Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1

Images

Comment, there is fairly severe misuse of non-free content here. Ideally, leading with a free image to represent the show (free picture of a character? Free picture of a writer, producer, creator? Something like that?) would be best, but the real problems come further down- File:Joanganzoldschool.jpg is not needed (what does it matter what she looked like? In any case, she's alive, and so this is straight up replaceable) and there's not even an attempt at a rationale for File:300px-Lesser2.jpg, which should go for the same reason. File:Jonstone.jpg, again, it's not clear why we need to see a picture of him (sure, decorate the article with free pictures of the people involved, but we certainly do not need non-free ones...). I have to dash off now, so I have not checked the others. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Could PD-textlogo be used for the title card?~~ (Edit: Strikethrough after reading comments further down). P. S. Burton (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose serious abuse of non-free content, too numerous to reasonably be expected to list Fasach Nua (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a shame that we can't find a solution for situations like this: articles that would benefit from images like the ones I placed in this article, for which there are no free alternatives. Believe me, I've looked, and there are simply none, because Sesame Workshop is fiercely protective of their characters, as they should be. However, I'm not sure the solution is to not have images in articles like this. It does matter what Cooney looks like, but I'm not the one making the decisions, so I removed the images in question. (BTW, she's the only one who's alive of the three mentioned.) What about the other images, the screenshots of Elmo and Mr. Hooper, for example? Christine (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a solution, it's just a rather drastic one; the non-free content criteria are kept deliberately strict, and yes, there's a cogent argument that a lot of articles (articles on pop culture, fictional characters, visual arts and so on, for example) suffer because of it. As I say, ideally, we'd lead with a free image- it's not clear what the logo adds to the article. Perhaps a free shot of Henson? I see a different crop of the same shot is used further down the article, it could perhaps be moved up. File:Mrhooperspicture2.jpg is potentially legitimate, though I am not convinced that it is right now. The issue is clearly a very important one- if you could add discussion of the use of the picture within the episode, as well as discussion of reactions to the use of the picture, then it would be fine; I think the picture is adding something, and it would be a shame to lose it, so just make sure it's closely tied into the text. The rationale states that File:Sesame Street Hal Miller as Gordon with Susan and Oscar.jpg is being used to show that human and muppet characters interacted, but I'm not certain I see why a picture is needed for that. You could even argue that the free image of Big Bird helps to serve that purpose. If there is another purpose to the Oscar image, could you explain it? The use of File:Elmosworld-room.jpg (is that what the show looks like now?!) seems to be solid, but the rationale could use some expansion- explain the purposes of the image in-depth and tie it in to the text it illustrates. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the solution; it's just frustrating to me as an editor of these articles. If I had my druthers, we'd remove the infobox entirely. How would we make the non-free images NFCC? I've done my best to follow what I've learned from other FACs, so what more can be done? I'm opposed to the Henson image being the lead image; he's important, of course, but not important enough to lead the article. (Plus, if you know anything about him, it's a dishonor to his memory.)

Re: the Hooper image, the article does mention the caricature, so it satisfies your concern. I also think that the Gordon and Susan image does a better job at depicting the combination of humans and Muppets, and Big Bird does not, since he's with Pat Nixon, not a character on Sesame Street. Re: Elmo, the crayon-created world of "Elmo's World" is mentioned, but in the previous section. I can see switching it with the Micheal Jeter image in the section above. (The entire show isn't like that now; just "Elmo's World." Dude, you really need to DVR an episode, if only for your edification. Just this week, they aired a new episode with Michael McKean, which is absolutely hilarious.) Christine (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone watching, I've left a comment on Christine's talk page concerning the possibility that some of these images are free. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have answered on said talk page. Christine (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard back from Danny Horn regarding the screen shots from the promotional reel being free. He informed me that they're taken from the DVD Old School, Vol. 1. I just purchased it (and Vol. 2), and although there is a copyright notice for the DVD as a whole, there is nothing on the DVD or box stating if the reel itself was copyrighted. I could probably write SW and ask, but for now, could someone give me direction? Does the fact that the reel is in a copyrighted resource make it copyrighted, even if it might not have been originally? I'd also like some direction regarding my suggestion below to remove all images from this article, thanks. Christine (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any of the non-free images meeting nfcc, I don't know enough about American street signs, but is File:Season40-titlecard.jpg copyrightable? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image is a screenshot from the show, no way that's free. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, it's a screenshot. See my comments above asking how to make NFCC. Remember, Sesame Street is not an actual place; we just all wish it were. It's real in our hearts! ;) Christine (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a screen shot and yes it is not a real place (maybe), however what is matters, is the question "Is the street sign based on a typical street sign somewhere in the US, or is it entirely a new creation made by the CTW?" Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the answer to that question, but I suspect that it would be a combination. I believe that it is a street sign designed similarly to an actual street sign, but not of a specific one. Here's another question: what needs to happen to make this article compliant with WP image policies? Oh, and another one: If that means that this image has no or very little images, how will that affect its FA-status? I ask the second question because if the fact that there are no free images that can be placed in this article means that it doesn't have the potential to be an FA, then I'll remove its nomination and be satisfied with its GA-status. This would also have an impact on all other Sesame Street themed articles, btw. Christine (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article will never preclude it from reaching FA status, the potential need for non-free content is recognised in WP:FA Criteria 3 and WP:NFCC. Images rarely come under scrutiny outside the FA process, and this part of the criteria comes as a shock to many editors, you have done well with File:Pat_Nixon_Big_Bird.png, there may be other free content such as File:Paris_Parade_Navidad_2010-04.JPG or File:SmithsonianOscar.JPG available at Wikimedia Commons, but you need to be weary of commons:freedom of panorama issues though. On the issue of the sign, if it is an original US style street sign with the name changed, it is likely that this will fall below the Threshold of originality to make it copyright (although it may be trademarked). It may also be useful to seek WP:Permission from CTW for images, I don't believe their aims are that dissimilar to wikipedia, and perhaps in the interest of education youth they may help out. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[indent] I hope that its subject doesn't preclude it from FA-status, but its images may, which is why I'm focusing on following the suggestions to improve its content and prose. Your suggestion regarding getting permission is a good one, but it's a long-term solution. I agree that WP and CTW/SW have similar goals; Gikow even quoted Jimmy Wales to that effect. That's probably something I need to pursue. For now, however, I have a perhaps radical solution. How about this article having no images at all? Would an image-less article be eligible for FA? To be honest, I'd rather keep the images as they were before this FAC and settle for GA, or settle for no images at all than to have the only two or three free images that are both available and appropriate. (I don't think images of parade floats are appropriate because they're not good representations of the characters, and Orange Oscar doesn't fit anywhere here.) It feels a bit odd for a subject about a visual medium to have no images, but it may work for now. Opinions, thoughts? Christine (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]