Jump to content

Talk:Treats!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just removed

[edit]

I just removed the second image of "Treats!" magazine (the one with the two ladies on it ). I believe this fails NFC, specifically, NFC #3. NFC #5 and NFC #8. I'll explain why I believe that, and obviously, consensus will dictate what eventually happens:

NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage, specifically:

Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information

and

An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. (minimal use)

One cover is already here on the page, that one cover is fine, there's no specific text speaking about the other cover, nor is it historically significant, so the 1 cover on top suffices and conveys the necessary information by itself.

NFC# 5 speaks to content -- and yes I realize Wikipedia is not censored, however NFC #5 states:

Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

because it fails #3, and also fails #8, it automatically fails rationale #5

NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance, specifically

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.

The one cover is enough to assist the readers' understanding and it's omission would NOT be detrimental to that understanding. Further, there's no specific text about that particular cover.

In short, I believe that image fails that above NFC criterias so, that image needs to remain out of this article.

What's everyone else say ? Kosh Vorlon   16:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon:, I agree with your assessment. The image at the top brings about all the encyclopedic value that any cover is going to bring. The second cover is not needed and not really justified under our fair use policy. Chillum 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger You have one cover up already, the second one isn't needed. I know what it looks like, but I'm no big fan of NFCC myself, however, that second image really adds nothing (encyclopedic anyway, but it's definitely nice to look at ! ) and the article is not harmed by it's omission. So as long as we have the cover that's there already, we're good! Kosh Vorlon   18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You failed to respond as to whether you regard the cover of a debut of a magazine historic in general. many magazines are granted the debut cover as a FU on WP. I have found some commentary on the image and will add it soon. I am having some problems with my browser though so be patient. P.S. note that without the second image, the reader may be mislead to believe that the magazine is a black-and-white arts magazine. One color and b-&-w is fair, IMO--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I see that you reverted my removal of your color photo. There is no consensus for it to be here, please revert until consensus is established. Also, I didn't answer you question about it being "historic" as, in my opinion , NFCC doesn't address that either, so it was not germane to the discussion. Please revert yourself, TonyTheTiger Kosh Vorlon   19:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KoshVorlon, The second image is for the benefit of the reader to see that the magazine has both color and b-&-w photography. Leaving only the famous b-&-w would be misleading to the reader about the content. That is plain and simple. There should be no difficulty understanding that. We are allowed to present sufficient FU to educate the reader. 1 color and 1 b-&-w should be sufficient. I have added a source for the content as you can see. No reason to revert.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Consensus is against it's inclusion (2/1). Please revert until consensus is reached. Further, per NCFF it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. I don't believe you've provided rationale that satisfies NFCC. Kosh Vorlon   19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was 2/1 before I addressed concerns about no corresponding text and presented an explanation of why it benefits the reader to see the second image. You have not been responsive to the following:
  1. Text added
  2. Cover image of magazine debut.
  3. Need for color image to clarify content type in light of the famous b-&-w content.
I repeat that there is no need to revert in light of my explainations which came after your 2/1 decision. Do you intend to respond to the three points above?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus hadn't yet changed, it's still 2/1 Please revert Kosh Vorlon   20:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have expanded the FUR. You have not engaged in any discussion about the 3 forms of explaination for the readdition of the content. Why is it not sufficient reason to show the reader that this is not a b-&-w magazine?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Tony, what your proposing doesn't matter to NFCC, that's why I hadn't responded, and I stated that in my comments the first time. The picture's nice (definetly nice to look at ) but I believe it fails NFCC 3,5 and 8.

