|This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any threads with no replies in 7 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.|
|This is Bzuk's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Bzuk.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13|
|27 February 2017|
- 1 The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- 2 Hero
- 3 Thanks!
- 4 File:Cranebav.jpg listed for discussion
- 5 File:Konnie at Winnipeg (small).jpg listed for discussion
- 6 File:Konnie c. 1918.jpg listed for discussion
- 7 The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- 8 The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
- 9 Speedy deletion nomination of Canadian Aviation Historical Society
- 10 File:Texaco Eaglet.jpg listed for discussion
- 11 March Madness 2017
- 12 The Signpost: 27 February 2017
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
- Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia
Hello, Bzuk. I'm a bit confused about your response to the fair-use problem with File:Screen shot Hero.png. If the image commentary you've added to Hero is so inconsequential that you insist on burying it in a footnote, then why do you feel it necessary to include the non-free image in the first place? If the production or use of the crash scene is particularly significant, then it deserves to be discussed in the main text of the article. If not, then there is no encyclopedic reason to use the image. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, and in particular the part referencing WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS. We don't include images, non-free or otherwise, for purely decorative purposes, and simply adding a token commentary to such an image doesn't bypass the "significance of understanding" criterion for fair use.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The reasoning behind the use of a note to the reader was to give further information as a question about the use of the scene was made. The image is not there for prettiness, but shows a key scene and how it was created, using a set that was rigged for explosion. That's simply the way I wanted to provide the information to the reader. The note is attached to the caption and is fully referenced. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response (but please let's keep the conversation in one place). I understand and accept that the note is adequately referenced. I'm just saying that it seems strange to put the commentary in a footnote, suggesting it is relatively unimportant, when the use of the non-free film still is predicated on it being (a) an important part of the movie, and (b) necessary to understand the accompanying commentary. Do you see what I mean? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have used the option of a note to provide an expanded commentary which still is useful to the reader to understand the complexities of staging a dramatic scene. The scene is one that was documented in a number of reference sources dealing with aviation films. The use of a full-scale Boeing 727 in an era when CGI dominates lends credence to the choices made by the filmmakers to create a realistic scenario. Both the content in the "production" section and the photograph and its caption viewed together give a more fulsome description. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unless the reader/viewer sees the fireball that was involved, the actual consequences of the lead character entering a stricken airliner is not evident. The descriptor of how the scene was shot gives a greater appreciation of the sequence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Cranebav.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cranebav.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 02:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Konnie at Winnipeg (small).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Konnie at Winnipeg (small).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 02:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Konnie c. 1918.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Konnie c. 1918.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 02:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
- In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"
- WikiProject report: For the birds!
- Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
- Traffic report: Cool It Now
- Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Canadian Aviation Historical Society
A tag has been placed on Canadian Aviation Historical Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
File:Texaco Eaglet.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Texaco Eaglet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
- From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed
- Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
- Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app
- In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia
- Gallery: A Met montage
- Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers
- Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
- Featured content: The dominance of articles continues
- Traffic report: Love, football, and politics