Talk:Bliss (photograph)

"Most viewed in history"

There are two sources saying this, and they are both weak for this claim. It's journalistic sensationalism with little or no research, a sort of thought exercise, pure speculation. A reliable claim like this would need a list of photographs ranked with a methodology. -- GreenC 23:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree even though I still have a lot of sources to examine. If I end up finding a research that concludes that Bliss is the most viewed photograph in history, I'll post it here. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Microsoft Video (2014) speculated it was the "most viewed image of the world.. seen by a billion people". More believable than most viewed in history, and a more reliable source, even though primary but who else would know better. -- GreenC 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bucolic Green Hills

Sources for this name:

• ‘Bliss’: The photograph viewed by billions, Far Out (featured article with other possible good stuff to include)
• Charles O'Rear footnote #11 says this information was/is in the metadata of the image in Windows XP Beta 2
• There are so many sources repeating this, none countering it, I think we could be out of sync with the rest of the world not to include it

-- GreenC 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Far Out reliable, though? This seems to be the only mention from a source that could potentially be reliable, but then again they seem to be actually citing content from a YouTube video. We cannot use image metadata as a reliable source, and I did not find any other reliable sources mentioning this name. Corbis Westlight Creative Freedom CD-ROM also does not list images by name. Bucolic Green Hills might have been the original name, but it also could be made up, as it was only introduced in 2019. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've accessed some of O'Rear's books (and books that cover his work) and will try to search through them to see if they mention anything. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no mentions of Bliss or Bucolic Green Hills in Napa Valley: The Land, the Wine, the People, Wine Across America: A Photographic Road Trip, California Wine Country (2011), California Wine Country (2004), Beautiful Wineries of the Wine Country, and Wine Country. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not made up. If you look into the JPG in the ISO of Windows XP, "Bucolic Green Hills" appears in the headline field in the metadata (see https://i.imgur.com/sbFGDTl.png). Other Corbis images store their titles in this field. This same name is also found within the Bliss TIFF file that Fujifilm provided. Unless I'm missing some guideline, I don't see why the metadata can't be used as a source? It's still official data; for example I've seen game credit scenes or liner notes on albums used as sources. The reason it wasn't added until 2019 is because it wasn't until around 2018 when people really started digging deep into researching Windows wallpapers and their details. Meadowtron (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That is an interesting confirmation, but it's sad that reliable sources seem to have ignored that name completely. I've looked through Far Out and it seems like they have an editorial policy, but could not find any discussions about them at WP:RSP, so I'll include them anyways and the metadata back in the article. The original reference cited metadata from Windows XP Beta 2. Did the metadata change after in the official release? For now, I'll keep how it was before. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the reason the reference said Beta 2 specifically is because XP converts the default wallpaper into BMP during installation, erasing all of the metadata. In Beta 2 a different wallpaper was set as the default, so Bliss was just installed as a JPG. However, you can still manually extract the JPG from the pre-installation files on the disc of the final release, and the metadata is still present in the file. I believe this may have been why the original title was not widely circulated for several years, due to the post-installation file having no metadata. Meadowtron (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We actually don't know who titled or described the photo Bucolic Green Hills. We know it was in the image that Microsoft used in 2000. We know they got it from Corbis, and that Corbis got it from Westlight, and Westlight got it from the author. However the "name" is more like a description, typical of stock photo sites ("Bucolic Green" at Getty). It might have been a name/description chosen by the author, by someone at Westlight, or by someone at Corbis. Who named/described it, or when, is unknown. -- GreenC 15:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That looks like a consequence of the name being hidden in the metadata and not mentioned anywhere on the Internet until 2018. Maybe someone will contact O'Rear one day and ask him about that name. I know that we could not use an email as a reference, but it would be still good to know where the title came from. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I would assume that the stock photo agencies name the images, yeah. So it's most likely that the photographers don't bother to title their images since they're just given descriptive names by the marketing people anyways, and I doubt O'Rear would keep track of what all of the names are by memory. And of course, Bliss at the time was just one of many photos O'Rear submitted to Westlight. I think Bucolic Green Hills still works well enough as being an "original title" though. Meadowtron (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bliss (photograph)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to review this article. Creating this page in advance. Actuall7 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are a newer reviewer, so if you happen to have any questions during the review, feel free to ask me. Considering that archive.org is still down, the interview Microsoft did with O'Rear back in 2014 is up on YouTube: [1]. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start the review soon. Actuall7 (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial checks

• Earwig gives a 64.3% violation possibility, but most of it is quotes from this source [2].
• All images are fine and licensed.

Lead

• Terms like Microsoft, Fujifilm, and Bill Gates should be wikilinked as this is the first mention of them.
  •  Done
• "The software company re-used" -> this sentence feels a bit strange when being used to refer to Microsoft, maybe just say Microsoft?
  •  Done
• "the rolling hill returning to being a vineyard." -> this sentence is confusing as it isn't mentioned previously that it was a former vineyard.
  •  Done Added a mention.