Please leave it out until consensus is established. Kosh Vorlon   20:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't treat my opinin as a vote. Saying things are "2/1" shows a real lack of understanding of what consensus is. I have not looked at the changes made since my last comment, but that comment refers to the state of the article then and is meant to be taken at face value not as a vote. Chillum 20:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content sourced but not included

[edit]

Fanny Francois does not seem notable so I did not mention her inclusion in the premiere issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: Is this image dis-allowed per NFC 3,5 & 8

[edit]
This RFC is being voluntarily closed as malformed. I will re-do this as requested Kosh Vorlon   16:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I just removed the second image of "Treats!" magazine (the one with the two ladies on it ). I believe this fails NFC, specifically, NFC #3. NFC #5 and NFC #8. I'll explain why I believe that, and obviously, consensus will dictate what eventually happens:

NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage, specifically:

Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information

and

An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. (minimal use)

One cover is already here on the page, that one cover is fine, there's no specific text speaking about the other cover, nor is it historically significant, so the 1 cover on top suffices and conveys the necessary information by itself.

NFC# 5 speaks to content -- and yes I realize Wikipedia is not censored, however NFC #5 states:

Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

because it fails #3, and also fails #8, it automatically fails rationale #5

NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance, specifically

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.

The one cover is enough to assist the readers' understanding and it's omission would NOT be detrimental to that understanding. Further, there's no specific text about that particular cover.

In short, I believe that image fails that above NFC criterias so, that image needs to remain out of this article.

What's everyone else say ? Kosh Vorlon   12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your argument above is not very concise. Could you reedit what you say above so it is more concise. Here are my arguments why both images in the article should remain.
  1. Currently, the main image (File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg) is the most notable image in the history of the magazine, because it seems to have propelled someone to fame. It should be kept for that reason.
  2. Currently the other image (File:April 2011 debut issue cover of Treats!.jpg) is the cover of the debut issue which makes it somewhat historical. Many magazine article editors have argued that their magazine's first cover is a historical image. This is no different.
  3. Without the second image, the magazine might very well seem like it is a black-and-white photography magazine. Showing both b-&-w and color is important.
  4. There is text accompanying the image that leads to intrigue about what the image looks like.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the main image (File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg) is not the one in question. It's the first image on this page, it's the second image in question, and as far as I know, I stated my case concisely. Please explain which part is not concise and I'll do my best to explain it better. Kosh Vorlon   20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KoshVorlon, Re-read the RFC. It starts out by saying the image is removed when it isn't. It is also a bunch of stray text. Can you put together some concise paragraphs so that it is not so confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image was commented out, you replaced it prior to getting consensus. As I'm under a 0RR restriction, I am unable to remove that image, that's why I indicated in the RFC which image I was referring to. There is still a 2/1 consensus against this image being used (* NOTE That's an unofficial consensus as I would be unable to officially declare consensus of any kind because I started the RFC and have stated my opinion. ) Kosh Vorlon   10:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a 2:1 consensus against this image being used see this statement in which Chillum says he was no longer against the images inclusion. Only you remain in opposition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Kosh, stop using my name/"vote" to forward your position. I opinion I left is obsolete given the changes made. I thought I explained that already here on my talk page and on here days ago, so why are you still talking about a 2:1 consensus?

Let me be even more clear.

In fact Tony has made some very good points about the historical significants of both images. Supporting text describing this significance is in place. I see a case were concerns were made and those concerns were met. NFC# 5 is not relevant as there is no standard that says no tits.

I now support the inclusion of the second image. Chillum 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum actually, I haven't used your name in this discussion at all. I've pointed to the unofficial consensus on this page, but that's as far as I've gone. Kosh Vorlon   18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to split hairs then fine you have not used my "name". But you have repeatedly referred to a 2/1 consensus and since there are only 3 people here you pretty much must be referring to me. This is a meaningless distinction, you are still using me to try to advance your position.

So I will rephrase. "Stop counting me in your vote tally to try to demonstrate consensus when my opinion was first obsolete and now outright changed.

I would say there is now a 1/2 consensus, but I know that consensus is not vote counting. Chillum 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me figured all wrong. I'm not here looking for a fight. This is merely dispute resolution. Tony was Bold, I actually didn't remove, but I did Revert the second image by commenting it out. He disagreed, so we started a discussion.
YOu responded, then he did. I felt we needed more eyes here, so I opened an RFC (third opinion was not an option as three people already were commenting ). Understand ? Kosh Vorlon   18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with your seeking further opinion, why would I as it was I who suggested to seek further opinion. The call for more editors is a great and productive idea.

