Talk:Bliss (image)

Location

Hello. Sonoma is in Sonoma County not Napa County. Napa Valley is located in Napa County. Check your article to correct. thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.207.27 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing to do. Article makes no such claim. Photographers are free to wander away from their original goal, location-wise and subject-wise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Youtube video

A video was recently released (8 April) by Microsoft NL, featuring an interview with the photographer. As usual, several websites are reporting the video, and an editor added it to the external links section. However, most of these posts are little more than a thin wrapper (i.e. no substantial added value), so I replaced the link to point directly to the video. 404notfound then added info about the camera model, from the video, to the article, and added the video as a reference. Codename Lisa removed both instances asserting that the video is an unreliable and self-published source. Arguing that the video is an interview, hence a secondary source rather than a self-published, primary source (which would be the photographer publishing the info himself, say, in his blog), and that we should open an exception to the reliable sources argument, especially since it is meant to be a guideline, I restored the links. Codename Lisa then reverted me per WP:BRD -- eventually admitting that (s)he was the one at fault per that policy, but fair enough; I did feel the edit summary box was too short to express my thoughts properly, so let's discuss this.

I'm afraid Codename Lisa is taking this personally, which of course isn't the case. My belief is that, by common sense, it is more reasonable to assume that the video is authentic, produced by professionals (see the credits in the video description) and published by Microsoft using the channel, among those at their disposal, that made more sense for the specific content type, than to take the stance of "I don't believe that video is an interview with photographer, that it is done by Microsoft and the it is authentic."

With that assumption of authenticity, it would be reasonable to include the source even if it doesn't conform to the letter of the law of Wikipedia's policies, because we as human editors can understand that those rules are meant to prevent blatantly unreliable content (which most likely would do a disservice to readers), not clearly useful information, even if not ideally formatted, as is the case. Therefore I maintain the position that the video should be allowed in the article, at the very least in the external links section, since it's leaving out the information it contains that's "betraying Wikipedia's mission", not the opposite. --Waldir ^talk 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Waldir

Did you just say the video was taken from a secondary source? I am talking about this sentence: "As usual, several websites are reporting the video". YouTube videos are acceptable when they are embedded inside a reliable source, e.g. a PC World article by an acceptable author that has received editing from the magazine editor. It is the magazine, e.g. PC World, that adds credibility. Stripping the www.youtube.com resource is similar to stripping a book of its cover and biographic profile (that contains title, author, ISBN, publisher, etc.), then using it as a source while representing it as "a heap of paper I just found". As Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources mentions, a reliable source has three pillars: Content, author, editor. Please add the secondary source. We are okay.

As for fake videos on YouTube; no three person would enter a studio to film person impersonating a Microsoft authority interviewing Bliss photographer. I am afraid the real world is far more relentless. The fake part usually constitutes one word in a sentence that makes the whole different. And yes, things are starting to become personal; not Hollywood personal (at least not me), but like I said, the real world is far more relentless: It is butterfly effect.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To butt in here: Lisa is, like too many other editors, overbroad in her application of WP:YOUTUBE. As it states "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites" There are issues with copyright, yes, since the DMCA forbids linking to infringing material. That policy section was written in response to many people linking to unauthorized repostings of videos in articles about songs. But material submitted by the copyright holder themselves—Microsoft as the producer and legal author of the video, as clearly indicated on its page—is not infringement. Links to the video embedded in other sources might be (especially blog posts); a direct link to the video at YouTube is most emphatically not.

As for the reliability issue, WP:SPS clearly states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". And, well, if you look at the picture in our article about Charles O'Rear, I think that's clearly him in the video. So what he says about the creation of the image can—and in fact should be—used in the article and cited to the video using {{cite video}} and, in subsequent citations, the timestamp of whenever in the video that came up.

Abusus non tollit usum. There is a lot of crap and fakery on YouTube, but that has never meant we absolutely can't use anything from YouTube. We just have to be careful. There is no need to resort to secondary sources, or IAR. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be like a solider going into a battlefield naked, even though he has access to the most advanced flak jackets, not because of a need or even a desire to be naked, but just to irritate his fellow warriors, insisting that it is his right to do so!

