# Talk:Treats!

I just removed the second image of "Treats!" magazine  (the one with the two ladies on it ).
I believe this fails NFC, specifically,  NFC #3.  NFC #5 and NFC #8.
I'll explain why I believe that, and obviously, consensus will dictate what eventually happens:
NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage,  specifically:  Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information    and    An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.  (minimal use) 
One cover is already here on the page, that one cover is fine, there's no specific text speaking about the other cover, nor is it historically significant, so the 1 cover on top suffices and conveys the necessary information by itself. 
NFC# 5 speaks to content --  and yes I realize Wikipedia is not censored, however NFC #5 states:  Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.    because it fails #3, and also fails #8, it automatically fails rationale #5  
NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance, specifically  Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. 
The one cover is enough to assist the readers' understanding and it's omission would NOT be detrimental to that understanding. Further, there's no specific text about that particular cover.  
In short, I believe that image fails that above NFC criterias so, that image needs to remain out of this article.
What's everyone else say ? Kosh Vorlon   16:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:, I agree with your assessment. The image at the top brings about all the encyclopedic value that any cover is going to bring. The second cover is not needed and not really justified under our fair use policy. Chillum 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
By definition isn't the cover of the debut issue of a magazine historic. I have selected two images: the one that is the most famous and the one that is the most historic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I stumbled upon the first issue preview and am almost certain that somewhere there must be some discussion of the front/back cover combination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger  You have one cover up already, the second one isn't needed.  I know what it looks like, but I'm no big fan of NFCC myself, however, that second image really adds nothing (encyclopedic anyway, but it's definitely nice to look at ! ) and the article is not harmed by it's omission.  So as long as we have the cover that's there already, we're good! Kosh Vorlon   18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You failed to respond as to whether you regard the cover of a debut of a magazine historic in general. many magazines are granted the debut cover as a FU on WP. I have found some commentary on the image and will add it soon. I am having some problems with my browser though so be patient. P.S. note that without the second image, the reader may be mislead to believe that the magazine is a black-and-white arts magazine. One color and b-&-w is fair, IMO--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger:  I see that you reverted my removal of your color photo.  There is no consensus for it to be here, please revert until consensus is established.    Also,  I didn't answer you question about it being "historic" as, in my opinion , NFCC doesn't address that either, so it was not germane to the discussion.   Please revert yourself, TonyTheTiger Kosh Vorlon   19:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
KoshVorlon, The second image is for the benefit of the reader to see that the magazine has both color and b-&-w photography. Leaving only the famous b-&-w would be misleading to the reader about the content. That is plain and simple. There should be no difficulty understanding that. We are allowed to present sufficient FU to educate the reader. 1 color and 1 b-&-w should be sufficient. I have added a source for the content as you can see. No reason to revert.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger:  Consensus is against it's inclusion  (2/1).  Please revert until consensus is reached. Further, per  NCFF   it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.   I don't believe you've provided rationale that satisfies NFCC.  Kosh Vorlon   19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It was 2/1 before I addressed concerns about no corresponding text and presented an explanation of why it benefits the reader to see the second image. You have not been responsive to the following:
Text added
Cover image of magazine debut.
Need for color image to clarify content type in light of the famous b-&-w content.
I repeat that there is no need to revert in light of my explainations which came after your 2/1 decision. Do you intend to respond to the three points above?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus hadn't yet changed, it's still 2/1  Please revert Kosh Vorlon   20:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that I have expanded the FUR. You have not engaged in any discussion about the 3 forms of explaination for the readdition of the content. Why is it not sufficient reason to show the reader that this is not a b-&-w magazine?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: Tony, what your proposing doesn't matter to NFCC, that's why I hadn't responded, and I stated that in my comments the first time.  The picture's nice (definetly nice to look at ) but I believe it fails NFCC 3,5 and 8.
Please leave it out until consensus is established. Kosh Vorlon   20:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't treat my opinin as a vote. Saying things are "2/1" shows a real lack of understanding of what consensus is. I have not looked at the changes made since my last comment, but that comment refers to the state of the article then and is meant to be taken at face value not as a vote. Chillum 20:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fanny Francois does not seem notable so I did not mention her inclusion in the premiere issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

While the article's earlier state did contain NFCC violations I think they have been addressed. The concerns brought about in the RFC are:

NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage
Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information
It has been demonstrated that the second image brings more information. Specifically that it is the debut issue and helps avoid the assumption that it is a black an white magazine.

