Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.

Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos of Living People

So, it's been talked about, hinted at, and finally, appears to have happened -- a group of editors have decided that there should be NO "fair use" rationale for promotional photos of living people.

The short version: If an image is a press hand-out or other "for media use" image, and it depicts a living person, the image is deemed to be "unfree" (the horror!) and replaceable with a "free" image, usually one from a Flickr stream (and usually, an image without the subject's approval). Several hundred of these images have been deleted over the past week; many, without following the proper guidelines for image deletion.

Of course, there are a large number of people who feel this course of action is perhaps emphasizing the wrong word in the Wikipedia goal to "create a free encyclopedia" - valuing the "free" far more than the "encyclopedia." And, I have to say, I'm one of them -- If a promotional photo is distributed for wide media re-use, with the approval of the subject, photographer, and copyright holder, and the image is sourced and tagged appropriately, who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia? Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable.

Please note: I am aware of Jimbo's feelings on this, and would encourage editors to refrain from the tired "But Jimbo says..." posting that even now, some editor is composing. I am more interested in OTHER EDITORS feelings about this. Should Wikipedia replace all professional promotional media images with images such as this? :Image:Kristen Bell.jpg Or should we hit the wayback machine a bit, and allow sensible fair use of copyrighted promotional photographs, such as was done until this most recent spasm of anti-promophoto editing? Jenolen 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion break 1

• I couldn't agree with you more. A press photo is by law 100% usable for any purpose here on Wikipedia. and should not present an issue for us. It is nutty to think otherwise.--BenBurch 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you point us in the direction of the law you are referring to here? --Sherool (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The massive deletion campaign that has gone on in recent weeks, eliminating thousands of properly tagged promotional photos (many of which are irreplaceable) is seriously damaging our project. The use of horrible photos such as the one you present above supports your argument that such personalities may wish to have no association with our encyclopedia after seeing such an image of themselves here. Badagnani 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Were they deleted from the Wiki, or just from where they were referenced?--BenBurch 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. I have a list of such images on my user page. Jenolen 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have lost at least 32 images in the past week as well, not to mention countless hours of work both creating and defending the images. In many cases said images were obtained directly from the artists themselves, and involve persons from around the globe who don't walk into major public forums. In my case, the rule applied has been nearly universal - if the person is alive, your press or promo photo gets deleted, and nothing you can add to a fair use rationale can change it. Period. After this experience, I have stopped loading any images onto Wikipedia at all, and I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward. Many of them will not give up control of their images in such a wholesale fashion, and they have otherwise been major Wikipedia supporters. Tvccs 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tvccs said, "I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward."

Indeed. See Wikipedia:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos#Photo_request_boilerplate.

Also keep in mind that any "free" (read: "permissible to use for for-profit and alteration purposes") images of celebrities people create are only going to wind up showing up on sites like this. I can see Wikipedia becoming the premier site for obtaining such photos for alteration and profit, and I absolutely refuse to upload any free permissible to use for for-profit and alteration purposes image of any celebrity because of these ethical considerations. This anwers the questions below of "why not just bring a camera and take a picture?" Copyrighting is not without excellent cause in many cases, after all.