Just look at the article: It is now publishing the YouTube video four times, once through one of the footnotes, twice through two External links ([1] and [2]) and a raw YouTube link. I am afraid I am having a very time finding merit for your argument in the face of all this spam.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not that hard to change all those to links to the original. If you would like me to do it (I see other opportunities for improvement in any event), I certainly can. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried. Green Cardamom reverted. I think there has been a oversight here: Links that appear in citations must not appear as external links. (So this edit is wrong.) Also, external links policy forbids cascading links; e.g. link to a specific source must not appear when there is already a generic link that facilitates access to the same resource. All this plus what said earlier about embedded YouTube videos would make this edit and overkill, although Green later realized that Gizmodo is used as a source and deleted it.

Right now, no less than three sources show the 2010 image and embed the YouTube Video. We certainly have a lot of layout templates but they are not meant to be used in an article all at once; it is like hanging ourselves because we have a gratis noose. Too much layout and little meat kills the article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

" Links that appear in citations must not appear as external links". There is nothing in WP:ELNO that supports this interpretation of policy. I think it makes perfect sense to sometimes include a citation link in the xlinks section as well; readers may not want to hunt through the footnotes to find the link they were looking for.

I have not been able to start doing the edits I had been contemplating; hopefully I will have the time tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Then try reading WP:ELLAYOUT. Besides, the best place of saying something theoretical about "hunting" is not in article that is facing bombardment (the literal opposite). Click any of the three sources and there you go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ELLAYOUT says only "... nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section" (Emphasis mine). So we can make occasional exceptions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Exceptions need a reason and I provided a reason for not making an exception in Waldir's reply thread above. Of course, strangely enough, you are going by my sarcastic suggestion that I posted in Waldir's talk page and he linked it here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even read that remark, much less was aware of its existence, until I read your comment above. Exceptions need a reason? OK, I can understand: Much of the news coverage of this was triggered by Microsoft NL's posting of the video on the occasion the company discontinued free support for XP. Readers are aware of the video when they do the Google search that put this article near the top. They may well want to go straight to the video. If they scroll down to do so, it's in a place where it can easily be found without having to squint.

Remember, we write and edit for the benefit of readers, not our policies. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever watched The Pursuit of Happyness? "Benefit of readers" is one of those elusive concepts that we are doomed to pursue ferociously but never catch! You assume that the benefit of the user is to look for the video, to find it here and moreover find it here via a direct YouTube link. I don't assume so. We live in world in which the majority of people do not have access to cheap broadband Internet; hence YouTube is an expensive commodity. Not all of them try this specific search term if they do look for the video and not all of them click on Wikipedia. Not all of them assume we are in love with External links. So much assumptions there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you assume so? The quality of a reader's Internet connection is beside the point ... if they can't get YouTube, they won't be looking for it here anyway, and (more to the point) none of the links that have it embedded will be of any use to them. But, all the same, including the link won't take anything away from those users' experience of the page and help the users who can get streaming video (And wouldn't the first place you'd look for that be a section entitled "External links"?

Lisa, I am afraid your English skills are not up to this discussion. You are communicating quite effectively that you feel passionately about this, but to me it seems like you change the reason why everytime you comment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid the comment on my English skill is too close to argumentum ad hominem than I am comfortable with. That I strayed off subject along with you was only out of politeness; otherwise my reason is what I said earlier: The YouTube source, by itself, does not meet the standards set by WP:RS, i.e. it is a questionable source because two out of three elements required by WP:RS are missing: The creator of the work cannot be reliably identified and there is no editorial oversight by the publisher. I offered a compromise: Use a secondary publication that offers these two, e.g the Gizmodo article or Softpedia article, a win-win. You can have either the compromise along with my respect and best wishes in all your endeavors, or just the respect and best wishes alone.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the latter option, because as I have said you are applying policy too rigidly there (which again I feel is a result of your inability to fully understand the interactions between all the policies that have been brought into this discussion. I get the feeling you were familiar with the bright-line rule established by WP:IRS, thought it meant a blanket ban on any YouTube links, and thus just completely ignored my citation to the contrary from WP:YOUTUBE.
To say this video "cannot be authenticated" is getting into the car of skepticism, turning the key, revving the engine and driving it off the cliff of logic. It's the kind of logic that leads to the moon landing conspiracy theories. Remember, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", and I don't think you're a small mind. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel, I find it quite unfortunate that you mix good arguments with personal attacks. You really have good points, but make it hard for one to simply agree with you if that implies agreeing with the tone and contents of your comments regarding Codename Lisa. Such interactions (and btw I'm referring to Codename Lisa's sarcastic remarks as well, both in my talk page and elsewhere, which are unwarranted) only add noise to the discussion, cloud the assessments of the participant's objective arguments, and prevent a clean consensus to emerge. Insofar as that helps the discussion (and FWIW), I'll say that I strongly agree with all your statements except those referring to Codename Lisa rather than the content of the article. --Waldir ^talk 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way; I appreciate your support but it is not enough, sometimes, to point out why people are wrong—you need to explain why. I have been harsh in my rhetoric, but I do not feel I was the only party who was. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Further, in briefly reviewing my side, I tried to avoid attacking Lisa personally. I think there's something in policy that says you comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone feels that criticism in the vein of "You are a smart person making a stupid argument" is a personal attack, then they need to take a few deep breaths. Lord knows I've been on the receiving end of that a few times. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