My only concern was the misrepresentation of my position by repeatedly saying there is a 2/1 consensus even after I told you my opinion no longer stood. Chillum 18:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, this is not a well-formed RFC. There is no neutral statement, it's just a discussion that you tagged with an RFC tag. If you really want an RFC, I suggest closing this one and re-opening it with a simple, neutral statement and the recommended structure described here.
Second, as an outside editor who doesn't usually deal with copyright stuff, it wasn't at all clear to me what "NFC" was. If you make a new, neutrally-worded RFC, I would recommend that when you make your case, you use a pipelink to the appropriate article. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 11:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
0x0077BE, thank you. I have told KoshVorlon that the formation of this RFC is a mess a couple of times, but he has not attempted to formulate a reasonable RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Regarding RFC

[edit]

While the article's earlier state did contain NFCC violations I think they have been addressed. The concerns brought about in the RFC are:

NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage
Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information

It has been demonstrated that the second image brings more information. Specifically that it is the debut issue and helps avoid the assumption that it is a black an white magazine.

NFC# 5 speaks to content
Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

There is no standard that says nudity is against the content standards of this encyclopedia(I assume this is the concern because I can't see any other reason someone might think NFC#5 applies here).

NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance

The caption of the image describes the historical significance of it being a debut album.

  • I think Kosh should be overjoyed that his concerns were met after being brought up. He complained about the lack of policy compliance and then Tony brought it up to standards. Chillum 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


::: Uh, Chillum, did you say here that you couldn't act in administrative capacity ? You seem to be doing just that. Kosh Vorlon   21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I am not acting in an administrative capacity. I am offering my opinion as an editor. Which admin tool do you think I used? Chillum 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Struck as I was dead wrong Kosh Vorlon   21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Chillum wrote: ;NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage:Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information

It has been demonstrated that the second image brings more information. Specifically that it is the debut issue and helps avoid the assumption that it is a black an white magazine.

I'm convinced that Minimal useage is easily fulfilled by the first image posted in the infobox, and that the second image conveys no additional information about the magazine. The magazine states it was published in 2011, and therefore the assumption would be that it was in color , even though the article doesn't say that.

Chillum further writes: ;NFC# 5 speaks to content: Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

There is no standard that says nudity is against the content standards of this encyclopedia(I assume this is the concern because I can't see any other reason someone might think NFC#5 applies here).

First, it fails #5 because it fails 3 and 8. I'm not against nudity, remember wikipedia is not censored , nor do I believe it should be.

Chillum further writes: ;NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance

The caption of the image describes the historical significance of it being a debut album.

The fact that this image was a debut doesn't make it signifigant, nor does it because it happens to be in color.

Even though I'm an inclusionist by nature, and really disagree with NFCC, I find myself actually supporting NFCC here and will state that I believe this article can be served by just the image in the infobox. There is no discussion or mention, specifically of the debut cover, nor any controversy regarding it, nor anything else that would demand inclusion of that second color image. As far as I can tell, that second image still fails NFCC 3, 5 & 8. Kosh Vorlon   18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]



RfC: Does the usage of the photo April_2011_debut_issue_cover_of_Treats!.jpg * CAUTION - NSFW go against NFCC #3, Minimal Usage, NFCC # 5 Content & NFCC # 8 Contextual signifigance  ?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is insufficient participation here to determine consensus, and talk page RfCs are not good fora for discussion of fair use issues. I recommend this be pursued via Wikipedia:Non-free content review if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the image April_2011_debut_issue_of_Treats!.jpg violate NFCC #3, 5 & 8 ? ( You can see my reasons why I don't believe it belongs just above in the messages "Is this image dis-allowed ..... "). Kosh Vorlon   19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, Note that this is still a terribly formatted RFC. You need to summarize the issues. Somthing like Page creator TonyTheTiger has included 2 images in this article. His logic for including both is X. I do not believe that image x belongs in the article. My reasoning is that it fails NFCC #s x & y for these reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Threaded discussion