NFC# 5 speaks to content
Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
There is no standard that says nudity is against the content standards of this encyclopedia(I assume this is the concern because I can't see any other reason someone might think NFC#5 applies here).

NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance
The caption of the image describes the historical significance of it being a debut album.

I think Kosh should be overjoyed that his concerns were met after being brought up. He complained about the lack of policy compliance and then Tony brought it up to standards. Chillum 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::: Uh, Chillum, did you say  here  that you couldn't act in administrative capacity ?   You seem to be doing just that.  Kosh Vorlon   21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 
Ummm, I am not acting in an administrative capacity. I am offering my opinion as an editor. Which admin tool do you think I used? Chillum 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Struck as I was dead wrong Kosh Vorlon   21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum wrote: ;NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage:Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information
It has been demonstrated that the second image brings more information. Specifically that it is the debut issue and helps avoid the assumption that it is a black an white magazine.
I'm convinced that Minimal useage is easily fulfilled by the first image posted in the infobox, and that the second image conveys no additional information about the magazine.  The magazine states it was published in 2011, and therefore the assumption would be that it was in color , even though the article doesn't say that.  
Chillum further writes:  ;NFC# 5 speaks to content: Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
There is no standard that says nudity is against the content standards of this encyclopedia(I assume this is the concern because I can't see any other reason someone might think NFC#5 applies here).
First, it fails #5 because it fails 3 and 8.  I'm not against nudity, remember wikipedia is  not censored , nor do I believe it should be.
Chillum further writes: ;NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance
The caption of the image describes the historical significance of it being a debut album.  
The fact that this image was a debut doesn't make it signifigant, nor does it because it happens to be in color.  
Even though I'm an inclusionist by nature, and really disagree with NFCC,  I find myself actually supporting NFCC here and will state that I believe this article can be served by just the image in the infobox.   There is no discussion or mention, specifically of the debut cover, nor any controversy regarding it, nor anything else that would demand inclusion of that second color image.       As far as I can tell, that second image still fails NFCC 3, 5 & 8. Kosh Vorlon   18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say "no discussion or mention, specifically of the debut cover" are you purposely excluding the quote that says the image was "edgy, scintillating and elegant"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Treats!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this; I'll add comments below as I go through the article.  It might take me a day or so to finish; I don't have much time tonight.