2010 picture

A user on Flickr took an updated picture seen here, and says the 2006 picture on Wikipedia "was taken from the wrong location, approximately 350' farther Northeast, it is of the correct hill, but it is shot in the wrong direction." -- GreenC 17:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

price

There is the story around that the photographer had to deliver the photo in person because its value was too high so that fedex et. al. refused to transport is. Does anyone know the real price? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the interview (and now in the article) he cannot disclose the exact amount since he signed a confidentiality agreement. Another paper reported that it was in "the low six figures", and I've got that in there now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Excessive linking

Apparently, someone have not seen the word "not" in WP:NOTLINKFARM. This article has too many links, sources and off-topic contents for so little actual contents.

Maybe it is best to merge this article instead of padding it with external links and redundant citations. Fleet Command (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that characterization, and the deletion of links, including the entire External Links section. I won't edit war over it but will start an RfC to bring in outside opinion. As for "merging this article" that would have little support from me for one. -- GreenC 01:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you might want to say in your RFC that I don't think I deleted anything. Google Maps link appear at the top right of the article. (Only it is more neutral: There are more services.) The Flickr link appears in citations already. The YouTube equivalent appears in every one of the citations. (Well, not every one; a lot.) I just cleaned up the messy repetition. Fleet Command (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You can say it yourself. The external links sections are not the same as geocoords, it's a courtesy to users who may not know about or use the geocoords feature. And the YouTube link is not anywhere else in the article .. the same content is in some of the citations but most readers will never click through and read citations, again the EL is a courtesy to users to highlight significant content. Same with the Flickr image, it is discussed in the article and is the sort of thing one would expect to be inlined and not buried in a citation, the template is a courtesy to users to highlight certain images, that's why the template exists. -- GreenC 02:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"I won't edit war over it". Well, I am at a loss as to what this is. (Not really; I am pretty sure it is edit warring.) Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of external links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a two-part RfC on the whether to include external links or not in the article.

Question 1:

• Should the {{external media}} template be used? As seen here:

External image
"21st Century Bliss" by Tony Immoos (2010) reportedly "closely resembles the 1996 photograph."

Please answer 1. Yes or 1. No

Question 2:

• Should the article have an External Links section? As seen here:

External links

• Google Street View of the hill
• Video interview with the photographer. Microsoft NL, 8 April 2014.

