Jump to content

User talk:Crisco 1492

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 36.73.111.104 (talk) at 11:04, 19 May 2015 (→Carl Nielsen: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is willing to be contacted in Indonesian.
User page Talk E-mail Contributions Created Images Library DYK? GA Featured

For me.

Featured content

Nominated

Consider nominating

TFAs?

Article TFA date Rationale
Departures c. 15 August 2015 Coinciding with the Bon Festival (thematic relevance)
Sorga Ka Toedjoe 30 October 2015 75th anniversary of Surabaya release
Amir Hamzah 20 March 2016 70th anniversary of death
Asmara Moerni 29 April 2016 75th anniversary of release

Useful links; future articles?

Java Industrial Film needs something.


Question about a revert (that I didn't see until today)

In regards to your revert here. why? I've seen others comment about other topics and said those should have a paragraph about it. --JDC808 ♫ 18:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thin on the ground

There is something fishy about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_International_School,_Bandung - it smells like something that was set up temporarily, and for some reason the Jakarta part of the system seems to be the dominant point, and the actual Bandung location looks as though it might not exist, despite the web based info... perhaps it is either an extension of the Jakarta site, or has closed... either way your A status suggests to me a suggested Prod might be of interest in the name of whatever... User:JarrahTree 07:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda was talking with me about the image, so I checked the description, which said: "like the work of the forger Van Meergeren". If that's true, then it's a 20th-century work, but I don't have any idea whether it's true. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To find out, I added the file to the Han van Meegeren page, asking for confirmation. imo the fastest way to get a quick reaction! Lotje (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nielsen

Hi, can you do me a favour and nom this for DYK and mention it is to be shown on 9 June as the lead DYK for the 150th anniversary of Nielsen's birth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... while my idea would be to have it FA by then, possibly even TFA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott Seriously, how much more biographical content to you think could be gleaned on this? My feeling is that from the music section down it is certainly approaching FA quality. My concern though was that the biographical coverage isn't quite as detailed as it could be. I think there should be more detail on specific years and what he really did. Beyond that I'd be prepared to head straight to FAC after what Tim has said and deal with the bulk of the comments there rather than the PRC, given that we have less than a month now but it would still be cutting it very fine if it was nominated today. Is there any chance you or somebody could get hold of that biography or some source to improve the detail a bit? He does strike me as a composer though who'd have less available on him than many of the others. Perhaps it's adequate as it is, I don't know. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should say "Carl Nielsen, pictured at the Newcastle United training ground in the early 1980s" :-) Although he looks more like an older Keegan than an 80s permed Keegan haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have really tried to include all the essentials in the biography. I could add lots of gossip from the Danish press about Nielsen's extra-marital relationships and his disagreements with his wife (his entire correspondence has now been published in Danish) but I do not seriously think such items would contribute to the quality of the article. Thanks to Brian Boulton, I have now been a little more specific about the period between 1886 and 1889 and added one or two other details. Despite all my pleas, no one has been able to explain exactly what is missing from the Life section. I have just repeatedly been told it is too short! But now that it has in fact been nominated for FAC, I look forward to the constructive criticism this is likely to follow. @Gerda Arendt: I appreciate your encouragement. I'm sure you will have some good suggestions for improvement. Just give me a day or two to clear up a few minor details (wording, wiki-linking, presentation, etc. - nothing of substance).--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told Crisco that you've planned up the 4 June. It is possible you could keep 9 June in mind for Nielsen, but it's quite a big if, I'm doubtful if it will pass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other TFA coordinators have asked that we schedule at least two weeks in advance... I can give you three days. Four, tops. Otherwise there would be too little notification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you mean "no", because obviously it's not going to pass in three or four days, or do you mean you could wait until 5-6 June at very latest?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same suggested that if Nielsen is not ready you schedule something for the day that can easily be postponed if the miracle happens, - working on it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for nominating the article for DYK on 9 June. That will ensure Nielsen is highlighted on the EN wiki on his anniversary. I think however that if Dr. Blofeld agrees, rather than withdrawing from FAC at this stage, it would be useful to continue to receive feedback for improvement. We do intend to bring the article up to FA quality in the not too distant future. The article has benefited considerably from the comments we have already received and work is continuing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: If Crisco is certain that we can't possibly have this as TFA anyway I think we should probably withdraw and open a formal peer review where we can get even greater feedback. I think people like Tim and SchroCat would feel more comfortable if they commented at a peer review rather than FAC. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt seems keen to press on so I don't see any harm in giving it the extra three days suggested. I have really welcomed all the recent efforts on the article, particularly by Smerus, Mirokado and Maunus in addition to those of Gerda. Maybe we should see what they think about it? And perhaps Brianboulton who has been so supportive could come in on this too? The only major problem at this stage seems to be finding good, acceptable images. Nearly all the other suggestions have been dealt with.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am keen to see this article improved as well as we can for the birthday, - if that will be TFA is a different question. Quality feature questions have been raised, not only by me, which are not FA criteria, but simply quality ;) - Images: sometimes less is more. The image of him as a small figure in front of a house that is well pictured on another image adds little for me. Better a few good images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait for the time being then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crisco here, logged out. Yeah, I meant three or four days since my post... not much time, I know, but it has happened before. I suggest going on, as at the very least you'll get some good input.36.73.111.104 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tape recorder 2
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:RadioShack-ctr-119.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Man in a Blue Cap - Jan van Eyck - Google Cultural Institute.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menonaktifkan Beta

