| Revision as of 14:16, 26 October 2006 edit70.231.251.129 (talk) →New infobox image← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:52, 1 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Archive 3) (bot |
| (486 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|May 4 2014 (1st)|Mar 21 2021 (20th)}} |
|
|priority=High |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
}} |
|
|
{| class="toccolours" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| width="80%" valign="top" | |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{failedGA}} |
|
|
| width="20%" valign="top" | |
|
|
<center>]<br/>]</center> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|} |
|
|
==Image Limits== |
|
|
What a bunch of bullshit. There are all of these limits on fair use, so if you're trying to find pictures of a movie star, you are pretty much limited to screenshots. But only 1 is allowed. So instead you get nothing more than a page of text that no one will read. I for one think it's a lot more fun to read an article with visuals. Do you really think it would hurt anyone to use more than one screenshot? Would that be offensive? Would it disrupt the delicate balance of this fine website? ] 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: I hear you, but unfortunately Misplaced Pages has really been cracking down on images. Even promotional shots are not necessarily allowed, and magazine images were declared taboo a few months back. This is the first I'd heard of the screenshot limits and I'd like the editor who removed the images to please provide a citation for this rule. Unfortunately when you have Jimbo Wales (owner of Misplaced Pages) making statements that he'd rather see an article with no images than run the risk of violating a copyright, there's not much you can do. ] 05:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You can use more than one screenshot, as long as you make and upload it yourself. It's ''only'' the ] screenshots that can only be used once per page. If you go to the ] page, click on "Licensing," and scroll down to "fair use," it says "Screenshots (one per article)." Sorry, I know it sucks. -] 06:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action1 = GAN |
|
::The "one per article" restriction appears to conflict with the current {Film-screenshot} fair use tag which states: "It is believed that the use of a '''limited number''' of '''web-resolution''' screenshots for '''identification and critical commentary''' on the film.....on the ,.....qualifies as ''']''' under ]." I also noted that many of the ]s on films and TV shows have multiple fair use screenshots in them. ] 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1date = 5 July 2006 |
|
:::I noticed that too, I don't know the answer. The upload page seems fairly unambiguous about it, but you may want to ask someone to clarify. -] 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1link = Talk:Audrey_Hepburn/Archive_1#Failed_GA |
|
::::This is one of the reasons why using images has become so frustrating on Misplaced Pages -- Misplaced Pages itself can't even make up its mind. And some of its wording is open to wide interpretation. For example technically speaking a film screenshot is only to be used "to illustrate a film and its contents". In my opinion, "contents" includes the people who appear on screen. ] 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1result = not listed |
|
:::::It's frustrating. In my opinion too, "contents" includes the people on screen and judging by the number of editors who add screenshots to articles about people, a good number obviously interpret it that way too. The message on the upload page clearly says one per page, and yet ] says, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". I think that sentence suggests that if one will NOT serve the purpose adequately, multiple images are ok. Asking someone to clarify is a great idea, but who exactly would we ask? There are a number of people working hard to rid Misplaced Pages of potential copyright violations, and there are vast differences in what each of them will allow or not allow. As far as I can see, in the policy page I've linked to, and in the discussion pages for the various fair use templates, fair use and copyright pages, there seems to be no agreement that images should be limited to one. Many editors, including some very experienced ones, talk about a small number (but still more than one) of images as ok. The only place I can see where it straight out says one only, is on the upload page. I wonder if this is the anomaly then? Maybe it's a carry over from a previous policy, or perhaps was part of an intended policy that was never made official. I don't know, but I'd love a nice, clear policy to follow so that it's not left up to the individual interpretations of any number of editors.] 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1oldid = 62262563 |
|
::::::A dispute has erupted between me and another editor at ] over this very issue. He says actors aren't contents so he removed the article's only image, which happened to be a screenshot. According to the Oxford dictionary, a content is "what is contained in something". That in my opinion includes actors. Sometimes I think a lot of bad feelings would be saved if Misplaced Pages simply decided to give in to Copyright Paranoia and ban images altogether. Probably save a lot of bandwidth in the process. ] 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I think eventually that will happen. ] 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I took this discussion over to ] and asked for clarification of "one per article" vs. "limited number" regarding screenshots. I couldn't get anyone to defend "one per article" as the official absolute limit in Misplaced Pages (see ]). There is also an earlier discussion about screenshots (see ].) For now the official policy is ] criteria #3 ''The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.'' So it seems that mutiple screenshots can be used in an article, but each image meet all the criteria especially #8: ''The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.'' ] 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah, it's just a mistake not to have more than one image. Most people skimming through wikipedia and going to a page on Audrey Hepburn aren't really interested in every detail of her life, they just