Talk:Stanley Cup/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Peer review
In the anecdotes and traditions section, we need a few citations. This is a general notice. The Evil Clown my contributions 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I looked over the article. Written pretty good, however I do have some minor issues:
- If I am remembering correctly, they created a new Stanley Cup in order to preseve the old one. If a source is listed, that should be included. There needs to be some reason why they made the first duplicate. In progress. Might be tougher to correct.
- The note about the Rangers taking it to McSorley's Old Ale House, if it can not be cited, should be removed. I've never heard anything about that until reading the article, and there's not citation, and there is plenty of other noted things the Cup has done to be able to removed an unsourced event.
- The Finals of note should just be removed outright. It is rather POV, and one could argue that every finals has been notable for one reason or another. Deleted
Other than those points, I think it could make a good case for FA status. Kaiser matias 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since Kaiser did the PR already I just looked over this quickly. A couple of things I noticed:
- Is it really necessary to put the South Park thing there, specifically? It might be better if it said "For other disambiguities, click here" or something. Deleted
- The Adventures and Misadventures lists are kind of long, and long lists are generally not encouraged (unless they're specific list articles like "List of so and so"). Is it possible to convert them into non-bulleted prose?Rewritten
- You can get rid of that last section, because it doesn't pertain to the cup itself.Deleted
- That's what I noticed after a quick lookover but for the most part it looks very good. Nice work! Sportskido8 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as when the duplicate was made, it was in 1969. Why? Err, because the original was over 75 years old, had undergone a lot of wear and tear, and silver just isn't that rugged? RGTraynor 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do you have the source? That source is probably the difference between GA/A and FA. The Evil Clown my contributions 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Looked over the article again. It looks a lot better, and very well written. Should make the grade to FA if you submit it, I think. Kaiser matias 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Getting rid of "Final of Note"
Who wants to get rid of the section outright? I want to see some more consensus as to wheter someone should blank it. The Evil Clown my contributions 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it's getting attacked already, I don't think it will last a peer review and/or FA nomination. So removed it. The article won't lose anything without it. Kaiser matias 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stanley of Preston picture
Image:Frederick Stanley.jpg I found this picture on the French Wikipedia. Any thoughts on it? The Evil Clown my contributions 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This the orignial Cup. The Evil Clown my contributions 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Both photos seem notable enough, as long as they have appropriate licensing. Flibirigit 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- License is "expired copyright". Not an issue. Evilclown93 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- In a related subject, I replaced a couple of images here that were put up for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added a couple of free images from the U.S. Government.
It might be helpful to find some more from the Canadian government to balance it out.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)- Never mind, unlike the U.S. Government, material from the Canadian government is not free content and therefore must follow Wikipedia's strict rules of fair use images, especially if you eventually want this to be promoted to a featured article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added a couple of free images from the U.S. Government.
Shouldn't the image of Lord Stanley be used in the article? And imo there should be another image then the Glen Wesley one as the first image. Other then that, very good article. --Krm500 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Wesley was one of the images I substituted for the one that was put up for deletion on Commons. There has been an ongoing copyright debate concerning images that just depict sports trophies. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the orange shirt is not good. I've cropped the pic to this. Evilclown93 13:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Solo cup copy.JPG
-
- You seem to have missed the whole point of that ongoing copyright debate concerning images that just depict sports trophies i.e. whether an image of just the Stanley Cup is actually fair use: a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art, and thus is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, ยง 106(2) who owns copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Likely that the Stanley Cup images will stay on commons, though the other trophies will be gone. Reasoning is that the original Cup was created in 1892, and Lord Stanley died in 1908. The copyright on the original cup (in the bank vault) has thus expired. This Stanley Cup is one of two duplicates or replicas -- one created in the 1960s and the second in 1993. According to the Derivative works page, "replicas are copies and not derivative works, which means they're not copyrightable by the person who creates the replica." So, I don't think copyright applies to these Stanley Cups either. --Aude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- As such, I have replaced the lead image with another one from commons. This one is high resolution, but there are some other choices including Image:StanleyCup.jpg (this is a good picture, but the size/resolution isn't quite as high as the other). --Aude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Likely that the Stanley Cup images will stay on commons, though the other trophies will be gone. Reasoning is that the original Cup was created in 1892, and Lord Stanley died in 1908. The copyright on the original cup (in the bank vault) has thus expired. This Stanley Cup is one of two duplicates or replicas -- one created in the 1960s and the second in 1993. According to the Derivative works page, "replicas are copies and not derivative works, which means they're not copyrightable by the person who creates the replica." So, I don't think copyright applies to these Stanley Cups either. --Aude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the whole point of that ongoing copyright debate concerning images that just depict sports trophies i.e. whether an image of just the Stanley Cup is actually fair use: a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art, and thus is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, ยง 106(2) who owns copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A few more citation sources
Stephane Matteau taps Wales Trophy: [1]
I'm not sure if they are good enough. Evilclown93 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or will it be better if the unsourced superstitions are cut anyways? Evilclown93 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] War On Terrorism?
The caption on the photo claims that it visited soldiers who were injured in the war on terrorism. However, this is very unclear to me. Could we be more specific and say the war in Afghanistan, or the war in Iraq?
166.66.106.43 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the source of the photo is also unclear.[2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar
Hey, just saw the FA objects that this got. The guys who objected to the grammar and references are right. The prose needs to flow and be "brilliant" in every which way and form. I'll see what I can do when I get a chance in the next day or so. But this has to be done quickly or it is going to be shot down, so if any of you can just go through and do this that'd be great. Also make sure the references are consistent (formatted the same throughout). Sportskido8 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