[edit]
  • As a quick comment, the cover for issue #3 is the problematic one. While both #1 and #3 are subject of discussions, #3 is not about the magazine but about the model on it, while #1's image is described in context of the magazine; further we generally prefer the first issue to represent a magazine, or if there's been cover redesigns, the earlier cover that uses that design. If it is true that image #3 was what brought that model her fame, then it would be a likely use of NFCC#3 on her page, but that may need more discussion, as basically that's just saying "being on the cover of Treats brought her attention and further jobs", while the #1 cover is critically discussed. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it a notable thing for a magazine to launch a career?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way this cover is given in context, it is tons more appropriate to the model, and not to the magazine - remember, we're talking one cover photo, not an dedicated issue, not an article, not a photo spread, but one cover photo. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it makes a magazine notable when it is significant enough to launch a career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not doubting the question of the notability of the magazine. But I'm saying that from an NFCC perspective, Issue #3's cover fails NFCC#8 because there is no new information gained about the magazine by having that image here, since Emily's cover shot is the only thing that helped to launch the career, nothing else of the magazine's format or content. But on Emily's page, if this shot was critically discussed (as it seems to be) and noted as the career-launching photo for the model, it clearly is fine on the model's page. That said, if it was a case that the magazine was known to be a launching point for many models' careers (more than the handful of examples give so far, and it would need to be stated explicitly to that), then I can see the #3 cover being used as a representative aspect, overriding the standard use of using the first issue cover for magazines. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think at least a couple of things are being conveyed with #3 and #1 as opposed to just #1. 1.) The magazine runs the gamut of artistic nudity including both color and black-and-white photography. It is rare to see a magazine that uses both types of photography on its covers; 2.) That it is a notable enough magazine to launch a model's career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Masem, Regarding 1) above, Note that the article prose includes content such as "The types of nudity, which makes up the bulk of the magazine's content, vary aesthetically..." I think showing B&W photography and color is important in this context.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is a safe assumption that the readers can understand that the magazine carries both color and B&W photo with a sentence to that degree rather that to use a second piece of non-free. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Masem, I don't think any reader would assume a magazine features b&w photography if we only show them color photos, since B&W photography is so rare in magazines. What percent of magazines use B&W covers or features these days?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's why a sentence in the prose would that same job. We do not expect readers to simply look at the images and have a full understand of the topic; the pictures are there to help aid in the text, not a replacement for it. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We don't have a source that describes the various aesthetics. We only have a source that says the aesthetics vary. By presenting a still model in a b-&-w and a action color shot that are reasonably notable we are doing the best that could be expected to depict the varied aesthetics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Then imagery is not a replacement for this; you can simply say that the magazine uses both B&W and color photography, assuming that that is readily obvious to the reader of the magazine. It's not required for an image on WP, particularly when its NFCC. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say, I know that Wikipedia is not censored, and I am a member of Wikiproject Free Speech, but I do think that from an editorial perspective, it's certainly nice to make the small effort of not putting a topless photo of two women above the fold if there's a reasonable alternative and making the change does no harm to the quality of the article. Given that the cover that's in the infobox now is more "safe for work" than the other one and it seems to be more well known as well, I think the appeal to a loose tradition of always using the first cover probably isn't compelling enough to switch them out, in my mind.
I am still undecided on the fair use question, and need to look more into it. I feel like both sides make a very strong point here. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do have the principle of least surprise that applies to content, but that's when you are using an image that would not readily be associated with the topic. We have here a magazine that is dedicated to tasteful nude photography, so it's pretty much there's no surprise that the cover image would be of naked people. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I don't see the 1st image as being obviously better, and it's not like the magazine is called "tasetful nude photography magazine", so it's not absurd that you'd find it without knowing what you're getting into. Obviously I'm expecting to find a picture of a nipple at Nipple and a picture of a penis at Penis, but if I'm floating in an article and it says, "such and such said in an article in treats! magazine", it wouldn't be obvious what I'm getting into if I click that pipelink.
