Talk:Chloë Agnew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.

[edit] Sub-standard

This article is sub standard, No date of birth just promotional material.

I'm sure you can have a biography without a date of birth - in fact, I've read in Wiki procedures that they recommend that a date of birth NOT be included in a biography of a person who is still living because of identity theft problems. Hubblegal 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This article must conform to the principles below:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of ..
 (from the 5 pillars of W..) 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at other artists and music articles. Discography tables are perfectly acceptable, because they inform the reader as to the works that the artist has produced in a linear and easier to read format. Citations are also valid because they back up the information that has presented in the article. I might get rid of the Oboe King link because it doesn't add much, but in my reworking of the article it was already present and I was more concerned with cleaning things up. Another thing deleted was the labels the performer was signed to. Obviously, it seems, the field is provided, so there is no problem with it being used. Please do not continue to delete this material. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is promotional and is not acceptable. see [1] There are 2 links to the Celtic woman website on this short article, clearly promotional. The names of the albums are duplicated also.

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Disallowed are links that:
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

Above is a straight quote from guideline. Reinsertion is inappropriate.

su 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you don't listen. 1) The discography is not publicity material, simply a table laying out the artists' work in an easier to read format (information at a glance). 2) The CelticWoman.com link is in two places for a reason: it is used as a reference, thus, its placement there. However, it is also a valid external link to the profile. When a user is reading an article, I've found, most of the time they pay no attention to citations and the links within. So, the link is also placed in the External links section to catch those that breeze by References. Not ideal, but it was a considered placement. 3) The MySpace page is not some fan profile or otherwise random thing. Like all MySpace Music pages, this page is an official presence of the artist, created either by the artist or a representative of hers (probably the label).
I don't really care that the MySpace thing is deleted, because while it is official, it doesn't have a lot of information. However, I feel very strongly for the inclusion of the other two points. You also accuse me of trying to promote this artist. I barely know who this person is, and don't even own a CD; I'm not a fan. I happened across the Celtic Woman article, and saw that the related material needed desperate attention, so I set out to do so. Please don't accuse people of something unless you can back up your claims, eh? -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image

The added image is merely a tracing of a copyrighted image. See, for example http://chloeagnew.googlepages.com/chloe2a.jpg/chloe2a-full.jpg KameraObscura 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this. I was attempting to locate the original photo last night, but since I couldn't I assumed good faith and left the image up. I'll start taking care of the image itself now. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the user is just being perverse. Now he's added a crude line drawing that looks nothing like Chloe Agnew. Isn't there some rule that an image of the performer in the entry needs to at least have some measure of quality? KameraObscura 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The user KameraObscura posted this about my image: "I think the user is just being perverse. Now he's added a crude line drawing that looks nothing like Chloe Agnew. Isn't there some rule that an image of the performer in the entry needs to at least have some measure of quality?" Is it a joke? I am a great fan of Chloë and I think wikipedia is free. I will prepare another image with more quality to satisfy any art critic.--Mitthus 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the situation, it was incorrect for Kamera to make those comments.
  • To Kamera: I know of no such rule, other than that biography articles should not attack or otherwise libel the individual. Neither of these images have broken this, and I would hardly describe an attempt to spruce up the article with an image as "perverse". My issue here is that we should not use non-free images here, nor should we use images that are derived from non-free media.
  • To Mitthus: You are welcome to create an image from scratch, provided it actually does strongly resemble the individual in question. I would strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images to see what you can and cannot do. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, because it doesn't seem to be getting through, let me reiterate: you cannot upload an image and claim free use on it if it is merely a stylised depiction of an existing image or piece of video. To quote a line from the link I gave directly above: "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing." In this situation, these photoshopped images and alterations fall under this status and thus are no different than using a publicity photo, which we are trying to avoid here. I repeat, do not simply alter or copy an existing image and claim it as your own. Please, do read the Image use policy link above, and the entire page, not just the section I point out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Chloë

Ok, you don't seem to be understand. This image is not a copy or photoshop image. How many designs (or pictures, images, drawning or I don't know how name si)I have to do that satisfy you...--Mitthus 00:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I read again "the Image use policy" (all page) and I didn't find any problem to post an image (I think it is a drawning...made with my own hands) created and made by me. Anyway, I will make another image and, so that non exist any doubts I go draw her as the Monalisa (by Leonardo da Vinci). I only want to contribution to wikipedia, nothing more. Thank you for your help.--Mitthus 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
By de way, I'm in contact with John Flanagam of the Celtic Woman Ltd and he is trying to arrange free documentation licenses for some photos to put here (sorry for my english...it is not very good). He ask me wait for a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitthus (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, 1) The reason these images are not appropriate is because you copied an existing image. It does not matter that it was drawn or painted or anything, it is a copy of that image. 2) If Mr. Flanagam has the right to release copyrighted Celtic Woman material, and is willing to do so, that would be utterly fantastic, and you can pass along my great thanks. We really do need decent images of all the girls for their respective articles. However, to do this, he will have to expressly release the chosen images into the public domain. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to understand what has to be done, and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for some examples of what letters other editors have sent. You may want to pass those links along to Mr. Flanagam as well.
Basically, pay very close attention to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed, this will tell you the steps that must be taken. If you would rather me or someone else handle this, let us know and we can pick up the process after permission is given. I have a lot of experience dealing with images here and on Commons, so this would not be a problem.
I certainly understand that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, and believe me, we want you to contribute! But you must understand, copyright laws must be followed, and it is a tricky thing. Please don't see these reverts and conflicts as us trying to drive you away, but see it as a learning process for how things have to be done. We sometimes tread a very fine line here, so we must be careful not to break U.S. law. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)