Talk:Bliss (image)

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Photography: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Hello. Sonoma is in Sonoma County not Napa County. Napa Valley is located in Napa County. Check your article to correct. thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.207.27 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Nothing to do. Article makes no such claim. Photographers are free to wander away from their original goal, location-wise and subject-wise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A video was recently released (8 April) by Microsoft NL, featuring an interview with the photographer. As usual, several websites are reporting the video, and an editor added it to the external links section. However, most of these posts are little more than a thin wrapper (i.e. no substantial added value), so I replaced the link to point directly to the video.

Hello,

Waldir

Did you just say the video was taken from a secondary source? I am talking about this sentence: "As usual, several websites are reporting the video". YouTube videos are acceptable when they are embedded inside a reliable source, e.g. a

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

mentions, a reliable source has three pillars: Content, author, editor. Please add the secondary source. We are okay.

As for fake videos on YouTube; no three person would enter a studio to film person impersonating a Microsoft authority interviewing Bliss photographer. I am afraid the real world is far more relentless. The fake part usually constitutes one word in a sentence that makes the whole different. And yes, things are starting to become personal; not Hollywood personal (at least not me), but like I said, the real world is far more relentless: It is butterfly effect.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To butt in here: Lisa is, like too many other editors, overbroad in her application of

DMCA

forbids linking to infringing material. That policy section was written in response to many people linking to unauthorized repostings of videos in articles about songs. But material submitted by the copyright holder themselves—Microsoft as the producer and legal author of the video, as clearly indicated on its page—is not infringement. Links to the video embedded in other sources might be (especially blog posts); a direct link to the video at YouTube is most emphatically not.

As for the reliability issue,

cite video

}} and, in subsequent citations, the timestamp of whenever in the video that came up.

Abusus non tollit usum. There is a lot of crap and fakery on YouTube, but that has never meant we absolutely can't use anything from YouTube. We just have to be careful. There is no need to resort to secondary sources, or IAR. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like a solider going into a battlefield naked, even though he has access to the most advanced flak jackets, not because of a need or even a desire to be naked, but just to irritate his fellow warriors, insisting that it is his right to do so!

Just look at the article: It is now publishing the YouTube video four times, once through one of the footnotes, twice through two External links ([1] and [2]) and a raw YouTube link. I am afraid I am having a very time finding merit for your argument in the face of all this spam.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that hard to change all those to links to the original. If you would like me to do it (I see other opportunities for improvement in any event), I certainly can. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried.

external links policy forbids cascading links; e.g. link to a specific source must not appear when there is already a generic link that facilitates access to the same resource. All this plus what said earlier about embedded YouTube videos would make this edit

and overkill, although Green later realized that Gizmodo is used as a source and deleted it.

Right now, no less than three sources show the 2010 image and embed the YouTube Video. We certainly have a lot of layout templates but they are not meant to be used in an article all at once; it is like hanging ourselves because we have a gratis noose. Too much layout and little meat kills the article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" Links that appear in citations must not appear as external links". There is nothing in

WP:ELNO

that supports this interpretation of policy. I think it makes perfect sense to sometimes include a citation link in the xlinks section as well; readers may not want to hunt through the footnotes to find the link they were looking for.

I have not been able to start doing the edits I had been contemplating; hopefully I will have the time tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then try reading

WP:ELLAYOUT. Besides, the best place of saying something theoretical about "hunting" is not in article that is facing bombardment (the literal opposite). Click any of the three sources and there you go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

ELLAYOUT says only "... nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section" (Emphasis mine). So we can make occasional exceptions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Exceptions need a reason and I provided a reason for not making an exception in Waldir's reply thread above. Of course, strangely enough, you are going by my sarcastic suggestion that I posted in Waldir's talk page and he linked it here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even read that remark, much less was aware of its existence, until I read your comment above. Exceptions need a reason? OK, I can understand: Much of the news coverage of this was triggered by Microsoft NL's posting of the video on the occasion the company discontinued free support for XP. Readers are aware of the video when they do the Google search that put this article near the top. They may well want to go straight to the video. If they scroll down to do so, it's in a place where it can easily be found without having to squint.