Please answer 2. Yes or 2. No

-- GreenC 02:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Flawed RfC

This RfC is flawed. The nominator failed to mention that these link are already part of the citations: The Google Map link appears at the top of the article; the YouTube Video and the Flickr image virtually appear in 50% of citations. It tricks people who want the content but not the grotesque look of the article to answer "yes". This RFC is basically a ballot that conflicts with WP:ELLAYOUT. Policies and guidelines represent the consensus of the majority and polling does not override a consensus. 188.245.53.140 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• 1. Yes - The {{external media}} template lists three criteria for inclusion, which this picture meets. #3 says "readers will expect this type of media in the article" since the picture is discussed directly in the article.
  2. Yes - Providing external links is a courtesy to readers and even if some of the content is duplicated in reference sources, which not all of it is. Two links is hardly a "link farm". -- GreenC 06:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• 1. Yes, I've done it in other articles (see Perp walk#Media for a current example) where the opportunity for readers to personally view a fair-use image or video enhances their understanding of the topic yet does not meet our fair-use criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yes, it should have an xlinks section with a link to the YouTube posting of the video interview with the photographer, since while that makes up much the article's sourcing readers who may want to view it for themselves may not know how to find it in the references. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  On the other hand, though, I don't see how the Street View image of the hill adds anything. Any reader who wants to find it can get to it via the coords link. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• 1. Yes, {{external media}} seems like a reasonable choice to allow readers to access the media that the text is talking about. I do think a better choice would be to use a fair use image, although I'm unsure whether the fair use policies impose a limit on the number of FU images that can be used in a single article. The ideal choice would be, of course, to contact the author and get him to release the photo under a free license for use on Wikipedia.
  2. Yes, an external links section clearly adds value to the article given its current contents. The video interview contains lots of extra subtle details that even a full transcript would miss, and the Street View link allows readers to explore the area, see more pictures nearby, get directions to get to the location and learn more about the subject of the article, etc. I see no reason to omit that info from the readers. --Waldir ^talk 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• 1. No. Not sure what this adds looking at the link and the description given, that it "reportedly closely resembles the 1996 photograph", is very weak justification.
  2. Yes sort of. The you tube video looks fine, but I see no merit in including the google maps view. It adds nothing that is not already seen in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• 1. No. Too bulky, not directly related to subject.
  2. Yes/No mixture Google Maps link is okay. (No, the coordinates tag DOES NOT do what the Google Maps link does.) The YouTube video is seen in three citations plus the further reading section
  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• One link to rule them all Instead of (1) and (2), use this link, posted by User:Waldir below. That Google Maps link is just another expensive way of showing a photo. For a true map see the geocoords. Fleet Command (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  Note that that link was suggested by Codename Lisa, not me. I still think there's no problem in linking to the youtube video directly, but that article at least shows some effort in writing up the content rather than simply lazily describing what the video is in one/two paragraphs and then embedding it, so if consensus tends toward using that link, I won't object. --Waldir ^talk 09:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• 1. Yes: That's what it's for; by not doing so, you are essentially burying excellent information in Wikipedia's equivalent to fine print. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Other discussion

I think we should take this opportunity to also discuss the inclusion of mere wrappers of the video interview, which is the case of the Gizmodo link (in a separate "Further reading" section, no less!). As I mentioned in another discussion thread on this talk page, I am against including such links, which add next to nothing to the video and are merely leeching off the content that the video itself provides. Thoughts? --Waldir ^talk 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• A reliable source is one that is receives peer review or editor's review. YouTube CAN have that but this one does not. Gizmodo provides that. It means someone checked it and thought it is attention-worthy. Besides, YouTube always authenticates Microsoft whenever it posts video; this one does not have "Verified Identity" mark. All the more reason to use a secondary source. 188.245.53.140 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain that little orange box that says "Microsoft" on the YouTube page then? Besides, in another one of the sources we've used (one of the Napa Valley local papers I think), O'Rear mentions clearly that he's got a Dutch TV crew coming over to interview him. I would also note that the many newspaper outlets accept this as genuine, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's user's avatar or badge (or whatever). Anyone could make it. The "Verified Identity" logo is a check mark with a colored box that leads to an FAQ page about what is Verified Identity, how to obtain it and what it represents. Fleet Command (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's strange that Microsoft post anything on YouTube. Microsoft has Channel9 and TechNet Video. Fleet Command (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not Microsoft itself, it's Microsoft's Dutch subsidiary that produced the video. They might not have the Verified Identity or whatever ... I mean, how many people on YouTube do?
        Honestly, you're looking for the possibility of doubt to justify your position, and confusing it with reasonable doubt. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • How could that possibly be my objective when simply not stripping the material naked would defeat my purpose? With all due respect, you have first assumed that the video is genuine, then constructed all your arguments upon it, trying find an explanation with anything inconsistent with this assumption. Look, we're straying into commenting on person, so I am stating my final position explicitly: I prefer a PC Magazine article with the embedded YouTube video instead of the YouTube video itself. If you have something against this, either we respectfully agree to disagree or I alone respectfully disagree. (Or of course, the third option is to take my opinion in the survey section as a compromise.) Fleet Command (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure English is your first language, so let me say it more directly: I think you are contorting logic to find a justification for not using the video directly as a source because, having learned that we can and do link to YouTube videos contrary to what you seemed to have thought, you can't accept that. And what exactly do you mean by "stripping the material naked"? Sounds rather violent to me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, this new: Personal attack on my English, accusation of contorting logic and "other stuff exists" argument. I am entering Deny Recognition mode, so if anyone wants to tell me something, the place is my talk page. But no "let's ignore such and such policy because Emerson said such and such" kind of message please. Fleet Command (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate what arguments the rest of us use. If that is your idea of rational debate, you and your longtime companion Lisa can stay away from this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I have previously been accused of being a tag-team buddy or sockpuppet of ViperSnake151 and Mark Arsten. But this is new! No offense, Fleet Command, I must say, in comparison to the legendary Mark, you are a serious downgrade. But I am afraid, Daniel, Fleet Command has carte blanche to revert anything that comes to his talk page; so, yes, he/she does get to dictate what arguments the rest of us take there.