CyberAnth 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen this level of deletion going on but if you're in contact with the person and have a chance to meet them, why not just bring a camera and take a picture? There are some pictures that we'll miss, but for a lot of the media figures (minor actors and so forth), if they don't want to give us a picture that fits our requirements, it hurts them more than it hurts us. They want their picture in Wikipedia and are constantly trying to spam us to insert articles about themselves (hang out on AfD sometime). An awful lot of our articles about actors, musicians, etc., except for the most important ones are basically spam (material created by publicists). We're not a publicity agency and we don't need those pictures. 67.117.130.181 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Material created by publicists" is not spam. Spam is material with no useful content. Material created by publicists, although perhaps pov, perhaps hyperbolic, is still not spam. Wjhonson 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. At the very least, the amount of prior discussion with the parties involved should be proportional to the number of images affected. If you are going to delete one photo because you think it's wrong...fine, "Be Bold". If you plan on deleting ten of them for the same reason then you'd better talk with some other editors about it first. When you plan to delete hundreds to thousands - the entire community needs to be involved on a much larger scale discussion with full consensus before proceeding. Talk first, delete later. SteveBaker 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• People don't come to Wikipedia because the images are free, they come here because of the information. Never remove a (properly tagged) fair-use image in favor of a free one, if the fair-use image illustrates the subject better. -Freekee 15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes actual sense if actual quality was the priority, good luck. Tvccs 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Partial support. Do replace fair use images with free ones; yes, even ones that are of slightly lower quality. (The example is too blurred to be useful, but anything better would qualify.) Promotional photos will always be of somewhat higher quality because they're taken by expensive photographers; fair use images will be taken by volunteer editors, very few of whom meet those qualifications. If we don't replace them, there will be no incentive to take truly free photos. However, don't remove fair uses images until free ones become available - it is unrealistic to expect volunteer editors to go to the lengths that paparazzi go to to snap photos. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, take a look at this discussion: User:HeartThrobs/ImageTalkRebeccaCummings.jpg. A promotional agent for a "star" specifically puts up a fair use image, when it's trivial for him to put up a truly free one. That's an example of fair use images that should go to provide encouragement for free ones. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • "Trivial"? You're kidding, right? Maybe you read User:HeartThrobs/ImageTalkRebeccaCummings.jpg too fast. The link contains a good rationale for why posting free allowable-for-profit-and-alteration-by-anyone-anywhere images on the web is often a very stupid idea. CyberAnth 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Concern. I am concerned that you might be misunderstanding — or worse, misrepresenting — the choices available to us. We are not forced to choose flatly whether to allow fair use or not. We have before us a more nuanced choice. If it is possible to replace a 'fair use' image with a genuinely 'free' one, we should definitely be doing that. Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case.

If a 'free' image exists, it very seriously weakens any 'fair use' argument associated with a promo photo; it also weakens Wikipedia's claim to be a 'free' encyclopedia when we include non-free images in our articles. You ask rhetorically (I presume) "who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia?". I'm going to answer anyway — you're not required to decide or interpret. If the image hasn't been explicitly released under a free license (GFDL, CC, PD, etc.) then it's not copyleft enough, and we should seek a genuinely 'free' alternative. It's kind of a no-brainer.

Note also that it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to make stars look pretty. Their agents ought to be well aware of Wikipedia by now; if they want the promotional value of a pretty Wikipedia picture, they can provide us with one under an appropriate license. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No one releases images to Wikipedia. That is pure BS and deceptive to say to someone and agents can see through the euphemisms. You are asking them to release images to the world for use by anyone anywhere for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes. Wikipedia just gets to use the images after that fact, in the rare instance it occurs. If I were famous much because of my image and my agent released an image of me for use by anyone anywhere for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes, I would fire that agent as a completely irresponsible idiot. So many editos and admins have deluded themselves that "people just don't know about the GFDL and Creative Commons. Nonsense. It is that they have heard about them, and dismissed them as stupidly against their interests. Hello Wikipedia Paparazzi. CyberAnth 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case. -- But this is not how the policy is being implemented. As has been noted, a "delete all promotional photos of living people immediately" campaign is already well underway. As for star agents/publicity people, they DO make their stars available for promtional photos all the time... it's just that the current system (stars pose for studio photographers, in character, for photos released by the copyright holder) seem to mandate "fair use." You're not going to convince the entire entertainment world to release to Wikipedia, alone, images that are in totality, "free/libre." There will ALWAYS be rights reserved by the copyright holder, which is why fair use MUST be used. But there are plenty of editors who would rather have NO IMAGE than a fair use image, and these editors have been especially vigorous in implementing this new "no promophotos of living people" ban. To me, that's counterproductive, and not making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Jenolen 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I mostly concur with TenOfAllTrades. I also note that a lot of the photos used are not actually promotional photos released as part of a press kit, and their use is questionable. I am also of the position that having an unfree image up tends to discourage people from taking free photographs: they see that something is already there and will not have the incentive to go out and do so. Unless the image is genuinely necessary to discuss in the article (Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blowing up is a classic example), where it is possible to get a free photo (i.e., the person isn't dead, retired, or otherwise out of public life) I would prefer to see nothing, in order to provide that incentive: promoting future value in the creation of new free content rather than going for the short-term quick-fix but worse solution. In most cases photos of celebrities are nice but not absolutely necessary for the value of an encyclopedia. There are plenty of reference materials on the web available at no cost to view; what makes Wikipedia different is its being free-as-in-speech rather than simply at no cost and we need to act to further that, our mission. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My main concern with the deletion is that too many mass image taggers are failing to consider what relevant information the photo actually provides relative to what a free alternative could actually provide. A current picture obviously could not replace a publicity photo taken many decades ago (though this is arguably relevant only if we're dealing with a celebrity whose specific appearance is important, as opposed to say a scientist), and a free picture could not substitute for an in-character publicity shot or screenshot from an actor's work (yet I have seen pictures of all of these natures inexplicably tagged as "replaceable"). "The subject is alive" is obviously not a catch-all justification for deleting any fair use photo without qualification. Our policies rightfully require that the replacement be able to "adequately present the same information" as the fair use image, and anyone tagging an image as replaceable should not do so if they don't understand what that information is. Postdlf 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is probably changing the subject a bit, but how does wikipedia reconcile discouraging editors from doing original research in articles with encouraging editors to take their own pictures? Shouldn't pictures come from a reliable source, and why wouldn't original pictures be original research? It seems contradictory to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  See WP:OR#Original images. Kusma (討論) 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm glad someone else sees the inherent contradiction between an insistence on prior publication and no original research in written content and an insistence on original images. Tvccs 12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  That's discussed over on Commons. Remember also that the original historical reason for the NOR policy was to deal with physics cranks. OR isn't inherently bad, it's just that we couldn't find a better way to filter out crank stuff than to exclude OR completely. 67.117.130.181 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jenolen says, "Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable." Well, no, it hasn't. The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created -- not where free images already exist. Policy on this issue has not changed in the past few weeks. All that has changed is that people are finally starting to enforce the previously ignored criterion 1. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for using copyrighted images of living people who regularly appear in public. —Angr 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The best excuse in the world; If the picture makes the article better, and it is actually fair or permitted use of the material, then the BETTER picture is the one that ought to be in the article. We want to have the GREATEST encyclopedia, not simply the freest one. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Break the rules. Be Bold. And if you have looked, a lot of the replacement pictures SUCK.

