User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia outlook 2 Album covers in articles 3 Just to say hai 4 ¡No hay banda! 5 Comments 6 Source 7 boi

[edit] Wikipedia outlook

Its odd but I have rarely come across somebody who has actually stated exactly what I am thinking on several issues on here. To me it seems very few editors on here think the same way. In my general experience on here, many editors indeed miss just what is important to this encyclopedia and what is it here for. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that Wikipedia has come to rely too much on the safe comfort of guidelines. Guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not to determine it. This is something I state at every opportunity, and I encourage like-minded editors to do the same, The purpose of WP:IAR is not to dismiss the rules, but to encourage editors to make them work towards Wikipedia's mission and not against it. Geometry guy 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers in articles

Theoretically, we shouldn't allow album covers in articles at all, unless they actually increase the reader's understanding of the article - most covers don't, but in some cases the album artwork is notable, controversial, iconic, or reflects a certain style. A lot of these are on the borderline, and because of this the general consensus (per your WP:IAR, oddly enough) appears to be that a (single) illustration of the cover art is unexceptional in such articles. However, the bar for usage outside the actual article about the album is clearly much higher, which is, for example, why articles about musical artists don't have galleries of album covers in discographies any more. When you have an image such as the one in Reservoir Dogs, where it clearly fails the "significantly increase readers' understanding" clause, then I don't think you can really argue for its inclusion. (Edit: Actually, it occurs to me that the whole soundtrack section should be split out of that article anyway).Black Kite 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Covers help me to understand an article on an album: they are a visual reminder as to whether I know the album or not and instantly do the "picture paints a thousand words" thing. However, I don't necessarily want to disagree with your conclusion here. I think there is a case to be made for spinning out the soundtrack section, just as you suggest. However, it hasn't been spun out, and so the section has to be judged on its own merits, and so an argument can be made for keeping the image, just as it might be kept in a spin out. I am not saying that I support this argument (I'm neutral) but there isn't an algorithm here: the case you made for removal was based on a misunderstanding of guidelines (that the "item" was the album cover, not the album). The case you make now is a point of view, but actually this is something I applaud. It is quite likely that there is consensus for your view that "the bar for usage outside the actual article about the album is clearly much higher", but this isn't written in the guidelines, it is the product of experience, including your experience. Such common sense and experience does not need to be backed up by enumerated guidelines to have authority. Geometry guy 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say hai

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ¡No hay banda!

Seems Mulholland Dr. passed GA without being picked apart, although I felt it necessary to abandon my plan to have VanTucky review it. Chicken articles apparently take up a lot of time... I'm going to read over it this week and change parts that I think are weak. Is there anything in particular you think would snag it at FAC? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is all an illusion. You hear a GA, but yet, there is none :-) Seriously, I don't think the article needed to be picked apart: it is already at the high end of GA spectrum. I'll check it over for FAC issues, but apart from dashes and copyediting, I'm not a great expert. I saw the film again this weekend: it is an amazing film, and also it was fantastic to find several websites referring to this article as a great piece of work. Geometry guy 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Which websites said this article was a great piece of work? Shakespeare on Lynch.com? Laura Harring wants to come over for chicken on Tuesday at Moni3's house.org? I miss all the great sites! --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I lost my browser history. The best I can find so far is a link from here which is not very impressive. But don't get your hopes up: none of these sites suggested dinner for three... :-) Geometry guy 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely my mad article writing skillz warrant a hot dog a Pinky's. Actually, never mind. That scene was creepy. Without fail, between 1,000 and 1,500 people a day read this article. Maybe they're the same 1,350 people who are confused and keep coming back again. If you happen to stumble again upon mentions of it, send the sites my way. Whenever... Thanks again for your help with the article! --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ROFL at your edit summary! That scene was pretty creepy indeed. Maybe I should start my own MD subpage, as I have promised before. Meanwhile, I think you have made an "Excellent choice, Adam". This is the girl :-) Geometry guy 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As you've mischaractered my misstep at least twice now ([1] and [2]), it seems clarification is in order. My comment did not constitute a "[misunderstanding of] a basic principle of international copyright law". It was a dyslexic transposition of "works of artistic craftsmanship" with "artistic works", the latter of which are derivatives, even when permanently displayed in areas accessible to the public. There's no misunderstanding of any fundamental principles; Stating/believing, for example, all or, alternatively no works enjoy FoP in the U.K. would be a misunderstanding. I'm not appreciative of the unnecessary specificity with which you've mentioned the comment in unrelated forums; that everyone errors is self-evident. If you take issue with me or my judgment, I'd appreciate your addressing it on my talk page. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with you or your judgment. I regard you as one of Wikipedia's most careful, conscientious and committed editors. As you say, that everyone errs is self-evident, but nominators at FAC sometimes fail to appreciate this, and bend over backwards to address every concern, when in fact concerns can be invalid. I admire and respect the work that you and others such as Black Kite do, but reducing this to an algorithm blinds nominators by science and leads them to dance to an unfamiliar tune. I deliberately tried to avoid mentioning any specific editor in my remarks (the two links you provide are the only times I've referred to this). You have correctly identified yourself as the editor, and I apologise for making this too obvious, but from what you say, you may not have identified the edit, which was this one. The end of the first paragraph is what surprised me. I would also note that the first sentence might be interesting reading for Black Kite, who has also commented here. Geometry guy 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Hey Gguy!

I came to you because of the boxofficeindia.com discussion here.

As I said, I was really impressed by your message on the FAC. Could you please particiate at the discussion and explain what you explained on the FAC? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] boi

On the FAC, you seem to have upheld BOI's claim as a RS. Would you please bring your arguments to the related discussion on RSN where the issue is being discussed threadbare. Until now, we have not been shown any evidence that the site is RS. The only claim that User:Shshshsh keeps repeating is that the source has been used in other sources which qualify as Reliable sources under WP:RS. That claim, exaggerated as it is, however has nothing to do with WP:RS. I would be interested to know your arguments in your own words rather than have shshshsh interpret them for us. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never interpreted his arguments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now left a comment, but more importantly a diff to my own previous words. I'm sorry I was a bit slow, but hope this helps others reach some consensus. I think it is a mistake to declare a source is reliable without further caveats. The reliability of a source depends not only on the entity being used to support the information, but also the nature of the information and the way the source is used to support that information. Geometry guy 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)