Overview

• "lush green rolling hill and cirrus clouds" should be with -> "lush green rolling hill with cirrus clouds"
  •  Done
• There should be a fullstop on the image of O'Rear as it is a sentence.
  •  Done
• Should the link for St. Helena, California, include California in the link?
  •  Done No, California falls under a common word.
    • Additionally, California is also linked in the infobox.
• "have had the identical result" -> "have had an identical result"
  •  Done

History

• "also based in Seattle" -> Seattle isn't previously mentioned so I'm unsure why it says also.
  •  Done
• "was also considered the default wallpaper" -> "was also considered to be the default wallpaper"
  •  Done
• "but was changed due to testers comparing it to buttocks." -> this source used [3], doesn't seem very reliable to show that testers said this as it references a different Wikipedia.
  • That part is quoted to Raymond Chen (ref 22).
    • I see, but is ref 23 reliable?
      • Yes it is. See VG/RS.
        • Thanks for confirming.
• "default wallpaper but to buy" -> "default wallpaper, but to buy"
  •  Done
• "plane ticket, and he personally" -> remove comma.
  •  Done
• "the default wallpaper of the" -> wallpaper is linked here despite being mentioned earlier in the same section at "the default wallpaper, but was".
  •  Done
• In the quote, Half Dome should be linked.
  •  Done

I'll continue this later. Actuall7 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everything, continuing the review. Actuall7 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Why does Digital Camera World link to Future US? Digital Camera World isn't even mentioned in the Future US article.
  • I'm unsure why they are missing from that article that but they are owned by Future US (see here). They've been also publishing a magazine for a long time now.
    • I see, thanks for confirming.
• Other than that, no other issues.

Legacy

• "journalists speculated it might" -> "journalists speculated that it might"
  •  Done
• As ref 13 is also by Napa Valley Register, it should also have the subscription needed tag, similar to ref 3.
  •  Done
• The second paragraph in the Legacy section feels more like it should be in Reception as it talks about the popularity of the photograph.
  •  Done
• "Microsoft would contact him" -> "Microsoft would have contacted him"
  •  Done

Re-creations

• Should the Goldin+Senneby photo be moved to the Re-creations section as this is where its first mentioned? It can be left at the Legacy section is you think it shouldn't.
  •  Done Yup.
• "Aero in Windows Vista, and also" -> remove comma.
  •  Done
• Should list of photographs considered the most important be linked in the See also section?
  • If this photograph was not considered by some to be the most viewed in history, then I do not think that the inclusion would be justified. But because of it, I think it should stay as the article contains well-known (and important) photographs.
    • I see, thanks for explaining.

References

• Ref 1 and Ref 29 should have the subscription needed tag.
  •  Done
• Ref 3a states that the photo was taken in 1998, Ref 4 states that the photo was taken in 1998, and Ref 5 states that the photo was taken in 1996, so I'm not sure the proper date of the photo.
  • The year is definitely inconsistent among sources, 1996 and 1998 are the two years mentioned. However, in the 2023 interview O'Rear talked about how he took the photograph 25 years ago, which corresponds to the year 1998. This is the best indication we have that it was taken in 1998 (in most sources O'Rear only talked about taking the photograph in January).
    • I see, this does make 1998 the more likely year.
• Should Ref 14 use a ProQuest id instead of ISSN?
  •  Done

That's all the issues that I can see, good work on the article. Actuall7 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. All done. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everything, I hope I gave you an adequate review. Passing the article. Actuall7 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was initially a stock photo? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT1: ... that the lush rolling hill of Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, is now covered with vineyards? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT2: ... that Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was photographed in Sonoma County, California? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT3: ... that Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was photographed by a former National Geographic photographer? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT4: ... that the rolling hill of Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was captured after a phylloxera infestation? Source: Cain, Abigail (July 3, 2017). "The Story Behind the World's Most Famous Desktop Background". Artsy. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1909 Chinese provincial elections

Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC).

• Would you like to include the wallpaper itself as image hook? I think the nostalgic value it provides would make the hook even more interesting. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Bliss is still copyrighted right? DYK doesn't allow fair-use pictures to be used on the Main Page unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is copyrighted and owned by Microsoft. It would be cool to include the photograph but I'm unsure if DYK rules allow this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

From WP:DYKIMG: The media must be freely licensed—fair-use images are not permitted on the Main Page. So the answer is no. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• May I suggest the short-and-sweet "ALT5: ... that you can find bliss in California?" (or the passive voice but less funny "... that bliss can be found in California") as a potential April Fools fact? Leafy46 (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer other proposed blurbs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's too bad. ALT5 is the best of them all. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Will be claiming this for review and will do the full review once I come back from vacation. I have to agree with Viriditas that the quirky hook is the best option here. While some of the other options do meet DYKINT, the quirky is the one most likely to attract readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Well, if that's the case then let's go with the April Fools blurb. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• The article was promoted to GA status on time. It meets the other DYK article criteria as well such as length and close paraphrasing. Quotes are properly cited. A QPQ has been done and it was completed. For the purposes of review I'm approving two hooks, one quirky (ALT5) and one non quirky (ALT4). It's too bad the picture is copyrighted because ALT4 would have been very effective with the picture, but oh well. I will leave it to the promoter if ALT5 is to be held for April Fools, or if it runs as a regular quirky. ALT5 is the preferred option, ALT4 is more the backup. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)