Talk:The King and I/GA2
NYPL Images
[edit]There are images of the original production at the NYPL website: See, e.g., [1]. Presumably, these are public domain, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Flower Drum Song: [2] and Carousel: [3], [4]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- They are beautiful photographs, but unless copyright was not renewed on them, they are not in the public domain. Poking through the disclaimers on the website, the NYPL did not take the photographs and does not opine as to copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I see now that the NYPL's Website Terms and Conditions does say that. Sorry. The Carousel images are amazing (and extensive). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes ... wish we could use them. The scrambling we do for images is the hardest part for me. In case you are wondering, I don't expect to get this article to FAC for at least another month, which is why I haven't been rushing to do things like retrieving reviews for the other revivals. It will all get done, but right now my mind's on Pipe Dream.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn
[edit]I withdraw the nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the nominator's request, this nomination is closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- To give a reason for the withdrawal, it became apparent that Ssilvers had added much unsourced information to the article. He objected to the removal, even though it was unsouced and a reader would be surprised should he check information against sources. Accordingly, I had no alternative than to withdaw it until I can check against sources and remove all unsourced statements, which I am in the course of doing. As I have gotten sufficient review at this level, any further review will take place elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I made the changes under discussion on January 23 and 24, and you can see them here, and I even included hidden comments and edit summaries intended to alert you to the referencing questions. I thought that you had already reviewed these on January 24 and in early February, as you removed the hidden comments and changed some of what I had suggested. In any case, it should be easy now to put the notable info back, with appropriate in-line cites, to improve the comprehensiveness of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well then do it. There is no excuse for adding material without citation, January or not. As for comprehensiveness, laundry lists of people with badly written three paragraph WP articles is hardly a question of comprehensiveness.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I made the changes under discussion on January 23 and 24, and you can see them here, and I even included hidden comments and edit summaries intended to alert you to the referencing questions. I thought that you had already reviewed these on January 24 and in early February, as you removed the hidden comments and changed some of what I had suggested. In any case, it should be easy now to put the notable info back, with appropriate in-line cites, to improve the comprehensiveness of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- To give a reason for the withdrawal, it became apparent that Ssilvers had added much unsourced information to the article. He objected to the removal, even though it was unsouced and a reader would be surprised should he check information against sources. Accordingly, I had no alternative than to withdaw it until I can check against sources and remove all unsourced statements, which I am in the course of doing. As I have gotten sufficient review at this level, any further review will take place elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)