And, like I said, I'm not opposed to using the first-issue cover, but I just think, "We usually use the 1st issue cover" isn't necessarily enough justification. Even if no nudity were involved, you can imagine that if the first cover were rather bland and there was a very famous cover somewhere down the line, from an editorial perspective you'd want to use the more famous one anyway. I'd say that we have a first cover and a more famous cover and both seem about equally representative of what covers look like, so there's a legitimate editorial decision to be made here about which to use, even ignoring the fact that one has nude breasts on it. Given that it's not an obvious choice anyway, I would suggest we might want to have a slight preference for a non-nude image above the fold here as long as it's an option. Especially since it doesn't seem to me like the "first issue" preference is particularly strong, since they're not using the first issue cover on Vogue (magazine), GQ or Vanity Fair (magazine).0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 11:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see this meeting non-free content criteria for two covers, especially #8. There is nothing in the article that is better understood - let alone significantly better - that needs more than one cover that can't be equally well conveyed in prose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martijn Hoekstra, As I said above, the article prose includes content such as "The types of nudity, which makes up the bulk of the magazine's content, vary aesthetically..." I don't think any reader would assume a magazine features black-and-white photography if we only show them color photos, since B&W photography is so rare in magazines. We don't have a source that describes the various aesthetics. We only have a source that says the aesthetics vary. By presenting a still model in a b-&-w and a action color shot that are reasonably notable we are doing the best that could be expected to depict the varied aesthetics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're currently using a primary source in image form, I don't know why you couldn't do the same thing in the prose. If it's noteworthy to mention that the magazine does both black and white and color, it's fine to use a primary source for something like that. If it's not, I can't see a reason for including it in picture form. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Martijn Hoekstra, Masem, Above, Masem said this work is important to the model, but not the magazine. What if I can show that Ms. Ratajkowski was also instrumental to the magazine. I have been told that she was featured in the first five issues of the magazine. Does the relevance change if I can source that claim?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd have to know "how" instrumental she was, and even then, that begs the question do you need non-free imagery to demonstrate that? If she as a person was instrumental, a free image of her (obviously, likely from a public appearance) would be fine to show that. I really don't see way this really can be justified to use nonfree but I'm not saying there isn't. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Has anyone considered contacting the editors of the magazine and seeing if they'd explicitly release a low-res version of the magazine cover under a free license? Might be a long shot, but they might actually prefer to have a nice-looking wikipedia page that showcases their work for them. That would moot the whole discussion. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 06:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if it's been done before, but I wouldn't let that dissuade you - there's a first time for everything. I don't know enough about the rights situation - it's not clear to me if the "identity rights" licensing is distinct from the publication rights here. I don't think it's impossible that the models and the photographer assigned all rights to the magazine, but I don't know enough about the publishing industry to know what the standard assignments are. I don't think it hurts to ask for this or something equivalent (maybe they have a different cover that they have more secure rights to that conveys similar information). I doubt they'll be offended if you ask for explicit rights to a low-resolution version that is a borderline fair use case anyway. I think that the worst case scenario (and probably most likely one, honestly) there is that they either won't allow it or it's too much of a hassle to figure out the legal aspects of it. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when I will hear from them. I pinged their questions page on July 16 and got a response on August 4. I have replied, but maybe I should see if I can get them on the phone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Martin and Masem in this. We really don't need both images, and they seem to not pass NFCC. I'll wait a bit longer ( August 15th looks to be a good date ) then I'll ask for closers Kosh Vorlon   20:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I think it will matter, but RFCs run for 30 days by default. I don't really think this would be a WP:SNOW close. I think unless there is greater consensus than the current 3–2 results, I think we should wait the full 30 days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to have an RFC over something so trivial we might as well do the whole thing. Chillum 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thought behind closing it up before 30 days is that the discussion is dying down at this point. Yes it could stay open for 30 days, but, if there's no further discussion, what's the point. I can't close it myself, so it would be done by an uninvolved admin. I've sent out messages to those who stated an interest in RFC's , so we'll see if they chime in. If not, no point in leaving it open if there's no discussion, right ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RFCs almost always tail off before reaching 30 days. However, 30 days is a standard RFC length, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSURE NOTICE This RFC has been setup for closure. A note has been placed here . There's still time for any last minute comments or votes to be entered. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Treats!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this; I'll add comments below as I go through the article. It might take me a day or so to finish; I don't have much time tonight.

