User talk:OneCyclone/Archive 2006

Ships

I see you are doing some good work on adding details on ships. One suggestion: CruiseCritic.com doesn't know the difference between a launch date and the date when a ship enters service. (The former date is months or sometimes a year or more before the latter.) Every time I've checked a CruiseCritic date, I've found they listed the service entry date as the date of launch. For non-naval vessels, launch dates can be hard to come by, and many ships aren't even launched but rather are built in drydocks and floated out. The dates when ships entered service (or were completed, formally named, etc.) seem to be more readily available. Unfortunately there does not yet appear to be a commonly-accepted template for passenger ships, and many of these articles use military templates which have terms such as "displacement", "launch", etc. which are not as useful for civilian ships. Kablammo 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm posting it here for continuity:

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually not using cruisecritic.com for the dates I've obtained. I'm using the info from the cruise line or from the ship's manufacturer. If you prefer, I'm happy to use "Entered Service" rather than "launched" so that its consistent. The only time I may deviate is when the ship "entered service" on one date, and was then "relaunched" under another name at a later date. I'm fairly new to Wiki and noticed that the ship pages are mostly empty or non-existent, so its been good practice for me to work on these pages. --OneCyclone 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively new also and first got involved with ships because I noticed that tonnage was being confused with displacement, and once I hunted those down and corrected them, I noticed that "launch" was being confused with when the ship started service. I chose to use "placed in service" or "entered service" in my edits as that seemed to encompass the variety of dates used when a ship is inaugurated (delivery date, naming ceremony, or maiden voyage-- practices differ). It appears that the term "launch" may be used by some to refer to one of the latter dates, but it really means the date when the ship slid down the ways into the water, after which it is fitted out for a number of months or even years (e.g., SS Normandie). Of course if you have actual launch dates there is no reason why that can't be used also. Glad to see that you are helping to fill in some of the many gaps on ships.Kablammo 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you keep your user page clean, so I'll reply here. Glad that I found someone else with an interest in ships, but mine is more on the ocean liner/cruise ship side rather than naval vessels. Maybe I'll try conquering that at a later date. I'm not proceeding under any defined path, just updating and adding as I get the urge. I think that since I've started with NCL/Star I'll keep working on those. Ah, The Normandie, such a beautiful ship.

--OneCyclone 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Marco Polo format

OneCyclone: I haven't encountered that and I don't know what how to fix it. It doesn't sem to happen on my screen. Sorry. Kablammo 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SS Norway/Blue Lady

No problems. I've been working on the article for some time now, and add in bits and pieces when I have a chance. I was on the ship twice, so that also gives me a little bit of personal insight into her! A one of a kind she certainly was. --gbambino 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:StarSuperStarLibra01.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:StarSuperStarLibra01.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SuperStar Gemini.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:SuperStar Gemini.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 05:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SuperStarVirgo03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SuperStarVirgo03.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment, Images

As someone who has dealt with this user on this issue, you may wish to visit Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok. Your input would be appreciated. Jenolen 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

I agree totally with your comments regarding "fair use" images. If the image(s) in question have been released by a PR department, how does it violate fair use, especially when a free alternative can not be located? There definitely needs to be clarification on this issue. I am frustrated by the "WikiGestapo" who troll around randomly tagging images for deletion; an action for which there seems to be no recourse. --OneCyclone 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• If he had shown his intention in talk page header or in his user page, it would not have been so bad, IMHO Hackajar 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Fair Use "Debate"

Well, I would characterize the current fair use debate as such: Images are still subject to deletion, somewhat at the whim of about three editors and two admins who want all promotional photos "replaced" with free/libre photos, and believe deleting photos that were previously acceptable is the best way to spur such replacement. The vast majority of the Wikipedia community is blissfully unaware, and there is an ever-growing group that has actively complained about this random enforcement. Plus, the current policies are written in such a way as to mean many things to different people, leading to confusion, frustration, and, of course, the continued deletion of many photos which, in my opinion, pose no legal threat to Wikipedia, enhance the quality of the encyclopedia, and are properly licensed/sourced/fairly used.

But other than that...  :)

It's interesting to me that the wholesale deletions continue, despite a clear lack of consensus. But, what do I know? Maybe WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean the same to others as it does to me.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Status of Fair Use Images

The status regarding Chowbok (and Abu Badali, and the others) and the deletion of images is that they're going to keep tagging images and if people don't like it, too bad. They're deliberately damaging the quality of the encyclopedia to make it Libre-compliant because Jimbo decided one day a while back that we have too many fair use images.

However, there is one interesting bit of ammunition I've found. [1] Pass that on to the rest, if you like. TheQuandry 07:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is a concerted effort to improve this encyclopedia. Removing fair use images which can be replaced highlights the importance of the use of fair use images which cannot be replaced (there will probably always be a need for such images).
2. WP:IAR is policy, but (in my view) does not extend to igonoring other core policies. Wikipedia is free content is one of the five pillars. See also the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, a example of how one editor's contributions can damage Wikipedia (it also reinforces the need for policies). --Oden 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but official policy "Ignore All Rules" is pretty clear in what it means. TheQuandry 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the amount of images I'm now seeing which are tagged for deletion, it seems fair to say that its better to have no photo than a photo from a press kit. --OneCyclone 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Better in what regard? (And this does seem to be one of the core issues of the current debate.) There are those who argue press kit images must be deleted so Wikipedia can be freer, but rarely does this action make Wikipedia better, in my opinion. Blurry, Flikr photos are no appropriate encyclopediac substitute for well lit, will shot photos designed to be released for wide distrubution and promotional use.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 02:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with you, but in the past few days, every photo from a press kit that I have uploaded has been tagged for deletion. Clearly a consensus (a supposed Wikipedia tenet) has not been reached regarding the use of press-kit photos, yet the deletions continue. I've argued for the retention of images in the past, but they've always been deleted without explanation. Once deleted, the image and the arguments for/against it are gone as well. This is one of the many Wiki flaws. --OneCyclone 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)