Remember, we write and edit for the benefit of readers, not our policies. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever watched The Pursuit of Happyness? "Benefit of readers" is one of those elusive concepts that we are doomed to pursue ferociously but never catch! You assume that the benefit of the user is to look for the video, to find it here and moreover find it here via a direct YouTube link. I don't assume so. We live in world in which the majority of people do not have access to cheap broadband Internet; hence YouTube is an expensive commodity. Not all of them try this specific search term if they do look for the video and not all of them click on Wikipedia. Not all of them assume we are in love with External links. So much assumptions there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you assume so? The quality of a reader's Internet connection is beside the point ... if they can't get YouTube, they won't be looking for it here anyway, and (more to the point) none of the links that have it embedded will be of any use to them. But, all the same, including the link won't take anything away from those users' experience of the page and help the users who can get streaming video (And wouldn't the first place you'd look for that be a section entitled "External links"?

Lisa, I am afraid your English skills are not up to this discussion. You are communicating quite effectively that you feel passionately about this, but to me it seems like you change the reason why everytime you comment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the comment on my English skill is too close to

questionable source

because two out of three elements required by WP:RS are missing: The creator of the work cannot be reliably identified and there is no editorial oversight by the publisher. I offered a compromise: Use a secondary publication that offers these two, e.g the Gizmodo article or Softpedia article, a win-win. You can have either the compromise along with my respect and best wishes in all your endeavors, or just the respect and best wishes alone.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the latter option, because as I have said you are applying policy too rigidly there (which again I feel is a result of your inability to fully understand the interactions between all the policies that have been brought into this discussion. I get the feeling you were familiar with the

Daniel, I find it quite unfortunate that you mix good arguments with personal attacks. You really have good points, but make it hard for one to simply agree with you if that implies agreeing with the tone and contents of your comments regarding Codename Lisa. Such interactions (and btw I'm referring to Codename Lisa's sarcastic remarks as well, both in my talk page and elsewhere, which are unwarranted) only add noise to the discussion, cloud the assessments of the participant's objective arguments, and prevent a clean consensus to emerge. Insofar as that helps the discussion (and FWIW), I'll say that I strongly agree with all your statements except those referring to Codename Lisa rather than the content of the article. --

talk 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry you feel that way; I appreciate your support but it is not enough, sometimes, to point out why people are wrong—you need to explain why. I have been harsh in my rhetoric, but I do not feel I was the only party who was. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in briefly reviewing my side, I tried to avoid attacking Lisa personally. I think there's something in policy that says you comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone feels that criticism in the vein of "You are a smart person making a stupid argument" is a personal attack, then they need to take a few deep breaths. Lord knows I've been on the receiving end of that a few times. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user on Flickr took an updated picture seen here, and says the 2006 picture on Wikipedia "was taken from the wrong location, approximately 350' farther Northeast, it is of the correct hill, but it is shot in the wrong direction." --

There is the story around that the photographer had to deliver the photo in person because its value was too high so that fedex et. al. refused to transport is. Does anyone know the real price? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the interview (and now in the article) he cannot disclose the exact amount since he signed a confidentiality agreement. Another paper reported that it was in "the low six figures", and I've got that in there now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, someone have not seen the word "not" in

Maybe it is best to merge this article instead of padding it with external links and redundant citations. Fleet Command (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that characterization, and the deletion of links, including the entire External Links section. I won't edit war over it but will start an RfC to bring in outside opinion. As for "merging this article" that would have little support from me for one. --

C 01:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, you might want to say in your RFC that I don't think I deleted anything. Google Maps link appear at the top right of the article. (Only it is more neutral: There are more services.) The Flickr link appears in citations already. The YouTube equivalent appears in every one of the citations. (Well, not every one; a lot.) I just cleaned up the messy repetition. Fleet Command (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it yourself. The external links sections are not the same as geocoords, it's a courtesy to users who may not know about or use the geocoords feature. And the YouTube link is not anywhere else in the article .. the same content is in some of the citations but most readers will never click through and read citations, again the EL is a courtesy to users to highlight significant content. Same with the Flickr image, it is discussed in the article and is the sort of thing one would expect to be inlined and not buried in a citation, the template is a courtesy to users to highlight certain images, that's why the template exists. --

C 02:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

"I won't edit war over it". Well, I am at a loss as to what this is. (Not really; I am pretty sure it is edit warring.) Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is stuck, stalled, and stale. The edits suggested in the RfC have long since been made and the article has been essentially stable since June. Consensus has long since been achieved by

WP:BRD, so it's not necessary for the RfC closer to decide who has the stronger arguments; I am simply closing this to remove it from the backlog at WP:ANRFC.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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 is a two-part RfC on the whether to include external links or not in the article.