want the general summary and mostly they want to see what she looked like. I like reading articles that have visuals for each section that in effect summarize what the section is about. In this case, pictures of Hepburn in iconic movie scenes and at different stages of her life. This article should be an exception because it is about one of those most photographed people in history. ] 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, it should not be "an exception". The rules should allow for more images to be used if the subject of the article warrants it, and Hepburn is one of many that warrants it. This is the shaky ground part of the discussion - everyone has their own favourite who they believe to warrant special consideration. Not that I disagree with you, but making exceptions on the basis of POV is dangerous. Better to have a uniform policy. ] 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I agree. Just because there is no official limit doesn't mean editors can add as many images as they want here or elsewhere. For example, adding a screenshot from every film that Audrey Hepburn was in would clearly be over the line of acceptable fair use. Exactly where the line should be drawn is the subject of intense debate all over Misplaced Pages right now. Anyone adding a fair use screenshot or other image needs to clearly state the reasons the image should be in the article (Fair Use Policy pt. #8) and had better be prepared to provide a solid and convincing defense if challenged. If people can't excercise restraint in the use of fair use images, then it will eventually come down to a limit of one fair use image per article or no images at all. ] 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I fixed the place up a bit, and I'll continue to do so until it is a featured article. Still need to source everything. I prefer actually doing things instead of debating about doing things. ] 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2 = PR |
|
re: did not read the entire article but have to concur with the initial statement. there is inadequate visuals to complement the articles in wikipedia. also, a lot of the pictures aren't exactly the best in terms of being representative of that person nor the most update. im a newbie contributor by the way haha don't know much but have only been doing many grammatical corrections only to realise i used wikipedia as a resource so much i should just make an account. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|action2date = 20:29, 6 October 2011 |
|
|
|action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Audrey Hepburn/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result = reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid = 454243730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3 = PR |
|
== UNICEF in her early life == |
|
|
|
|action3date = 09:20, 24 December 2011 |
|
|
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Audrey Hepburn/archive2 |
|
|
|action3result = reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid = 467246567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4 = GAN |
|
I'm new at this and apologize if I violate any protocol. I merely wanted to point out the last line under the "Early Life" section appears to state that Ms. Hepburn's life was saved by UNICEF immediately after the end of the Second World War. This would have been impossible given that UNICEF didn't come into existence until 1946. --] 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4date = 21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. ] 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4link= /GA2 |
|
That is true ; but she got much needed food and drink from UNRRA, another UN agency. ] Audreyfan |
|
|
|
|action4result = listed |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4oldid = 1060390050 |
|
==Charade image== |
|
|
|
<!--{{GA|21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)|page=2|subtopic=Media and drama|note=|oldid=1060332979}}--> |
|
The Charade image used in the infobox is terrific, but unfortunately I fear someone might try to remove it citing the arguments (I'll call them arguments) ongoing regarding fair use images at ] and other articles. Apparently one ''"interpretation"'' of Misplaced Pages's fair use image rules is that screenshots showing actors are not acceptable in biographical articles. I disagree 100% so as such I have no intention of touching the Charade image (or any other screenshots that may be used in this article) ... but I'm just giving a friendly heads up that if the Fair Use copyright police happen to swing by, the image might suddenly disappear. ] 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
:This one should be fine. ''Charade'' is in the public domain and as such screenshots from it are also in the public domain. ] 01:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| otd1date = 2017-05-04 |
|
::There's some problem since the picture comes from the audrey1.com website...which is foolish since the other 2 Charade pictures also came from that website...but I have sent an e-mail to the admin of audrey1.com asking for permission. I think it'll be fine. I think it's a great image for the article. And I've ordered a Hepburn bio and plan on properly referencing everything, so hopefully pretty soon this article will get cleaned up and will remain static.] 06:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| otd1oldid = 778569957 |
|
:I completely forgot about the fact Charade is public domain. I stand corrected. ] 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| otd2date = 2019-05-04 |
|
|
|
|
|
| otd2oldid = 895346226 |
|
== Filmography == |
|
|
|
| topic = drama |
|
|
|
|
|
| small = no |
|
The filmography is wrong. "Monte Carlo Baby" and "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" were made at the same time, with slightly different casts, after "The secret people". I have a copy of "One wild oat" and it has a copyright date of 1950, which means it was her first English speaking role (for all of 30 sceonds) to appear ; whether it was made before "Laughter in Paradise" I do not know. ] Audreyfan |
|
|
|
| collapse = no |
|
:The filmography follows the imdb.com filmography. But imdb might be wrong, who knows. ] 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd3date=2024-05-04|otd3oldid=1222034541 |
|