  • There is some unnecessary capitalization; job names like "art director" and "editor" are not usually capitalized in running text; nor is "Issue".
  • At one point the article says it has been published twice a year in each of three years, for a total of six issues; but later an issue 7 is mentioned.
  • Section title "Corporate info": I don't think "information" should be abbreviated
  • The magazine isn't located on La Brea Avenue; the editorial offices are. Actually I'd suggest moving this information to a bibliographic details section at the end, where you can include editorial office address, names of the editorial staff (where they're not named in the text above), price, number of pages, size (sounds like it's a slick), and volume numeration.
  • Have there been any overseas editions?
  • The first paragraph of the description gives essentially the same description of the magazine from five different sources. I think at least a couple of these can be cut as not giving the reader any new information. If you're looking for external sources describing the article, I think you can use a quote from Husni in the Daily Beast article; that's fairly thoughtful, specific, and doesn't exactly repeat the other descriptions. The detail about body hair also seems different enough to mention (from the same source).
    The changes here look good. I like Husni's quotes but if you don't feel they're necessary that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The outtakes from photoshoots for his former employers serve as the featured content for this magazine": the source doesn't actually say this; it just describes the outtakes as part of the original idea for the magazine.
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Currently (with a minor edit from me) the text says: "The magazine ostensibly presents much of the content that is considered too risqué for magazines such as Vogue, Elle and InStyle. Steve Shaw, the magazine's founder, had a nickname for the outtakes that pushed the borders too far: "treats". This nickname serves as the title for the magazine. The outtakes from photoshoots for his former employers serve as the inspiration for the featured content of this magazine". There are a couple of things I don't like about this: "ostensibly" doesn't seem the right word, and the sequence is a little choppy. How about: "According to Steve Shaw, the magazine's publisher, treats! was founded to present content that was too risqué for magazines such as Vogue, Elle and InStyle. Shaw's nickname for photos that could not be used because they pushed the borders too far was "treats", and he decided to use the nickname as the title for the magazine." Then you don't need the last sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there's still a requirement for US magazines to print audited information about their circulation at least once a year. This is just a suggestion, but if you have copies of the magazine, you should be able to include circulation figures.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good; I'll go ahead and pass this. Just FYI, if you want to specify when the price changed to $30, it appears it was issue four -- this image of issue three shows the cover price at $20, and this photo of issue 4 shows the price at $30. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI re treats! images