Question 1:

• Should the {{external media}} template be used? As seen here:

External image
"21st Century Bliss" by Tony Immoos (2010) reportedly "closely resembles the 1996 photograph."

Please answer 1. Yes or 1. No

Question 2:

• Should the article have an External Links section? As seen here:

External links

• Google Street View of the hill
• Video interview with the photographer. Microsoft NL, 8 April 2014.

Please answer 2. Yes or 2. No

--

C 02:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Flawed RfC

This RfC is flawed. The nominator failed to mention that these link are already part of the citations: The Google Map link appears at the top of the article; the YouTube Video and the Flickr image virtually appear in 50% of citations. It tricks people who want the content but not the grotesque look of the article to answer "yes". This RFC is basically a ballot that conflicts with

polling does not override a consensus. 188.245.53.140 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Survey

• 1. Yes - The {{
  C 06:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 1. Yes, I've done it in other articles (see
  fair-use criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, it should have an xlinks section with a link to the YouTube posting of the video interview with the photographer, since while that makes up much the article's sourcing readers who may want to view it for themselves may not know how to find it in the references. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  On the other hand, though, I don't see how the Street View image of the hill adds anything. Any reader who wants to find it can get to it via the coords link. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Yes, {{
  talk 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 1. No. Not sure what this adds looking at the link and the description given, that it "reportedly closely resembles the 1996 photograph", is very weak justification.
  2. Yes sort of. The you tube video looks fine, but I see no merit in including the google maps view. It adds nothing that is not already seen in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. No. Too bulky, not directly related to subject.
  2. Yes/No mixture Google Maps link is okay. (No, the coordinates tag DOES NOT do what the Google Maps link does.) The YouTube video is seen in three citations plus the further reading section
  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• One link to rule them all Instead of (1) and (2), use this link, posted by User:Waldir below. That Google Maps link is just another expensive way of showing a photo. For a true map see the geocoords. Fleet Command (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that that link was suggested by

  talk 09:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 1. Yes: That's what it's for; by not doing so, you are essentially burying excellent information in Wikipedia's equivalent to fine print. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion

I think we should take this opportunity to also discuss the inclusion of mere wrappers of the video interview, which is the case of the Gizmodo link (in a separate "Further reading" section, no less!). As I mentioned in another discussion thread on this talk page, I am against including such links, which add next to nothing to the video and are merely leeching off the content that the video itself provides. Thoughts? --

talk 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• A
  reliable source is one that is receives peer review or editor's review. YouTube CAN have that but this one does not. Gizmodo provides that. It means someone checked it and thought it is attention-worthy. Besides, YouTube always authenticates Microsoft whenever it posts video; this one does not have "Verified Identity" mark. All the more reason to use a secondary source. 188.245.53.140 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Could you please explain that little orange box that says "Microsoft" on the YouTube page then? Besides, in another one of the sources we've used (one of the Napa Valley local papers I think), O'Rear mentions clearly that he's got a Dutch TV crew coming over to interview him. I would also note that the many newspaper outlets accept this as genuine, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's user's avatar or badge (or whatever). Anyone could make it. The "Verified Identity" logo is a check mark with a colored box that leads to an FAQ page about what is Verified Identity, how to obtain it and what it represents. Fleet Command (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's strange that Microsoft post anything on YouTube. Microsoft has Channel9 and TechNet Video. Fleet Command (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not Microsoft itself, it's Microsoft's Dutch subsidiary that produced the video. They might not have the Verified Identity or whatever ... I mean, how many people on YouTube do?
        Honestly, you're looking for the possibility of doubt to justify your position, and confusing it with reasonable doubt. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How could that possibly be my objective when simply not stripping the material naked would defeat my purpose? With all due respect, you have first assumed that the video is genuine, then constructed all your arguments upon it, trying find an explanation with anything inconsistent with this assumption. Look, we're straying into commenting on person, so I am stating my final position explicitly: I prefer a PC Magazine article with the embedded YouTube video instead of the YouTube video itself. If you have something against this, either we respectfully agree to disagree or I alone respectfully disagree. (Or of course, the third option is to take my opinion in the survey section as a compromise.) Fleet Command (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure English is your first language, so let me say it more directly: I think you are contorting logic to find a justification for not using the video directly as a source because, having learned that we can and do link to YouTube videos contrary to what you seemed to have thought, you can't accept that. And what exactly do you mean by "stripping the material naked"? Sounds rather violent to me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, this new:
              Deny Recognition mode, so if anyone wants to tell me something, the place is my talk page. But no "let's ignore such and such policy because Emerson said such and such" kind of message please. Fleet Command (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
              ]

