Talk:St. Louis/Archive 2

message: I want to add the following to the Saint Louis, Missouri article.
Throughout his life T.S. Elliot reclalled the city of St. Louis as having "affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done" and counted himself "fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London."
I am searching for the source of the comment. 
If you are of the opinion that is is copyright infringement, please see:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
which I quote, in part, below:
One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
   1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
   2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
   3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
   4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or
notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” 
and
therefore I believe this "short" and "not for profit" and "educational" example and “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" qualifies the foregoing under the Fair Use Doctrine elements.
Now if you are a lawyer or qualified legal scholar (I have a Paralegal degree -- Santa Monica College, 1987)and have done copyright practice for pay and for myself, let's talk. If you can't say you know the law, please stay on the sidelines. 66.81.194.20 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a copyright concern, but I would be a little it concerned about the relevance of the quote at the very start of the article.  Perhaps a more appropriate place would be closer to the end, with a section entitled "Quotes about St. Louis" or something to that effect.  I havelaso always liked Mark Twai's quote to the effect of "The first time i saw St. Louis I could have bought the enire city for $6 million and it is the regret of my lifetime that i did not do so".  I'm sure we could find some other good quotes (including some negative ones from Tennessee Williams) about the city.  TMS63112 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think st. Louis is a wonderful, special place and I have created and edited a number of articles that I hope help convey what makes St. Louis unique to readers.  I personally identify very deeply with the sentiments expressed in the Eliott quote.  However, we are creating an encyclopedia here, not a promotional brochure.  I'm not sure the quote belongs at the start of an encyclopedia article about the city.  Maybe I am just trying too hard to keep my own biases in check.  TMS63112 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy to wait a while and let other editors give their thoughts on this.  I was just sharing my own reaction.  Others may disagree.  I'm sorry if my comments came ofas harsh.  That was not my intention.  Meanwhile, I'd be happy to continue this discussion at my talk page or you can e-mail me by following the e-mail link from the toolbar on the left hand side of the page at my user page.  By the way, I agree with you about the official name being St. Louis rather than Saint Louis, but since we have redirects for each spelling, I don't care too much and have stayed out of that discussion TMS63112 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not keen on having the quote at the beginning of the article either but I don't have a strong objection. It doesn't really bring any additional information though it is a nice quote setting the character of the city through the experience of a notable person. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like quotes but they're not necessarily unecyclopedic; especially if it fits very well in context it could fit appropriately in various parts of the article. Evolauxia 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A possible solution is to use a quote box, for example:
 Evolauxia 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not finding an article for Gaslight Square.  Am I doing something wrong?  TMS63112 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I did some trial and error trying to place the quote box in the infobox (I didn't expect it to work on a template and it didn't) as well as below it, to no avail. When I tried to place it on the right and below the infobox, it would be on the right but to the left of the infobox in the text field. The Apotheosis photograph seemingly works differently as a graphic, as I tried placing the quotebox just above it as well, to the same effect. I did change the sample width to 250px to match the standard graphic size for city infobox templates, if someone figures out how to place it there. Of course, I'm open to wherever it's decided to place it. A source would be nice too, as it's standard to cite it, and the year would be nice to place the period especially since St. Louis has changed a lot from the turn of the century and even the time of Gaslight Square. Evolauxia 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it is now ready to placed in the article. The proper spelling has finally been taken care of as well. Evolauxia 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed preamble to the St. Louis MO WIKI article. 

message: Seeing as articles are supposed to exist at the most common spelling of their name, and almost everyone, including the city govt. spells it "St. Louis", I've moved the article to the much more common spelling. Compare Google hits: 1 and 2. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-4 18:24
:Thanks! I took the liberty of changing most of the references to "Saint Louis" to "St. Louis" in the article. I left the links intact though. Someone else can go through and fix the target pages then fix the link here. GT 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I went through and and left intact the names of places and things in which Saint Louis is actually spelled out (Saint Louis university, Fair Saint Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum). Please don't change any further spellings of "Saint Louis" unless you're sure that it's not supposed to be written out. GT 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that's a long time in coming. Evolauxia 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Gentlemen -- We have liftoff!Mark Preston 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rockin', Brian. Oft talked about, only a few objectors, but it really was needed. Now to go fix my articles —Wikibarista 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to St. Louis

message: I'm starting a new section, the last one is too long.  Your reason for the quote's inappropriateness was that you didn't like why Mark wants to include it.  As I've said, I find that to be an utterly unconvincing argument.  The quote can appear at the beginning, and it can be eye-catching.  I do not agree that the quote box cannot be at the top of the article.  I would agree, however, that the quote box itself is inconsistant with other city articles, and another way of presenting this information should be selected.  I will not join you in opposing Mark because I don't think his addition violates any policies or worsens the article.  Quite the contrary, I think it makes it better.  I'm here to figure out how it can be included.  And frankly, I'm running out of ideas. Bjsiders 04:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my comments are too long and boring as you STILL don't seem to have gotten far enough in my comment prior to the last one to have read my reasons. I'll make it brief from now on. It is not significant or noteworthy that someone is proud of their hometown. Every big city has millions of current and former residents, many of whom considerably more famous than Eliot, who give praise to the city they come from. For that reason  I find the quote to be quite NON-NOTABLE, UNIMPORTANT, and even PEDESTRIAN.  Unless you think that every big city in America doesn't have dozens of people more well-known than T.S. Eliot who have similar things to say about it, you need to offer me a different justification for including the quote or even FEATURING it as you appear to have changed your mind on that matter. (Before: "I am not advocating for a 'featured' quote", now "It can be at the beginning, and it can be eye-catching"). — GT 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm not going ti keep responding if you can't control your snarky attitude.  I do NOT think every city, big or small for taht matter, doesn't have dozens of proud and famous former residents.  I have no problem with any of them wanting to include quotes from those people in their articles.  There is also no change of mind.  I am not ADVOCATING a featured quote, nor do I find the presence of one to be a NPOV violation.  The two opinions are not mutually exclusive. Bjsiders 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I will not be done until you satisfy my complaints. — GT 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preamble Redux 

message: I have edited the history section to include some discussion of TS Eliot, along with Tennessee Williams and Sarah Teasdale as notable individuals in the field of literature who lived in St. Louis during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  (I have also added some sub headings to break up this rather long section).  I have noted that Eliott was a fan of the city while Williams despised it and I have added the quote box (as proposed by Evoluxia) with the quote that Mark proposed as a "preamble".  If someone else wants to find a Tennessee Williams quote about what a miserable experience he had in the city I don't see how we could keep it out in the interest of balance and NPOV.  Hope this is the start of a compromise that everyone can live with.  TMS63112 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see that Eliot is mentioned now and that some good is coming of this increased attention to the article besides the quote business. Personally after seeing the quote in place I don't think it belongs (especially when you imagine when and how you might have to put a competing quote next to it) but if the rest of you like it then I won't object. — GT 04:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote 'aye'. Mark Preston 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Compromise