::I concur with Audreyfan, and in fact if you check the wikilinks you'll see both titles are linked to the same article. It is possible that the two films, while made at the same time (as noted in the article on the film which I created a couple of weeks ago) might have been released at different times. In terms of the IMDb filmography, it shouldn't be considered the epitome -- filmographies should also be compiled from biographies and other sources. For example, the IMDb for about 2 years had Audrey listed as appearing in "A New Kind of Love" which she is not. We also have to be careful not to copy the IMDb style otherwise that's a copyvio; that's why I reversed the order of the filmography awhile back. Only the IMDb lists start with the most recent. ] 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
The IMDb is certainly incorrect as regards the order of the films and it is internally self-contradictory. Filmographies should be based on research not merely on the adaptation of somebody else's list. ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Hepburn, Audrey|blp=n|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=y|filmbio-priority=Top|royalty-work-group=y|royalty-priority=Low}} |
|
I've done some amendments, but I don't know how to change "One wild Oat" to 1950. ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=mid}} |
|
== Quotes section == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Green|date=2021}} |
|
Is this a necessary section? Isn't that what Wikiquote is for? ] 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
: Check other biographical articles. They appear elsewhere. Not everyone uses Wikiquote. I removed the bullets because that made things extremely awkward; I'm not too fond of the existing indents either. ] 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}} |
|
:: Yeah, I guess the bullets were a dumb idea, now that I think about it. I just don't like those indents. How about eliminating them altogether? ] 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
==Just a query== |
|
|
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Archive %(counter)d |
|
The main pic from Charade. Was it ever there in the movie. I saw the movie yesterday and nowhere did I find this pose. I wonder if it is really a screengrab |
|
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
: Please sign your comments. It's from the closing scene in the theatre when Reggie is looking up from the conductor's box. Presumably it's a screengrab from the DVD. I remember the scene. ] 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
==New infobox image== |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
I have no objection to the new image, however it should be noted that discussion at ] has established that Misplaced Pages has basically prohibited the use of publicity shots of this type, since they are still copyright (at least in the US). It's a sore spot with me as I feel such images are necessary and justified, but just fair warning that the copyvio police might take this one away. ] 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:I think a picture like this is completely necessary. And I've noticed that in the ] (featured) article, there is a publicity still used. The rationale is: |
|
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Audrey Hepburn bibliography|Audrey Hepburn bibliography|13 March 2019}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archives|banner=yes|age=6|units=months|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
:''"No free or public domain images have been located for this film, and the only free use image that has been located for Vivien Leigh depicts her much later in life. Image is a promotional photograph, intended for wide distribution as publicity for the film. As the role of Scarlett O'Hara is arguably one of the most significant film roles in history, and certainly the most widely seen and noteworthy role in the career of the actress, Vivien Leigh, it is appropriate that it be illustrated in a comprehensive article about the actress. The image reflects the way she is most remembered, and in addition to providing an illustration for the discussion of the role, it also accurately depicts her appearance at the time, which links to the various references throughout the article to her beauty. Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and is used for informational purposes only. Its use does not detract from either the original photograph, or from the film itself."'' |
|
|
|
{{Consensus|As established by ],<!-- and confirmed by ],--> the inclusion of birthplace in the lead's prose is discouraged.}} |
|
|
|
|
:I think we can make similar arguments in this case. ] 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm not disagreeing with you, but unfortunately I've run into this problem before. The problem is - and yes, it sounds nutty - is that under the fair use rules, such images cannot be used "to simply illustrate what a person looks like". The fact the publicity shot at Vivien Leigh is still there probably just means they (the copyvio cops) haven't gotten to it yet. We ran into this problem at ] and ] and a publicity photo at ] (an article about a singer) is going to be removed soon, too. I believe the ] article has also had this trouble. The fair use rules have in my opinion gotten so far out of hand that last week I actually quit Misplaced Pages in disgust for a couple of days over this very issue until I was talked back into the fold by a fellow editor. The specific rule I'm citing is at ] (see No. 8). ''That said'' -- the rule specifically states that it applies to living persons, so it's possible that's a loophole for keeping the Audrey and Vivien Leigh images, since neither actress is still with us; but that doesn't explain why we ran into Fair Use problems with publicity images for the now-deceased Glenn Ford. ] 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, I won't tell if you don't. :) Worst case is we'll just say "oops" and put the Charade screenshot back up. Whoops, never mind. It's already gone. Looks like there is a real tussle going on in the editing page. I agree with Irpen. If we can't use a publicity picture, is there some reason why we can't use a screenshot from an earlier movie? Hepburn's public image will always be the one from the 50's, when she had the short hair and the thicker eyebrows. ] 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