You don't get to dictate what arguments the rest of us use. If that is your idea of rational debate, you and your longtime companion Lisa can stay away from this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I have previously been accused of being a tag-team buddy or sockpuppet of ViperSnake151 and Mark Arsten. But this is new! No offense, Fleet Command, I must say, in comparison to the legendary Mark, you are a serious downgrade. But I am afraid, Daniel, Fleet Command has carte blanche to revert anything that comes to his talk page; so, yes, he/she does get to dictate what arguments the rest of us take there.

Now, both of you, look, I can also accuse Daniel and

Waldir of being tag-team buddies or meatpuppets but I don't simply because such baseless uncivil discussions are not conducive to a team-work atmosphere. We are not here on an accusation-vilification campaign. Judging by the vote count, the supporting side has already won but I don't feel I have lost or am defeated because most of the participants here are my beloved friends. Another thing is: Both of you will forget this discussion and whether you won or lost but it would take a longer time to forget that "person X offended me". Now instead of posting hurting comments (direct or indirect), let us be friends who have a disagreement, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi,
  contentious labeling for having received review. But you might be interested in this link: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Creates-Short-Documentary-About-Windows-XP-Bliss-Wallpaper-Video-437190.shtml

This link might resolve the entire RFC in one fell swoop.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C 16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi. The subject of the article is the 2001 wallpaper on Windows XP. It is natural that millions of photos are taken from the same location afterwards, especially in this age that every mobile phone has a 20 Gigapixel camera. We already have another photo with equal merit (from the same location, not the original) with free license. I say put that in the External links section, if it is not in citations already. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This particular picture is out of the ordinary due to its quality, fidelity to the original, original information concerning location, and citation by the press. It's not just someone's cell phone snapshot, which I agree would be out of place in the article. --

C 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If it is so significant, it merits an upload with fair-use rationale. But unfortunately, I don't think so. All of these except the quality are circumstantial conditions that on their own, do not add due weight. Even so, if the photo has a section of its own, then the box is already pointless. "Someone's cell phone snapshot" is also contentious labeling. "Someone's cell phone snapshot" have received award from Wikimedia Commons and Flickr, occasionally having made it to the Picture of the Year competition. Overall, I think {{external media}} must be used only in exceptional cases. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{

C 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you don't mind my joining in, I think you are taking words out of its context. Doc pages are just meant to have brief but vague description of the use case and teach the syntax. They don't have policy values beyond that of an essay, unless you know for sure there is consensus behind them.

WP:ELLAYOUT

all point to the fact that external links in Wikipedia are unwanted unless they contribute significantly to the quality of the article. In its current state, the article looks like those street advertisers (I am hoping I am being polite by avoiding the commonly used word) in busy streets who would try to force a flyer into your hand, face, pocket, handbag/purse and even your paper cone of fries just to deplete their stack of flyers. They don't care that collecting these flyers for the paper recycling bin of your house is probably not the reason you came out.

The reason people visit this article for the first time is the 2001 wallpaper of Windows XP. In that light, forcing a link at the top, middle and bottom of the article to another photo is detrimental. Fleet Command (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Documentation for {{

C 05:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You wanna go what logic? Alright, allow me to quote from it then:

"The {{external media}} template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS."

Well, File:Bliss (location).jpg is available! Also:

"At that time, the link included in this template may be considered for inclusion as a regular WP:External link in the ==External links== section."