--BenBurch 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we're about having the freest encyclopedia. Having a free encyclopedia means that our work here will outlive all of us, no matter what Jimbo or the board may do. It means that the encyclopedia can be spread to poor families in third world countries, whether whether it's spread solely by non-profits or by market-driven methods. --Interiot 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia grows by being a great source of information. Reducing the amount of information here by removing pictures, and replacing them with images that don't well illustrate the subject (or not replacing them at all) is counterproductive. I would have an easier time accepting this rule if someone could explain the harm in having fair-use and promotional pictures here. -Freekee 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. You're discussing how Wikipedia grows — and certainly, nobody will dispute that adding non-free images and other content to Wikipedia will make it larger. The concern is the effect that non-free material will have on allowing Wikipedia to spread or to be distributed. Mixing free and non-free licensed content in our articles greatly complicates (and curtails) the ability of people or organizations to reprint, republish, mirror, or otherwise redistribute Wikipedia's content. For instance, having non-free images makes it difficult or impossible for an article to be included in a book — or, for that matter, a digital CD compilation — and sold.

I feel that the bigger and more helpful the encyclopedia is, the more it will be spread around, but your point is taken. What I don't understand is why we're more concerned about others passing on our information, than we are about having the best information available. And to TenOfAllTrades, just below, I wasn't suggesting we push the boundaries of "what we can get away with", I was questioning why it isn't within the boundaries in the first place. -Freekee 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a great deal of information here is only one part of what we do — we also have a responsibility (and specifically enumerated aim!) to make our content freely available to as many people as possible. Encumbering our work with images bearing restrictive licences hinders us in achieving that goal. Remember that we're building a free encyclopedia; we're not just assembling a large collection of whatever we think we might be able to get away with on this one particular web site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. The whole damned point behind a press release photo is that you can, with attribution, us it in any publication whatsoever. The rights have been given. You'll have to come up with a better excuse to justify this Political Crunchiness than that.--BenBurch 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The publicity photos I see are usually not so explicit. If they do have explicit releases like that, then we can use them. Here is a photo gallery of U.S. Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar and these are professional publicity photos without any explicit license. News media have been using them but it's problematic for us. (Once she's actually sworn into the Senate, some government photographer will shoot an official portrait and we'll be able to use that since official US govt publications are public domain). 67.117.130.181 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the ones where permission is granted for use, they're not free content. You do not unless explicitly granted have permission to modify them, to create other derivative works from them, or to sell them (though you may in many cases sell publications which include them). You might also get better responses by taking a less antagonistic tone. The "political crunchiness" of which you speak is on the part of the project, not on the part of the individual editors you're talking to. (Well, said editors may hold those views too, but that really doesn't matter. :-)) We aim to create content that is free for those uses, not just reprinting, and so content that we cannot do that to is a poor substitute. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me a non-sequitor that if mirrors and other reusers of Wikipedia content are unable to use fair use material for whatever reason, that Wikipedia should be unable as well. Fair use images are all tagged and categorized as such and so should be easy to filter out; why shouldn't it be up to mirrors to find "free" images to fill in the gaps left by the exclusion of fair use images, rather than Wikipedia removing what it has a legal right to use based on applicable U.S. copyright law?

