Talk:Hayley Arceneaux

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

Age and birthdate[edit]

Age is listed as 29 in the source, the infobox gives a manually entered birth year as two separate years in a range of two consecutive years. This clearly needs clarification, since only one of them is the correct year, the other one is simply incorrect, and the range is an estimate. Since she was born after 1980 in the U.S., it is unreasonable to use a date range, as she isn't some undocumented person who was born centuries ago at some rough time period we only know from guestimating their ages. Thus it should keep carrying the clarification needed tag until such a time as this is determined. Also, just writing the dates is poor practice, since we have a template for such matters, {{Birth based on age as of date}}, which will calculate the birth year, and will give an age for this person as of today (as she might have had a birthday after the announcement was made, so being 30 instead of 29). -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing unclear about "1991-1992" or "1991 or 1992", we just don't know the exact date. What you are looking for would be "more precision needed". That's a completely different thing. --mfb (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no {{imprecise}} template. Clarify uses [[Category:All Wikipedia articles needing clarification]]; so I've replaced the tag with {{ambiguous}} (though {{vague}} also seems to do the job) All three tags uses the same cleanup category, seemingly doing the job. The original source gives an age, not a year, so it isn't clear what year is being referred to. The "imprecise" tags are about unacceptable sources {{Better source needed}} and {{Nonspecific}}, which are certainly not the proper tags, since the current source is AP, which is a good RS (better source needed), and clearly linked to (nonspecific). -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

image:Eu1kGjfXEAEegc4.jpg[edit]

@Jaseem001:

File:Eu1kGjfXEAEegc4.jpg
FILE:Eu1kGjfXEAEegc4.jpg

The file File:Eu1kGjfXEAEegc4.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) recently uploaded and attached to this article, has several issues. Jaseem001 (talk · contribs) who uploaded it claims that it is their own work, with a CC-license, but also claims to have obtained it from the Inspirati4n website. This is anomalous, since if it is their own work, why does it source from a website of an organization? Further, various press stories about Hayley indicate this is a press photo released by St.Jude, so not the Inspiration4 website at all, and contradicting the sourcing provided by the uploader. This is problematic. If this is a photo taken by Jaseem001, was this work for pay, and thus the rights are owned by St.Jude. Was the St.Jude press release using an image from Inspiration4, then was this work for pay from Inspiration4, then the rights are owned by Inspiration4. Or did the photographer retain the rights to the photo, and it was not bought by either St.Jude or Insiration4, as part of the contract for taking the photo? Is Jaseem001 not the photographer at all, and just retouched the photo, in which case, the rights are not assigned properly. As this is a living person, this will not pass WP:NFCC and cannot be reuploaded with an WP:NFUR, if Jaseem001 is indeed not the photographer of commons:file:Eu1kGjfXEAEegc4.jpg, and it is owned by St.Jude or Inspiration4 or Shift4 or Isaacman or the unknown photographer, and who do not release the photo as CC or PD. If Jaseem001 is the photographer, this would seemingly need a WP:OTRS attached, if they, the photographer owns the rights. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eu1kGjfXEAEegc4.jpg was deleted at COMMONS as being a copyright violation -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there should be a picture of Hayley[edit]

Seems like there should be pictures of each of the Inspiration 4 mission members. Chris and Sian have pictures, but Hayley and Jared don't. Chuck Baggett (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found and cited the Times cover, but it's a double issue, not two issues?[edit]

The page said citation needed for the two covers of Time, but it appears to be a double issue... Aug 23 and Aug 30. Does this need seperate citations? It looks like one double issue on their site so I changed the verbiage and only cited it as one with date Aug 23. Please correct if this is not correct, thanks. Enotdetcelfer (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No there is the double issue and then there is a special companion guide to the Netflix series « The New space age » which has a grey cover and different content. Hektor (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I feel an image alteration would be suitable… very distorted ChazHat06 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be deleted anyway. --mfb (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChazHat06, Mfb, and Chuck Baggett: now each crew member have a image by a NASA photographer. Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hayley_Arceneaux&oldid=1205299068"