Talk:Junko Miyashita

infobox
I have removed the image from the infobox. Despite any particular Wikiproject's guideline to the contrary, the image does not meet WP:NFCC, as no argument about fair use under Japanese law applies to Wikipedia. Note that WP:3RR does not apply to removal of images that violate WP:NFCC, but our blocking policy does apply to editors that chronically insert them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please be so kind to explain what exactly is such a clear violation of WP:NFCC? I just wonder how it could be so clear and still several can not editors see it. And would you furthermore mind to enlight me why it is so urgent to remove a 80×120 pixel image and creating a 5th instance of the same dispute ? I also wonder if it is adequate for an admin to give an example how disputes can be "solved" simply by declaring high dangers out of the blue and mass reverting. Testales (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NFCC on two points. It fails #1 because as long as the subject is alive, it's replaceable. That's been held true for essentially every instance of a BLP on Wikipedia. It fails #8 because it's inclusion it doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. Without an image, any reader is still capable of comprehending her biography. Why there are editors that don't understand that is not something that I understand. As for "creating more copies of the dispute", would you have truly preferred that I delete the image without commenting on the talk page?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what makes you believe just because the subject is alive the image is replacable?! NFC makes some clear exceptions from that rule. See also Talk:Nao_Saejima where this has been discussed in more detail already. Moreover the "Japanese law" that you have simply declared as not not beeing relevant for Wikipedia additionally proves that it is not possible to replace the non-free image. I also can not follow your interpretion interpreation of point #8, we are talking here about an individualand NFC explicitly addresses "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" which is obviously the case for a model. I think there is also a reason for the existence of a dedicated shortcut to this small part of the policy. For the dispute, you could have given that simply a bit time or respond in the related | IfD instead of symbolically and demonstratively second a questionable mass-reverting behaviour without a any clear indication of urgency. Testales (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But how does a model / actress' appearance relate to their notability? I mean, you know, who cares what a model looks like? It's not like she's an author, or a baseball player, or someone like that, who makes their living off their looks, right?... But seriously, getting the pointlessness of this "debate" yet? Some editors like to delete images. That's all that matters. Wish they'd just say so. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Point me at fair-use images of authors and baseball players being used to illustrate BLPs, and I'll remove them. Or, better yet, remove them yourself. Either way works. Porn actresses are not notable for their appearance, they are notable for their willingness to have sex in a studio with bright lights and cameras. Knowing the details of any one of their appearance is unnecessary to understanding an article about one.
 * You really need to drop the attitude as well. Some editors take WP:NFCC seriously, and that's a good thing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already said what I think about your "arguement" on the noticeboard. I only wanted here to take back my 5th instance point. At the time where I wrote that, I could not see that you have added a notice on the other talk pages too and that's also how it should be, not just rv-rv-rv in Wolfowitz style. I still think that the timing was bad. If I get you and HB right, you basically state that this type of enforcement of NFCC is more or less common practice. Although both of you gave a different and in my oppinion rather weak explanations for it. So I will see if I can take that to the policy talk page. Because if you are right, the current policy is missleading as WP:NFC seems to be a clarification of the intention of the related point where NFCC is more general although it should proably be vice versa because NFCC lists criteria which should help to evaluate a specific case in a given context. Anyway, given the case you are right, it is not obvious at all just from reading these policies and I am curious how examples will look like where WP:NFC can be applied. Testales (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Junko Miyashita. 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/20090131131017/http://cinemahochi.yomiuri.co.jp/h_award/1979/ to http://cinemahochi.yomiuri.co.jp/h_award/1979/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060818073022/http://movie.goo.ne.jp/cast/86566/index.html to http://movie.goo.ne.jp/cast/86566/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)