Regarding "free encyclopedia," the repetition of this mantra does nothing to advance understanding, and suggests that it's an all-or-nothing prospect of a "free" encyclopedia "or" one that "gets away" (?) with fair use. I can understand wanting to minimize fair use, as 1) it makes sense legally to be more cautious than we think the law permits; and 2) there is no need to go out of our way to increase the burden on reusers to filter out fair use content. However, it should be acknowledged that Wikipedia cannot become devoid of fair use-reliant content and "free" without making far more drastic changes than deleting some images, such as the removal of all textual summaries of copyrighted fictional works and textual descriptions of copyrighted fictional characters, the removal of all quotes from copyrighted works... Postdlf 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are images that can't be included in a hard copy of wikipedia (or part of it), isn't the obvious solution just to omit those images in that version? Since wp is technology based, it should be possible to have images that are tagged as not being free identified and omitted automatically. And is there a reference to the "law" that says that publicity photos can't be used in a hard copy? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Angr says, "The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created." That may well be; the change I was thinking of when I wrote that may have been in the {{promophoto}} template, which, until October 2006, had a more liberal wording with regards to that criteria. However, I think it's fair to say that the images I uploaded -- and worked with many admins to properly tweak and tag under the fair use policy when I uploaded them (mostly spring and summer, 2006) -- seemed to meet the criteria as they were being applied at the time. Admins I contacted to MAKE SURE my images were properly tagged and sourced agreed that they, in fact, were. And then, the log rolled. A whole new interpretation bubbled up - this "no promophotos of living people, at all" kick that many editors are currently on. I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I disagree with their implementation of the policy. And I'm glad to see some sensible discussion about it here! Jenolen 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion break 2

