User talk:Livelikemusic/Talk Page Archive 9
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Carlos Rivera (General Hospital)
Point noted. I'll work on improving my article and not make it look like a very fan way. I appreciate your help, if that's what you're really trying to do. Thank you.--Princessruby (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Idolator
Hello Livelikemusic, sorry for bothering you, you're probably busy right now. However and if it's not too much to ask, could you please comment on a new section I created on the Reliable Sources noticeboard on whether Idolator is reliable for FAs or not? I'd really like to reach consensus sometime. Thank you in advance and feel free to disregard my message. prism△ 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Prism: I received the ping you left on the Noticeboard, and while I am not familiar with FA's and GA's, I am putting my two-cents on. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: Former Days cast
I won't return the rudeness, since your page starts off with "All talks here are to be respectable, calming, and non-insulting", but I'd appreciate it if you follow your own page rules and do not call me lazy when you update the Days page. I am anything but lazy. I spent a lot of time several years ago updating the Former Cast List portion of the Days cast page, to include every character who had appeared in at least 50 episodes. I see since then, other minor roles with less than 50 episodes have been allowed to be added to the page. What determining factors do you use when adding someone to the former cast list? Why does Jade Harlow qualify to be added to the list with 15 episodes (and Alicia Leigh Willis with only 4 episodes), but not Nadia & Talia Hartounian with 13 episodes? Just wondering if you just choose who to add at random or if you have other determining factors. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No censored album art
Hey there, hope you're doing well! I was wondering about this edit of yours. As far as I'm aware, there's no ban on album art from Wikipedia articles, per WP:NOTCENSOR. I'm not leaning towards one album art or another, but just curious - could you elaborate on your reasoning? Wondering if there's a guideline I'm unaware of out there in the forest of content guidelines. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- @SuperHamster: The explicit cover is not the most widely used material in news postings, etc. The clean cover edit is the most-common used, and since the Explicit and Clean cover do not differ greatly from each other, per WP:NFC, it cannot be used. Plus, covers shouldn't be seen with tags per image policies and its lead project. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- @SuperHamster: Honestly does not surprise me (especially looking at your conversational exchanges with said-user), while I do feel I explained it thoroughly. I'm just merely following the image policies put into place by Wikipedia and other Wiki Projects. That's all. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Re:Sorry I'm Late
First of all, I'm sorry if you felt that I was "interrupting", but I don't think automatically reverting my message was very polite, especially since I added it to that section as it was relevant to what you were discussing with SuperHamster. But regarding the cover art, I am not aware that one cover is more prominent than another in advertisements, could you point me to this? Advertisements are ultimately not what reflects what is more common, the availability of the album would, no? Considering the explicit version of the album is outselling the clean version on digital retailers such as iTunes, and many retailers such as Best Buy do not carry edited albums, the explicit cover of the album appears to be more common. More importantly, the cover with the smoke is the one that the artist Cher Lloyd intended and that is generally what we go with.
Wiki doesn't necessarily ask for covers to not include PA stickers, but we're instructed to go with covers that don't include them when possible. As far as I know, there is not one available sans-sticker for the original artwork as the artist intended it, so in this case including a tagged cover is acceptable. There are some markets that don't include PA stickers, so if you could find one of the uncensored cover without a sticker, that'd be great. But per Template:Infobox album#Cover, the general policy is to use the art as the artist intended it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there was a discussion similar to this awhile back at Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album), where the cover included features the text "Katy Perry" that is not included on some covers. The consensus was that it was easier to note that some copies exclude a part of the cover, than using the version without her name and trying to explain what is missing. In this case, it would be easier to caption the album art in the infobox and note that smoke is missing in clean versions of the album, rather than let the reader imagine what smoke might look like. It's a little hard to explain so this may sound a little confusing, but I can point you towards the specific Katy Perry discussion if you want. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Chasewc91: Sorry, just per my talk page I don't like other conversations being interrupted. OCD kicks in. Was not meaning to be impolite. The clean cover is what's being used in circular advertisements for Target and Best Buy, etc. Plus, on several reviews, they are using the clean edit of the album cover, likely due to her potential smoking of marijuana. And no, I am familiar to the discussion. I'm just merely trying to find a common ground to avoid any edit-wars over a cover art, as I always saw it as if it were more commonly used in media, it's the one that should be used. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant here. Also, the Katy Perry Teenage Dream discussion can be viewed here. The discussion also appears in a few other sections of that same archive, but that's the main one. The consensus here, and in preceding and following discussions, was that the cover with "Katy Perry Teenage Dream" text (which doesn't appear on all versions) was preferred since it made more sense to the reader to explain that a part of the cover is not included in some versions, than to tell them an additional part of the cover exists on some versions and have them imagine that.