Now, both of you, look, I can also accuse Daniel and Waldir of being tag-team buddies or meatpuppets but I don't simply because such baseless uncivil discussions are not conducive to a team-work atmosphere. We are not here on an accusation-vilification campaign. Judging by the vote count, the supporting side has already won but I don't feel I have lost or am defeated because most of the participants here are my beloved friends. Another thing is: Both of you will forget this discussion and whether you won or lost but it would take a longer time to forget that "person X offended me". Now instead of posting hurting comments (direct or indirect), let us be friends who have a disagreement, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Waldir. As this guest user explained (must be my doppelgänger!) and I said it in another discussion, "leeching off content" is contentious labeling for having received review. But you might be interested in this link: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Creates-Short-Documentary-About-Windows-XP-Bliss-Wallpaper-Video-437190.shtml

This link might resolve the entire RFC in one fell swoop.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, How is #1 "Not directly related to the subject"? It's exactly the same as the 2006 picture. It's hard to see how more directly related these pictures could be, they are a chronological sequence of the same shot, something which numerous reliable secondary sources have reported on. And the picture is discussed in the article, it's not window dressing, the relation is established. -- GreenC 16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. The subject of the article is the 2001 wallpaper on Windows XP. It is natural that millions of photos are taken from the same location afterwards, especially in this age that every mobile phone has a 20 Gigapixel camera. We already have another photo with equal merit (from the same location, not the original) with free license. I say put that in the External links section, if it is not in citations already. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This particular picture is out of the ordinary due to its quality, fidelity to the original, original information concerning location, and citation by the press. It's not just someone's cell phone snapshot, which I agree would be out of place in the article. -- GreenC 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is so significant, it merits an upload with fair-use rationale. But unfortunately, I don't think so. All of these except the quality are circumstantial conditions that on their own, do not add due weight. Even so, if the photo has a section of its own, then the box is already pointless. "Someone's cell phone snapshot" is also contentious labeling. "Someone's cell phone snapshot" have received award from Wikimedia Commons and Flickr, occasionally having made it to the Picture of the Year competition. Overall, I think {{external media}} must be used only in exceptional cases. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

{{external media}} says to use the template when Fair Use is unavailable, and since FU won't work for this article, it's a good solution. {{external media}} doesn't say "only in exceptional cases", rather "readers will expect this type of media in the article", which is the case since the picture is discussed in the article, and we usually show pictures when they are discussed. Editors should have the freedom to do it this way without being required to meet the high bar requirements of FU, that is why the external media template was created. -- GreenC 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind my joining in, I think you are taking words out of its context. Doc pages are just meant to have brief but vague description of the use case and teach the syntax. They don't have policy values beyond that of an essay, unless you know for sure there is consensus behind them. WP:NOTLINKFARM, WP:EL and WP:ELLAYOUT all point to the fact that external links in Wikipedia are unwanted unless they contribute significantly to the quality of the article. In its current state, the article looks like those street advertisers (I am hoping I am being polite by avoiding the commonly used word) in busy streets who would try to force a flyer into your hand, face, pocket, handbag/purse and even your paper cone of fries just to deplete their stack of flyers. They don't care that collecting these flyers for the paper recycling bin of your house is probably not the reason you came out.

The reason people visit this article for the first time is the 2001 wallpaper of Windows XP. In that light, forcing a link at the top, middle and bottom of the article to another photo is detrimental. Fleet Command (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Documentation for {{external media}} is in-line with EL policy, the only difference is you disagree that the links are appropriate for the article (point #3 of the Documentation) - which is fine, it's just an opinion either way. We are having an RfC to determine broader consensus. -- GreenC 05:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You wanna go what logic? Alright, allow me to quote from it then:

"The {{external media}} template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS."

Well, File:Bliss (location).jpg is available! Also:

"At that time, the link included in this template may be considered for inclusion as a regular WP:External link in the ==External links== section."