Saya mau nanya, caranya menonaktifkan Beta & mengembalikan tampilan ke versi lama alias non-Beta begimana ya ? Soalnya saya lihat di preferensi nggak ketemu. Gini, saya mau pakai yang versi non-Beta karena versi Beta-nya entah kenapa makin lama makin berat, entah hanya kejadian pada saya saja atau yang lainnya juga & ketika saya buka Tolololpedia (yang tampilannya masih non-Beta) nggak seberat buka Wikipedia. Apa kalo nggak kasih tau aja gimana caranya agar tetap bisa membuka Wikipedia tanpa halangan tapi tetap pakai Beta. --Erik Fastman (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Karang Bolong Beach (Nusa Kambangan)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image advice

Evening, I come to you as my resident "he knows about images and stuff" person! File:Grace Lee Whitney Star Trek 1966.JPG is due to run on the main page through DYK in a couple of days, it is currently in Prep area 5. The license tag is one that I haven't seen before, but seems legit, but the source is eBay, and as the listing has now been removed, is a dead link. I'm a bit wary about this, given it's heading toward the main page, what are your thoughts? Harrias talk 18:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that there is no notice is verifiable through the file history; check the first upload. We hope is pretty darn well versed when it comes to image copyrights, and has found dozens of free images. (BTW, WH, maybe in the future we can archive the ebay listings?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
eBay links don't last forever and you can see this was uploaded in December 2013. I can point you to File:Leonard Nimoy Mr. Spock Star Trek.JPG, which has some additional details about the original Star Trek photos. To get Spock, I went through all the artwork (photos) and film (also covers television shows) original registrations from 1965-1969 and found only a registration for the film Yours, Mine and Ours from Desilu, which was the production company and copyrights in film for The Lucy Show. NBC registered only one slide of Ben Cartwright (Bonanza) on a horse in artwork. Searching artowrk for original registration in 1966 turns up nothing for Star Trek, NBC or Desilu. Let me work at using Wayback Machine to archive in future. We hope (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen the first upload; I didn't even think to look. Glad to know it's fine! Harrias talk 07:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's why We hope, I, and a couple other people always upload the backs in the first version of the file; this allows us to archive both images, and thus prove the No notice template is appropriate (stills generally had their copyright notices on the back, while posters had theirs on the front).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for review

Hi Crisco, does this have a chance to be a FP File:Young caterpillar portrait (4914641022).jpg? Bammesk (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to manipulate the haloing, but couldn't get far. I will leave it alone. Perhaps other editors (or I) will do something about the haloing someday. Bammesk (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing question

There's an image on ja.wp: ja:ファイル:Goshikizuka kofun.jpg that I was about to move to Commons, but I wasn't totally sure about the licensing. The uploader Jonirumansei states that permission had been obtained from the photographer 皿うどん, and another user もんじゃ verified that it was GFDL 1.2, but doesn't there have to be some kind of explicit release from the photographer to do that? I don't see anything like that on the page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts, please.

File:Stork Club Cub Room November 1944.jpg also see talk page and Commons page. While they're not listed in the UPenn books, this seems to be quite a large block of Life not to have been renewed. It almost seems too good to be true, as they were very prompt and thorough in renewing almost every other issue. Because I have my doubts, I won't refur and re-license the photo as not renewed and am hoping that this won't bring the file to PUF or FFD. Thanks, We hope (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked their other major magazine, Time, and there is a gap in renewals for the same time period. If this works, we have another Stork Club photo from Life in the article that's currently non-free. We hope (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm familiar with Time's gap... not intimately, but I knew of it before. It's possible... can't say for sure without some major checking, and right now I don't have the time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492&oldid=663067068"