- We can take this to the talk page if you want, but I think that the PA-labeled cover will be preferred as the artwork is uncensored on that version, and not including stickers is only a preference (not a policy), whereas "Wikipedia is not censored" is a policy. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Chasewc91:No, no. It's fine. No worries. I was just trying to adhere to the PA-labelless album cover since it is the more wide-spread cover used media in print and television media. That's all. And I am aware that Wikipedia does not censor, which I do appreciate at times. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Your requests
I'll look at those discussions, but I'm in the middle of another dispute at the moment, on top of being very tired and unexpectedly busy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Thank you Daniel; I'm quite baffled at how things are escalating beyond what they should be right now. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
ANI
Keep this in mind. —Dark 22:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @DarkFalls: It has been something I've been keeping in mind. At the close of the previous discussion, I had no intentions of ever opening another ANI thread against said-user, and had high hopes that accusations would stop. However, they have continued and it's making me feel beyond unwelcome in a community I have actively edited in for eight years, specially in the soap genre, which I've had a great hand in helping create quality and notable articles. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Bianca Montgomery Christina Bennett Lind image
Hey, Livelikemusic. How do you think that the Bianca Montgomery Christina Bennett Lind image fails WP:NFCC? Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, the image passes Film and television screenshots: "For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." And per Wikipedia:NFCC#8, the image passes Contextual significance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
It passes because, like I stated when reverting you, there is important critical commentary about her appearance and portrayal. Lind was partly cast because the creators think that she looks like Eden Riegel; it is therefore important to show what Lind looks like, since her physical appearance is being compared. Readers cannot get the full picture of that comparison if there is no picture of Lind in the article.
I'm also not sure what you meant by "Non-free image would suit just fine within article." If you meant that the image is better left out of the infobox and placed right in the section about the recast, I am open to doing that (it was there before, but with side-by-side images of the actresses; the side-by-side image display had a repeat image of Riegel's infobox image, which was a bit much, so that display was removed). But not having that image of Lind is detrimental to understanding her being recast as Bianca. Simply saying, "Well, she looks liked Riegel." is not sufficient because of the different images anyone might come up with in their heads, images that don't at all look like Lind. In other words, a picture is more than words in this case (it's accurate).
I also see that you are removing other second or third portrayer images from soap opera articles (well, actually only the Colby Chandler article). If you are going to continue removing secondary images from soap opera character articles, this is my advice: Since including such images has been allowed for a long time now, and should be made on a case-by-case basis (such as whether both portrayers are well known in the role and/or the change in physical appearance is of significant commentary), which is why the soap opera infobox allows for two or more images, I think that this is something you should discuss at WP:SOAPS. Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Colby Chandler image removals were good removals, though, since each of those actresses portrayed Colby for only one or two years, with the changes in appearance not being a focus of commentary, and since those portrayals are not notable enough to visually identify each actress change. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Flyer22: As I learned through Abby Newman and this, if other articles look like the current portrayer, then they should use non-free images only as a mere description could be used to describe the actors and their looks. And since Lind is almost exact to Riegel's look, she could be described through a non-free image and description. That was why I removed the alternate image of Lind, as her look did not drastically different from that of Riegel. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- livelikemusic, there's disagreement in that debate. I don't see that debate as setting a standard for what should be done in such cases across the board. Like I stated, it is a case-by-case matter. And in Lind's case, casting her because she looks like Riegel was a big part of why she was cast. Besides that, some fans don't think she looks much like Riegel, which I can perhaps add some information on. A reader won't be able to judge if she truly looks like Riegel, unless they Google her. And I'm of the opinion that they should not have to Google her in this case. If we are discussing her physical appearance and how that resembles or differs from Riegel's physical appearance, there should at least be an image of Lind there as a visual aid, a visual aid which I see as passing the "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" criteria. In the Abby Carlton case you linked to, there is no discussion about her casting having had to do with her resemblance to another actor. Also, as made clear in that discussion, whether a free image alternative is available is another factor. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)