Why not? Birds of the same feather after all, aren't they? Fleet Command (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that Lisa/FC insist on proof for everything that goes against their argument, yet find it utterly unnecessary to back up their own with any? Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Erm... Daniel, the hyperlinks that participants provide are supposed to be proofs. In fact, do I need to quote you to prove we actually discussed my proof in "§Youtube video" above? Like I said above, such discussions are not conducive to a teamwork atmosphere that is Wikipedia. So, let us be friends who disagree, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "proof" above consisted of sweeping denials of some of my arguments, elision of others, hysterical hyperventilation about how Wikipedia is going to go straight to hell in a handbasket if we do this, insistences that the video is fake, and an insanely bureaucratic standard for proving that it isn't. When you were confronted with language in the documentation for the {{external links}} template that contradicted what you said about how it was supposed to be used, you basically used the "No true Scotsman ..." fallacy to dismiss it.
All the same, I am glad that you stated flat out that you interpret various sections of policy to minimize external linkage. I feel those sections are qualified by the ones I cited. It is hardly the only issue where Wikipedia policy on different pages can give rise to contradictory interpretations. That's why we need more people responding to this RfC. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You undergo a lot of hardship to project an unpleasant image of yourself – and for a tiny link too – and I must say you have succeeded. The very low factual accuracy of your allegations is another matter entirely. Unwatching this page now. Feel free to write a reply a hundred times more outrageous if you wish. No regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You claim to be insulted, yet you imply that I'm lying. You get mad when I use an Emerson quote, yet you sweepingly referred me to a movie to support one of your own arguments. This is not what I expect from an eight-year veteran of Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we please get back to the original question? I would really like to know whether other editors feel the current "further reading" section is justified, and whether the Gizmodo article provides sufficient extra content besides embedding the video to warrant inclusion in the article, regardless of being a reliable source (I think the Softpedia link, on the other hand, is at least acceptable regarding the content argument). I don't feel I can simply hijack the RfC to add a new question, but if you guys agree, I'll do so, in order to collect structured feedback about this. --Waldir ^talk 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, since I feel now that the edits I have done to improve the article are complete. I don't feel the "further reading" section is justified, since it doesn't offer the additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article" that it should. It is basically just another news article like those already used as sources, several of which already have the video embedded. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the Gizmodo link is probably superfluous to the YouTube link. Suggest a bold edit to remove the Further Reading section, and see if anyone objects/supports, before taking to RfC. I've lost track of who is for or against what in the article. -- GreenC 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This section/link is an alternative to RfC's proposal inserted by the opposition – more inline with my proposal of "one link to rule them all". (The Gizmodo link contains both the image seen in the Google Maps link and the YouTube video.) Because of this, the fate of this section directly depends on the outcome of the question 2 of the proposal. Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie. Fleet Command (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Layout problem

Layout problem

Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The "See also" section was created to hold the portal bar but since there are no See also links it creates a lot of white space so I moved the portal bar down and moved one of the images up to collapse the whitespace until someone adds see also links. -- GreenC 15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And now you've made the problem vertical instead of horizontal; template collides with references, making a scene of it. Why don't you move it way up? Why noy move the whole section under history? Fleet Command (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

How is it now? Restored the 'see also' section and used Template:Clear to force the section header underneath everything before it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Remains no different from the screenshot that I posted. The correct response to a problem is solving it, not haggling about it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fujifilm's brilliant colours

choosing Fuji film for its brilliant colors. I think the photographer wanted to note that he used Fujifilm's Velvia, because it is a landscape film and boosts some colours to a level above reality, which is known among us photographers. And sometimes it's just called "the Fuji". But now it sounds like an ad for Fujifilm, which states that they offer film with brilliant (= good) colours and others don't. Like if he was paid for it. --92.76.140.58 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I made some changes based on your recommendation and what it says in Velvia. -- GreenC 15:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bliss (image). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201181845/http://www.hanne-mugaas.com/artblog/2007/04/paris_was_yesterday.html to http://www.hanne-mugaas.com/artblog/2007/04/paris_was_yesterday.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623084314/http://www.300m3.com/sidor/sidor_2008/2008_8.html to http://www.300m3.com/sidor/sidor_2008/2008_8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we add a In popular culture section?

I have seen examples of Bliss in popular culture such as in Paper Toss, two of the levels contain this as a desktop picture. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture in same spot

Hey! Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. I don't edit Wikipedia but someone who does can do something with it. There's a reddit page that has another similar picture of higher quality than the ones up. https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5eiyjp/i_took_a_photo_in_the_same_spot_where_the_windows/

We need the picture to be freely licensed for reuse and modification; creative commons attribution or attribution share-alike are the most common licenses. --GRuban (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bliss (Windows XP Background).tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Add new language: Bahasa Melayu

I propose to add this page to Bahasa Melayu Azran457 (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)