There is some unnecessary capitalization; job names like "art director" and "editor" are not usually capitalized in running text; nor is "Issue".
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
At one point the article says it has been published twice a year in each of three years, for a total of six issues; but later an issue 7 is mentioned.
It is not yet possible to say how many issues will be published in 2014 without a WP:CRYSTAL. If 2014 again has only 2 issues, I will provide similar citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; I phrased that poorly.  I really just meant that the article should say somewhere that there have been seven issues to date.  On reflection I don't think even this is necessary so I'm striking the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 05:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Section title "Corporate info": I don't think "information" should be abbreviated
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The magazine isn't located on La Brea Avenue; the editorial offices are.  Actually I'd suggest moving this information to a bibliographic details section at the end, where you can include editorial office address, names of the editorial staff (where they're not named in the text above), price, number of pages, size (sounds like it's a slick), and volume numeration.
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Have there been any overseas editions?
No sources that I have seen mention alternative editions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the description gives essentially the same description of the magazine from five different sources.  I think at least a couple of these can be cut as not giving the reader any new information.  If you're looking for external sources describing the article, I think you can use a quote from Husni in the Daily Beast article; that's fairly thoughtful, specific, and doesn't exactly repeat the other descriptions.  The detail about body hair also seems different enough to mention (from the same source).
The changes here look good.  I like Husni's quotes but if you don't feel they're necessary that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 05:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"The outtakes from photoshoots for his former employers serve as the featured content for this magazine": the source doesn't actually say this; it just describes the outtakes as part of the original idea for the magazine.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Currently (with a minor edit from me) the text says: "The magazine ostensibly presents much of the content that is considered too risqué for magazines such as Vogue, Elle and InStyle.  Steve Shaw, the magazine's founder, had a nickname for the outtakes that pushed the borders too far: "treats". This nickname serves as the title for the magazine. The outtakes from photoshoots for his former employers serve as the inspiration for the featured content of this magazine".  There are a couple of things I don't like about this: "ostensibly" doesn't seem the right word, and the sequence is a little choppy.  How about: "According to Steve Shaw, the magazine's publisher, treats! was founded to present content that was too risqué for magazines such as Vogue, Elle and InStyle.  Shaw's nickname for photos that could not be used because they pushed the borders too far was "treats", and he decided to use the nickname as the title for the magazine."  Then you don't need the last sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion accepted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe there's still a requirement for US magazines to print audited information about their circulation at least once a year.  This is just a suggestion, but if you have copies of the magazine, you should be able to include circulation figures.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have copies of the magazine. I have inquired about a gratis subscription to make sure details in this article and the Emily Ratajkowski article are correct. (I have been successful at getting free software subscriptions in the past and have never tried a magazine). Not counting free basketball game admissions, I have gotten about a half dozen freebies for doing articles over the years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I never tried to get a free subscription with the only other magazine I have created from scratch (WSJ.), but this mag has a high digital subscriber ratio and I don't think it costs them anything to give me a free digital subscription.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If they say no, you might ask them if they have audited circulation figures that can be sourced somewhere, either to a page in their magazine or to the auditor's website.  But this isn't an issue for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Mike Christie Please re-evaluate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just the suggested rewording above to look at now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Mike_Christie, I responded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Everything looks good; I'll go ahead and pass this.  Just FYI, if you want to specify when the price changed to $30, it appears it was issue four -- this image of issue three shows the cover price at $20, and this photo of issue 4 shows the price at $30. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebay is not really a WP:RS that I am comfortable with, even in this objective manner.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I wouldn't cite eBay.  What I've done in similar situations is put a citation to the actual print issue of the magazine, even if I don't own that issue, if I can be confident that the issue contains what the citation claims.  A photographic image of the cover, for example, is enough to make assertions about the cover without having it in front of me.  I think this could be handled that way, if you wanted to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I am not sure how to make that citation. What is suppose to be included? I have tried to make this change. Please have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that works OK.  When I have multiple bits of information for which I need to refer to different issues of a magazine, I sometimes say <ref>See the individual issues.</ref>, but what you've done works too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

