Talk:Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rationale[edit]

I added the WikiProject Science Fiction template as this video is a nominee for the 2011 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. - Dravecky (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC and use of Ray Bradbury image[edit]

I note that the image of Ray Bradbury's image in this article is based on a fair use rationale. Given how short the article is, and how Bradbury watching the video is not even mentioned in the article, this seems like a clear violation of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. I'm going to remove it from the article, and if there are no objections I'll nominate the image for deletion. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinstating the image since Ray Bradbury is the subject of the song therefore it is an appropriate image for this page. I think you are going about removing the image backwards, right now the image has passed muster for copyright concerns, but you are welcome to state your concerns on the appropriate image page. Obviously if it is deleted then it will be removed from this page. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appropriate if free, but it is unnecessary, which is a bar to fair use. That's a question for this article, not a question about the file's suitability in general. Deleting the image under FFD or removing it here are both reasonable ways to go about this, but since the image is only used here, the entire discussion will be about its appropriate inclusion in this article, so it seems perfectly fine to discuss it here, particularly given that the history will remain here as appropriate. That said, I'll kick it over to WP:Non-free content review. I'm pretty confident that it will be more or less immediately removed. I'm surprised that this isn't an uncontroversial removal. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not seeing the value added by this non-free image per WP:NFCI. 0x0077BE, I would endorse putting it up for deletion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this up for non-free review, you can find the entry here. That said, we don't need to wait for the review if there is consensus for removal on this page. I think it's pretty clear that this image isn't really adding anything to the article - I am not seeing a recognizable reaction on Bradbury's face, so not only is this an illustration of something not mentioned in the article, it's not really even an illustration of anything obvious (other than that Ray Bradbury was a very old man in 2011 - which could be demonstrated using this free image, or this one). It also doesn't even look particularly good, crammed under the infobox next to the references. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who reverted the removal of the image, but I am not going to stand in the way if someone chooses to remove the image again. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury. 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/20110210185921/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/how_to_make_a_famous_sffantasy.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/how_to_make_a_famous_sffantasy.php

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this irrelevant article?[edit]

This is an article for a youtube clip that garnered four million views since 2010 which is very little. With these standards we'd have to give every pewdiepie clip a separate article.

Some PR manager must have made this. This is not article worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.3.150 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]