[edit]
moved from SV's talk

Those images have been the subject of multiple WP:RFCs and deletion discussions. Don't just stop by and jangle things up on a whim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim fair use for two non-free covers on this page. You are posting images of this woman to any article you can think of adding one to. The usual practice is to use first editions of covers if available.
The image violates NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information," and #8: "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." SarahSV (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, we have hashed the use of these images on this page out before. The images have different uses. Many articles have multiple fair use images. I have a WP:FT at Millennium Park, where many of the articles have multiple FU images. Each image is evaluated on its own merits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus in 2014 not to use two non-free covers (see discussion). For some reason it wasn't acted upon. KoshVorlon took the issue to non-free review, but it was closed as malformed, and I can't find what happened next.
This article is about the magazine, not about Ratajkowski. While it makes sense to use the first-edition cover—it's common practice to do that with book covers unless there's good reason to use another—there's no justification for adding the Ratajkowski cover. The image of her does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic."
You've added images of Ratajkowski, including semi-naked ones, to at least 31 articles that have nothing to do with her, including Balloon, Toy balloon, California Balloon Law, List of balloon uses, Champagne, Confetti, Dance, Hairdresser, Hair roller, Hairstyle and Lip liner. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
You reverted when Velella removed them, accused Velella of engaging in a "crusade" against Ratajkowski, and tried to get naked images of Ratajkowski on the main page via FAC and DYK. Discussion here with Velella; here with Floquenbeam and Drmies. I think it needs to end so that we can return to normal programming. SarahSV (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not been following this page much, but Ratajkowski is probably the most famous person to have been on the cover of this magazine. What naked picture did I try to get on the main page via FAC? Yes I am trying to get pop out cake on the main page at DYK, but it is hardly a surprise that a picture for that subject might include some mild nudity. I don't see any consensus for one image that you refer to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe it was judged as no consensus. I still believe that NFCC 3,5,8 are being violated, however, I let the issue go after the discussion both here and at non-public images gained any support. My thought was, since I'm not super knowledgeable about images, perhaps I was wrong. If I was, no one else would say a word, and if I continued in the face of that, then I would be the one in the wrong. Glad to see SaraSV stopped by and agreed with me. KoshVorlon 10:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that three editors agree (if I can take Drmies's comment to be an agreement on that point) that one non-free cover is enough. It makes no sense to use the Ratajkowski image as opposed to any other, but it does make sense to use the first edition. Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, the advice about using book covers is that first edition covers are preferred. [33] I would prefer to find one less naked, but given the magazine that's probably not going to happen. So I assume it's okay for me to restore this version with the first edition in the lead. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have some people interested in the discussion who are leaning your way. I don't think you have confirmed a consensus of all interested parties. I think you can reopen the discussion (preferably a normal 30-day WP:RFC than a random talk page thread). There are a lot of people who have discussed this image in various places and we should not act to change the status quo without a new consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usual thing is to hold a non-free review, but I don't know where those happen now, and I hope you don't put us through it. Pinging Masem and Martijn Hoekstra who made the same point about the Ratajkowski image. SarahSV (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd issue cover is 100% unnecessary on this article given that it is justifiably used on Ratajkowski's article. The only non-free cover should be the 1st issue one, linkage to Ratajkowski's article is sufficient to demonstrate the image there. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it's been five days and the consensus is clear. If you want to argue that two non-free covers are justified, I think you need to open an RfC. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, you seem to have WP:CANVASSed your way to a consensus to delete the images. When contacting people from a prior discussion, you are not suppose to contact everyone who agrees with you and ignore people who disagress with you to build an apparent consensus. Looking at HJ Mitchell prior non consensus decision, he advised that future discussions be held at WP:NFCR, which has now been merged into WP:FFD. Thus, you both CANVASSed supporters of your argument from that discussion and ignored the proper venue. It may be the case that there is a consensus now, but I still think you should follow protocol and contact parties on both sides. You seem to have ingored the opinions of Chillum and Jab843 from the prior RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger Actually SlimVirgin didn't contact me, she mentioned my name in this discussion and I saw the notice that she had. She did not contact me again nor use any other form of communication to alert me to this discussion, it would be just the same as the ping you now have from me. I've kept my hands off the article page, because you know where I stand with the images, but I have to say, you really should strike the accusations of canvassing. KoshVorlon 16:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so she only pinged only people who agreed with her, which is the modern form of WP:CANVASSing. Pinging people is a form of gathering an audience to form a consensus. CANVASS clearly states "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", but she only pinged people who agreed with her.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treats!. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • The article does not have any post-2015 information.
  • The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Treats!

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article does not have any information post-2019, and the "Publication history" section ends in 2015. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treats!&oldid=1260651532"