Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James T. Aubrey, Jr.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James T. Aubrey, Jr.[edit]

Self nom. Notorious head of CBS and MGM in the 60's and 70's who inspired Jacqueline Susann. Lots of research, many photos. PedanticallySpeaking 15:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT for a cigar-chomping, emotional steamroller, bastard of a bio. Very well told, throughly researched, proof that a first rate bio does'nt require a likable subject. My only minor critiques would be: Perhaps some of the smaller paragraphs and sub-sections could be merged. Also, towards the end, there seemed to be a bit too much Inside baseball vis-a-vis Sho-biz. But I understand the need to include such details in order to comply with the 2.b comprehensiveness requirement. But, again, these are minor flaws. So get off the casting couch, you're picked up for the season!:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I blush. Thanks very much. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah. A definite support for any person or people who could put in this much time and effort on someone I'd never heard of. -Litefantastic 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a proper FAC vote without Carnildo opposing it. His definition of fair use seems to be extremely narrow and rigid, the sort of the copyright proprietors would endorse wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, I will respond to his claims. If you read Variety—or any publication—you'll see company logos used all the time to illustrate articles. I can't see that if Peter Bart and Company can do it, we aren't allowed. The Houseman photo is clearly a publicity photo; why it can't be used, I don't understand. I don't understand at all the objection to the illustration of his wife. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Wikipedia and Variety is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia. As for the illustration of his wife, it's the same problem as using an album cover with a dog on it to illustrate dog: the work in question isn't being discussed. --Carnildo 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Free content has nothing to do with it. It is fair use for Variety or any other publication to use logos. For example, Robert Metz's critical book on CBS, used in the article, has a giant CBS logo on the cover. This is fair use. Just as when Crest toothpaste compares itself to Colgate, its fair use to use the other company's logo or trademark. I believe the fair use doctrine is not very well understood. PedanticallySpeaking 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:I think this is very well written and informative. I too had never heard of him before, and I can't think there can be much more that I need to know about him. A few comments which don't affect my support:
  1. Regarding the image licenses, well the logos could go without spoiling the page.
  2. I'm not sure I agree with Carnildo if explaining what his wife looks like is fair use or not.
  3. A few brief words could get around the Houseman image, as they could with the logo problems if you felt so inclined, but I expect that would probably be digression.
  4. Have you actually used all the works in the Bibliography as references, or do they include further reading? - perhaps that should be clearer

Apart from these minor quibbles it's a great page. Giano | talk 10:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote. Yes, every work cited was used in compiling the article. I could perhaps mark the most significant articles with an asterisk or something. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - agree that the images as listed above are a problem. Also in reply to User:Giano the issue of "explaining what his wife looks like" is stretching the point. It doesn't depict "what his wife looks like", rather it depicts what his wife looks like in make-up and costume, as a fictional character, in a film that is not related at all to the article. What she actually looks like as herself is still a mystery. Therefore I can't see any possible way of justifying fair use for it. The article itself is very good. Rossrs 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rossrs 21:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment - I'm not going to be available to comment further on this article and I feel bad that I've objected without being here to see the end result - I thought it would be dealt with more quickly. My only issue is with the images. The text is up to Pedantically Speaking's usual high standard. Assuming that the image issue is dealt with, please consider my vote a Support. thanks Rossrs 10:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

So are we going to delete every photograph of actors in costume? Again, I don't understand how images can sink an FAC. After objections to photographs the candidacy of another article was defeated--even after I removed every single photograph. I really don't understand. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I'm saying at all, and you've taken only one phrase out of my entire comment. The main point is not that she is in costume, but that the film and therefore the screen shot are not related to the article. If an article is to be the "best of Wikipedia" it can't have problems with copyright. To me it looks as though the image was chosen because it was the only one that could be found, but it's not really a good "likeness" of her. I understand your frustration regarding images, but I could understand it better if we were 6 months back in time because in this time you've dealt with the issue successfully. The image description pages for the images you've used in this artice do not have the required copyright info, nor do they have a fair use rationale. You know from past experience that this is required, so I'm perplexed why you are taking offence now. If you feel you can justify the use of the images, you need to address this on the image pages,(Our Friends in the North is a current example of images being well tagged and described) and generally speaking, I would not object to an image that had a reasonable justification, even if I thought it was a bit doubtful. Rossrs 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • She may be in costume, but it gives us a pretty good clue what she looks like. I suspect it's OK to use it. Giano | talk 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be fair. It's a matter of opinion and I think at best it would be a "weak fair" rather than a "strong fair", but see also my comment above. Rossrs 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say you give it to them, Pedantic. If you take down the images, everyone's happy. It's a bit of a compromise, yes, but the rest of your and everyone else's hard work gets to stay. -155.42.20.249 21:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One phrase? The entire comment is about how unrepresentative that image is. And I thought by using the promo fair use tag, that was sufficient justification for why the pictures were fair use. If it is not, then why do we have these various fair use tags if an extended explanation is necessary on all pictures? PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use tag is to categorize the image and nothing more. Wikipedia:Image description page details what is required to substantiate the use of an image. The reason for the rationale is that the use of a particular image may be fair in some articles but not fair in others. Anyway, changing my vote to support. You've gone overboard deleting all the images. One of the subject would have been fine, but that's your choice. Rossrs 21:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support PROVIDING you remove at least the Superman image. The article doesn't need a picture of his wife that badly. Andrew Levine 23:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version with one promo photo. Object per User:Carnildo. At present, this article sets a bad example for overuse of "fair use" images. Otherwise the article is quite good, and I hope that I will be able to change my vote. Jkelly 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Every image has been removed from the article. So will that satisfy the objectors? PedanticallySpeaking 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really could do with a photo of the guy, but other than that, it's fine. --Carnildo 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an impossible situation. People object to the pictures. So I delete them and I get an objection to no pictures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Content is fine, but it has no pictures. Ambi 07:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an impossible situation. People object to the pictures. So I delete them and I get an objection to no pictures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I went ahead and restored the picture of Aubrey in the lead, which I don't think anybody objected to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh good for you B of G. I Still Support: but there are times when I despair of this whole project., a great page ruined - for no legal reason. why? Giano | talk 21:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The removal of a number of pictures showing images tangentially related to the topic of the article does not "ruin" a fine article like this. You may be being overly dramatic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it humours you to believe so. Giano | talk 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For an article to be Featured, it has to be held to a very high standard of quality, because we are going to showcase it publicly as an example of our best work. This must include having only images we are sure we can use. Fair Use is not a catch-all, and it is ESSENTIAL that someone introducing a fair use image into the article detail exactly why they think its use is justified under the fair use defense. You are being exceptionally over-dramatic to insist that the article is "ruined" by removing images when the legal justification for using them is shaky, and their justification in terms of the project's goals is also shaky. —Morven 20:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent biographical article. —Morven 21:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_T._Aubrey,_Jr.&oldid=27739023"