moved from SV's talk
Those images have been the subject of multiple WP:RFCs and deletion discussions. Don't just stop by and jangle things up on a whim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't claim fair use for two non-free covers on this page. You are posting images of this woman to any article you can think of adding one to. The usual practice is to use first editions of covers if available.
The image violates NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information," and #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." SarahSV (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, we have hashed the use of these images on this page out before. The images have different uses. Many articles have multiple fair use images. I have a WP:FT at Millennium Park, where many of the articles have multiple FU images. Each image is evaluated on its own merits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There was consensus in 2014 not to use two non-free covers (see discussion). For some reason it wasn't acted upon. KoshVorlon took the issue to non-free review, but it was closed as malformed, and I can't find what happened next.
This article is about the magazine, not about Ratajkowski. While it makes sense to use the first-edition cover—it's common practice to do that with book covers unless there's good reason to use another—there's no justification for adding the Ratajkowski cover. The image of her does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic."
You've added images of Ratajkowski, including semi-naked ones, to at least 31 articles that have nothing to do with her, including Balloon, Toy balloon, California Balloon Law, List of balloon uses, Champagne, Confetti, Dance, Hairdresser, Hair roller, Hairstyle and Lip liner. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
You reverted when Velella removed them, accused Velella of engaging in a "crusade" against Ratajkowski, and tried to get naked images of Ratajkowski on the main page via FAC and DYK. Discussion here with Velella; here with Floquenbeam and Drmies. I think it needs to end so that we can return to normal programming. SarahSV (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. I knew there was a certain interest in Ratajkowski here, but this has crossed over into obsession--at least from my point of view. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I have not been following this page much, but Ratajkowski is probably the most famous person to have been on the cover of this magazine. What naked picture did I try to get on the main page via FAC? Yes I am trying to get pop out cake on the main page at DYK, but it is hardly a surprise that a picture for that subject might include some mild nudity. I don't see any consensus for one image that you refer to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it was judged as no consensus.  I still believe that NFCC 3,5,8 are being violated, however, I let the issue go after the discussion both here and at non-public images gained any support. My thought was, since I'm not super knowledgeable about images, perhaps I was wrong.  If I was, no one else would say a word, and if I continued in the face of that, then I would be the one in the wrong. Glad to see SaraSV stopped by and agreed with me.  KoshVorlon 10:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that three editors agree (if I can take Drmies's comment to be an agreement on that point) that one non-free cover is enough. It makes no sense to use the Ratajkowski image as opposed to any other, but it does make sense to use the first edition. Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, the advice about using book covers is that first edition covers are preferred. [33] I would prefer to find one less naked, but given the magazine that's probably not going to happen. So I assume it's okay for me to restore this version with the first edition in the lead. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You may have some people interested in the discussion who are leaning your way. I don't think you have confirmed a consensus of all interested parties. I think you can reopen the discussion (preferably a normal 30-day WP:RFC than a random talk page thread). There are a lot of people who have discussed this image in various places and we should not act to change the status quo without a new consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The usual thing is to hold a non-free review, but I don't know where those happen now, and I hope you don't put us through it. Pinging Masem and Martijn Hoekstra who made the same point about the Ratajkowski image. SarahSV (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The 3rd issue cover is 100% unnecessary on this article given that it is justifiably used on Ratajkowski's article. The only non-free cover should be the 1st issue one, linkage to Ratajkowski's article is sufficient to demonstrate the image there. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 Tony, it's been five days and the consensus is clear. If you want to argue that two non-free covers are justified, I think you need to open an RfC. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you seem to have WP:CANVASSed your way to a consensus to delete the images. When contacting people from a prior discussion, you are not suppose to contact everyone who agrees with you and ignore people who disagress with you to build an apparent consensus. Looking at HJ Mitchell prior non consensus decision, he advised that future discussions be held at WP:NFCR, which has now been merged into WP:FFD. Thus, you both CANVASSed supporters of your argument from that discussion and ignored the proper venue. It may be the case that there is a consensus now, but I still think you should follow protocol and contact parties on both sides. You seem to have ingored the opinions of Chillum and Jab843 from the prior RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger Actually SlimVirgin didn't contact me, she mentioned my name in this discussion and I saw the notice that she had.  She did not contact me again nor use any other form of communication to alert me to this discussion, it would be just the same as the ping you now have from me.   I've kept my hands off the article page, because you know where I stand with the images, but I have to say, you really should strike the accusations of canvassing.  KoshVorlon 16:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
O.K. so she only pinged only people who agreed with her, which is the modern form of WP:CANVASSing. Pinging people is a form of gathering an audience to form a consensus. CANVASS clearly states "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", but she only pinged people who agreed with her.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treats!. 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/20140715010055/http://treatsmagazine.com/ to http://treatsmagazine.com/
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) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

The article does not have any post-2015 information.
The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.
Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


### Treats!