figures too and then what's the point of having a list? You may as well just have a navbox. I certainly don't accept that the Rotten Tomato ratings are an obstacle to FL status, which is basically what this review is supposed to be assessing, and I think financial and critical comparative analysis are kind of mandatory. Being able to see how the films compare to each other improves the article IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Betty Logan makes a valid point. The Rotten Tomatoes scores should remain. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I returned them. igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- I don't agree that using the 007 logo is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content. The rules quite clearly state it is: WP:NFCI #1 permits Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. On many articles about a commercial product such as a film, a non free image of the poster/cover/advert is often included under this rationale. Wikipedia's policy explicitly caters for it, so a FUR rationale would only have to indicate that the image serves to visually identify the subject on an article about the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given what many video game FLs use for an image, I thought about an image similar to this, if possible. igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my above comment I have tentatively returned the image. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- @User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, the artwork at List of 24 episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes is deemed acceptable because they aren't fair use. Both images are in the public domain. I can't answer why List of M*A*S*H episodes needs a photo of a box of DVDs, and if I'd reviewed it I would have insisted on its removal. Family Guy (season 1), Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are slightly different in that if you read Wikipedia:NFCI#Images #1, they comply with the rule that they are being used "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". At the bottom of the pages and in the ledes, the DVD releases are discussed. Each boxset artwork is also being used as a representation of the season, they don't limit the ability of the Fox to market or sell the DVDs, they are of low enough resolution so as to avoid piracy, etc. It should also be noted that other FL TV show lists such as 30 Rock (season 4) and Glee (season 1) do fine without fair use artwork.
- File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png is completely different in that it's a fair use logo. It doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 because it can be replaced by something that is free: the numbers "007" without the stylised gun. The file is 400px on its largest side, which is generally considered too large for non-free content (WP:NFCC#3b). Finally, how would the file's omission would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8)? It has to "significantly increse [their] understanding" to be allowed. Will a reader understand the topic (a list of Bond films) without the logo? Yes. Will a reader have a hard time getting the gist of the article if it were excluded? No.
- What is the source for the Adjusted 2011 dollars?
- Why are the budgets and grosses in dollar amounts (also which dollars?) when it is a British film series? Why isn't it using GBP?
Matthewedwards : Chat 14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference number 43 (it's a note under the "Non-Eon versions" section)... also, the producers are Brits but the films are co-productions with US studios (UA, MGM, Columbia) that provide the financing, so there's no reason not to use dollars. igordebraga ≠ 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll come back to you on the image as I'm a little pressed now, but as we've had comments from Quadell who does huge anmounts of good work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions saying that a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis.
- I've added cites for the adjusted figures in the column headings.
- The full figures for global budgets & box office returns are only available in $, rather than anything else, so those are the figures used. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the logo with a collection of Bond DVDs - as I said above, it's more than enough to illustrate. igordebraga ≠ 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same issue, unfortunately: a repetition of the logos is actually worse than a single one. Either way, the stylised 007 that was there before is a perfectly acceptable image to use on this page and it should be returned. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, showing the movies themselves certainly fits the criteria 8 (although showing all the films could help understanding better than 20 of them being reduced to box sets, but that's a detail). In any case, I asked some help on the matter. igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet criterion 8? The boxsets don't show what movies there are. You need the article to see what the movies are, which means it doesn't "significantly increse the readers' understanding of the topic". Showing all the dvd cases also doesn't significantly increase the readers' understanding, because by reading the list, the reader gets to see what all the movies are. Criterion 8 is very hard to meet for a reason. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, showing the movies themselves certainly fits the criteria 8 (although showing all the films could help understanding better than 20 of them being reduced to box sets, but that's a detail). In any case, I asked some help on the matter. igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the second sentence of the first paragraph is extremely long and could do with being split, it also says there are 24 productions, but including Skyfall, there are 25. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split the sentence (I didn't want to have "the next one is in production" twice, but here we go). igordebraga ≠ 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems the editors just don't get it. Now there are two different photos of DVDs. IMO the photo of the boxsets requires seven Fair Use Rationales because each DVD case is an individual work of art. It doesn't matter that they're in the same photo (others may disagree and say that one very strong FUR would suffice, but the one here isn't strong). The new photo uploaded by Dr. Blofeld, for the first 19 DVD spines, individually they aren't copyrightable because they're made up of typeface and geometric shapes. However, put together, and they form the 007 Gun logo, which is. The three spines to the far right have their own copyrights attatched because they display copyrighted images of Craig and Connery, and the Gun logo is visible on Casino Royale. At worst it needs deleting from Commons, uploading locally and tagging non-free with a FUR, at best it needs deleting altogether. There simply is no non-free image that could convey easier than the list already does, that there are 24 movies or what they are called. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two abominations of photographs removed. They add nothing to the article, are legally dubious and look hideously unprofessional. I've replaced it with the 007 logo, which covers all aspects of the Bond films and as we've had comments from Quadell who is something of an expert on these things (see their work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) that says a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken my comments because the pictures were removed, but my oppose still stands for now. Note that Quadell said a valid FUR could easily be provided.. I take that to mean that the FUR right now is not valid. Perhaps he could write a good FUR for it? Also, I'd also like to hear from him why he thinks it could be used in the article without violating any of the NFCC, because I still don't believe it meets #1 or #8. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image replaced with public domain screencap. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken my comments because the pictures were removed, but my oppose still stands for now. Note that Quadell said a valid FUR could easily be provided.. I take that to mean that the FUR right now is not valid. Perhaps he could write a good FUR for it? Also, I'd also like to hear from him why he thinks it could be used in the article without violating any of the NFCC, because I still don't believe it meets #1 or #8. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The image is clearly related to one James Bond film, and it's cultural iconography to the James Bond films can't be denied; however, this is one still from one movie, and presumably each movie or at least each new Bond actor, has their own barrel sequence (I always assumed it was s gun sight -- who looks down the inside of a barrel? But I digress). So it's not really relevant to the other 23 movies, and therefore has little relevance when used to illustrate an overall List of Bond films, so it's still not a perfect choice. Some articles just don't lend themselves to any media and I think this is one. Still, it's free -- apparently (although it seems a bit iffy to me) -- and the criteria for FLs (and FAs) have no stipulation for relevant, on-target, meaningful media, so I can only support. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the actors did indeed shoot their own gun barrel sequences, but this particular image is actually the "silhouetted man" version, used for the very first gun barrel sequence. Sean Connery had already finished filming, so they filmed a stuntman in silhouette form. Since this is the only barrel sequence in which the actor isn't identifiable I think it works quite well. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far?
I think we've addressed all the points raised so far: if there are still any outstanding, then they are lost in the type above! Could people please let me know if there is anything from the above section that still needs addressing? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] | ||
|---|---|---|
Comment
Jafeluv (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
The two tables should probably be merged and use a small legend to show the two non-Eon entires. That way a complete comparison can be done between the movies. 18.111.42.197 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say at the peer review. Article looks good. Ruby 2010/2013 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --♫GoP♫TCN 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hidden category: