This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goncharov (meme) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Goncharov (meme) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 ( talk) and Special:Contributions/93.107.217.97 ( talk). Nominated by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 ( talk) at 22:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC).
A full review of this nomination is still needed.
Flibirigit (
talk)
12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
I find the rewritten fair use rationale persuasive. Actually I was more concerned about Daily Dot being used as a source but I suppose it can be allowed in this instance, as the claim is not contentious. I prefer the first hook.
BorgQueen (
talk)
13:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Should this article use {{ infobox film}}? The similarly imaginary Bowling Green massacre page uses {{ infobox civilian attack}}, so I think we could use an infobox template in this article. CJ-Moki ( talk) 06:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Other than this, which implies but does not state that this is an inconsistency, I can't find any RS mentioning it. Would it be WP:SYNTH to mention this in some way? CharredShorthand ( talk) 10:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The " homoerotic" has now several times been removed from the lede of the article, despite the fact that the homoerotic aspects are mentioned within the article and established within numerous reliable sources as an aspect of Goncharov's story. Personally I think since it's a significant part of the fiction and consistently mentioned in sources, there is plenty of basis for highlighting it as a defining trait and it should stay mentioned in the lede just as it is. I thought I should probably open a topic here, though, just so that it can be discussed and decided if there is consensus that this is appropriate, if necessary, or someone can tell me if I'm being stupid and overlooking some rule or another. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 07:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. -- Belbury ( talk) 08:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I have a photo of the poster (the one in the infobox) flyposted in Greenwich Village. Would it be a useful enough addition to the article for me to make the effort to poke around and investigate whether it's a nonfree image or can be uploaded to Commons? Note, the article currently already has two images already. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, nor drawing, nor sculpting (but see Commons:Freedom of panorama)from :commons:Commons:Derivative works § If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goncharov (meme) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Goncharov (meme) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 ( talk) and Special:Contributions/93.107.217.97 ( talk). Nominated by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 ( talk) at 22:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC).
A full review of this nomination is still needed.
Flibirigit (
talk)
12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
I find the rewritten fair use rationale persuasive. Actually I was more concerned about Daily Dot being used as a source but I suppose it can be allowed in this instance, as the claim is not contentious. I prefer the first hook.
BorgQueen (
talk)
13:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Should this article use {{ infobox film}}? The similarly imaginary Bowling Green massacre page uses {{ infobox civilian attack}}, so I think we could use an infobox template in this article. CJ-Moki ( talk) 06:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Other than this, which implies but does not state that this is an inconsistency, I can't find any RS mentioning it. Would it be WP:SYNTH to mention this in some way? CharredShorthand ( talk) 10:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The " homoerotic" has now several times been removed from the lede of the article, despite the fact that the homoerotic aspects are mentioned within the article and established within numerous reliable sources as an aspect of Goncharov's story. Personally I think since it's a significant part of the fiction and consistently mentioned in sources, there is plenty of basis for highlighting it as a defining trait and it should stay mentioned in the lede just as it is. I thought I should probably open a topic here, though, just so that it can be discussed and decided if there is consensus that this is appropriate, if necessary, or someone can tell me if I'm being stupid and overlooking some rule or another. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 07:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. -- Belbury ( talk) 08:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I have a photo of the poster (the one in the infobox) flyposted in Greenwich Village. Would it be a useful enough addition to the article for me to make the effort to poke around and investigate whether it's a nonfree image or can be uploaded to Commons? Note, the article currently already has two images already. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, nor drawing, nor sculpting (but see Commons:Freedom of panorama)from :commons:Commons:Derivative works § If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)