Why not? Birds of the same feather after all, aren't they? Fleet Command (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny that Lisa/FC insist on proof for everything that goes against their argument, yet find it utterly unnecessary to back up their own with any? Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Daniel, the hyperlinks that participants provide are supposed to be proofs. In fact, do I need to quote you to prove we actually discussed my proof in "§Youtube video" above? Like I said above, such discussions are not conducive to a teamwork atmosphere that is Wikipedia. So, let us be friends who disagree, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your "proof" above consisted of sweeping denials of some of my arguments, elision of others, hysterical hyperventilation about how Wikipedia is going to go straight to hell in a handbasket if we do this, insistences that the video is fake, and an insanely bureaucratic standard for proving that it isn't. When you were confronted with language in the documentation for the {{external links}} template that contradicted what you said about how it was supposed to be used, you basically used the "No true Scotsman ..." fallacy to dismiss it.
All the same, I am glad that you stated flat out that you interpret various sections of policy to minimize external linkage. I feel those sections are qualified by the ones I cited. It is hardly the only issue where Wikipedia policy on different pages can give rise to contradictory interpretations. That's why we need more people responding to this RfC. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You undergo a lot of hardship to project an unpleasant image of yourself – and for a tiny link too – and I must say you have succeeded. The very low factual accuracy of your allegations is another matter entirely. Unwatching this page now. Feel free to write a reply a hundred times more outrageous if you wish. No regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be insulted, yet you imply that I'm lying. You get mad when I use an Emerson quote, yet you sweepingly referred me to a movie to support one of your own arguments. This is not what I expect from an eight-year veteran of Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get back to the original question? I would really like to know whether other editors feel the current "further reading" section is justified, and whether the Gizmodo article provides sufficient extra content besides embedding the video to warrant inclusion in the article, regardless of being a reliable source (I think the Softpedia link, on the other hand, is at least acceptable regarding the content argument). I don't feel I can simply hijack the RfC to add a new question, but if you guys agree, I'll do so, in order to collect structured feedback about this. --

talk 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Certainly, since I feel now that the edits I have done to improve the article are complete. I don't feel the "further reading" section is justified, since it doesn't offer the additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article" that it should. It is basically just another news article like those already used as sources, several of which already have the video embedded. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Gizmodo link is probably superfluous to the YouTube link. Suggest a bold edit to remove the Further Reading section, and see if anyone objects/supports, before taking to RfC. I've lost track of who is for or against what in the article. --

C 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This section/link is an alternative to RfC's proposal inserted by the opposition – more inline with my proposal of "one link to rule them all". (The Gizmodo link contains both the image seen in the Google Maps link and the YouTube video.) Because of this, the fate of this section directly depends on the outcome of the question 2 of the proposal. Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie. Fleet Command (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Layout problem

Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section was created to hold the portal bar but since there are no See also links it creates a lot of white space so I moved the portal bar down and moved one of the images up to collapse the whitespace until someone adds see also links. --

C 15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And now you've made the problem vertical instead of horizontal; template collides with references, making a scene of it. Why don't you move it way up? Why noy move the whole section under history? Fleet Command (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Restored the 'see also' section and used Template:Clear to force the section header underneath everything before it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remains no different from the screenshot that I posted. The correct response to a problem is solving it, not haggling about it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

choosing Fuji film for its brilliant colors. I think the photographer wanted to note that he used Fujifilm's Velvia, because it is a landscape film and boosts some colours to a level above reality, which is known among us photographers. And sometimes it's just called "the Fuji". But now it sounds like an ad for Fujifilm, which states that they offer film with brilliant (= good) colours and others don't. Like if he was paid for it. --92.76.140.58 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I made some changes based on your recommendation and what it says in

C 15:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 2 external links on Bliss (image). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201181845/http://www.hanne-mugaas.com/artblog/2007/04/paris_was_yesterday.html to http://www.hanne-mugaas.com/artblog/2007/04/paris_was_yesterday.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623084314/http://www.300m3.com/sidor/sidor_2008/2008_8.html to http://www.300m3.com/sidor/sidor_2008/2008_8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen examples of Bliss in popular culture such as in Paper Toss, two of the levels contain this as a desktop picture. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. I don't edit Wikipedia but someone who does can do something with it. There's a reddit page that has another similar picture of higher quality than the ones up. https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5eiyjp/i_took_a_photo_in_the_same_spot_where_the_windows/

We need the picture to be freely licensed for reuse and modification; creative commons attribution or attribution share-alike are the most common licenses. --GRuban (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bliss (Windows XP Background).tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add this page to Bahasa Melayu Azran457 (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]