• Just my two cents; promotional images are used as such because (in theory) they are excellent samples of the subject (case in point: Image:Davidsedaris.jpg). In my opinion, it makes perfect sense for us to use such photos until a better photo can be found; to remove a photo just because the person is still alive is a poor concept that does more harm than good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And what of the idea that it discourages volunteer photographers from making the effort to find/take free pictures themselves? In the long term, I think that's more harmful, because we don't get anyone with the incentive to take these photos. (For example, does he ever do book tours and signings? If you knew a picture was already there, would you make much of an effort to go seek out one of these events?) If you can find a digital picture of the person to use as "fair use", anyone else can find it on the web too, and we can link to the official site which presumably has them; it's a small inconvenience but better furthers our long-term aims. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see what discourages people from taking their own pictures. If I take a decent quality picture of David Sedaris, I know it has a good chance of replacing that publicity photo on wikipedia because "free" photos are preferred if they are available. And for the record, I've met David Sedaris at a reading, and he's incredibly friendly and accessible - I'd be surprised if he didn't agree to having his picture taken. Now I wish I had brought a camera, but now that I think about it, I do have other pix that could be useful to wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't buy that disincentive argument either. People are too competitive and prideful; they like to point to pictures they took of an article's subject (or maybe that's just me). Furthermore, all fair use pictures should be reduced in size so that they're no larger than needed to be legible; there will therefore always be the incentive to improve upon these fair use shots with a larger, high-res GFDL photo. Postdlf 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The practical experience we've had, however, suggests very strongly that image removal does trigger replacement; already a number of fair use images that had been around for months or years have been replaced in very short times after being removed. I suspect this is largely a question of the need for an image becoming much more visible. --Robth^Talk 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The above is a lovely sounding anecdote totally unsupported by any actual meaningful facts or actual research. Tvccs 05:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Certainly not one of the promotional photos of very obscure Asian liquors has been replaced, nor likely will be. Despite my justifications to this effect, every single photo of this type was deleted, almost all without serious discussion. The deleting editors, of course, have not lifted a finger to find such replacements, nor likely will they. I certainly will never upload another photo to Wikipedia, after the treatment I was subjected to in this regard. This campaign has impoverished us all, and really for nothing, as our own guidelines state that it is extremely unlikely that one of the producing companies would ever object to our use of photos that they placed online for the very purpose of promoting knowledge of their products. Badagnani 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
          • In response to Tvccs's comment, here are some articles where promotional images had been used when a free image was already available (not even a hypothetical one where it had to be created): Lauryn Hill, Coldplay, Rihanna, Matt Thiessen, and Jack Johnson (musician). —ShadowHalo 06:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If I had a digital camera, you bet your ass I'd take a picture of a celebrity that I meet and summarily check Wikipedia to see if I could replace a non-free image with the one I took. I think the only people who could be discouraged to replace a non-free image with their own are the same people who wouldn't think about uploading their own pictures in the first place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I hope one of the GFDL only admins will buy you a digital camera and send you out as the first member of the Wikipedia free papparazzi,and pay all of your expenses. Tvccs 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen a real clear answer on this, and I'm hoping someone such as Postdlf will jump in, but let's say EVula DOES take a digital photo of a celebrity he/she meets. I understand that EVula can license his contribution under the GFDL, but how are the personality rights issues addressed? How are the rights of the person photographed handled? Remember - 28 states in the U.S. have 28 different laws; doesn't it make more sense to go the fair use route in this instance? So, and this is the crux of the matter, is EVula supposed to contact the person after the photo has been taken, and get THEM to sign off on it, too? Just because they're in public doesn't mean they've given up all rights to their image, of course... Jenolen 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It is complicated, and will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will depend greatly on the use. Making your own "merchandise" (e.g., t-shirts and posters) featuring your favorite celebrity in your own GFDL photograph is undoubtedly going to get you sued. Publishing and distributing a hard copy of Wikipedia articles with a full cover GFDL photo of a celebrity might as well. The most ironic thing is that the First Amendment protection in the United States that gives Wikipedia the right to make informative uses of celebrity likenesses in our own photographs to accompany articles is arguably as jurisdictionally limited and use-contingent as fair use. Postdlf 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets have a simple study? So why do we want to remove promophotos from wiki? -Because it increases the amount of "Free" content. Why do we want to increase the amount of "Free" content? -Because it makes our work survive even if something happend with WMF, because it increases it usability and because it protects WMF from litigations. Right? Now lets consider each point.

Survival: We do not need freeness for our work to survive. We only need forkability. If an image was a fair use in the contest of a wikipedia article it is a fair use in the context of a fork. For the purposes of forking the fair use is as free as GFDL as far as the "Fair Use" laws in the USA and anological clauses in other countries are valid.

Usability: Wikipedia without images of models, actors, dancers, singers is less usable no questions about this. Most of these images would not be replaced by free images. On the other hand, the fair use image has more limited usage over the GFDL. Users can not use fair images in e.g. an open-source game or as a decoration of a website. In most cases both GFDL and Fair Use are equivalent: we cannot put a GFDL image on t-shirt (without providing the GFDL license and the list of contributors), it is impractical to put anything GFDL into the commercial software, etc. Does a small increase in the potential usage of some images compensate for the removal of many others? I do not think so.

Safety: The less fair use images we have the more we immune to the litigation over abuse of the fair use clause. Since our policy is already strict we are already quite immune to this. Is it the only danger? How about privacy laws? For the fair use images they are the problem of the copyright owner. For the GFDL it is owr problem. The ban on promophotos encourage users to claim copyrighted pictures as their own work. Do you see problem here? By posting images with free licenses we become responsible if the images will become used in an inappropriate way by others (on a website advertising condoms, for example, or in producing photoshopped pornography). Do you know who will be the subject of litigation from the angry celebrity? WMF will. In short I strongly doubt we are to become safer after we remove all the promophotos.

If the deletion of promophotos (even if it is followed by the increased uploads of free images) does not increase our chances for survival, have questionable effect on usability and does not make us safer from litigation, then we do we do it? Alex Bakharev 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the increase in usability of GFDL over fair use images as small as you think; some of the most prominent media in which Wikipedia content will hopefully be reused someday (such as commercially produced books) would be on much surer ground with GFDL images than they would be with fair use images (even promo images).

I'm not sure where you get the statement that "For the GFDL [privacy and other liability issues] is our problem." Wikipedia is no more liable for GFDL images that it hosts than it is for promotional or other fair use images; remember that the holder of copyright over an image retains that status even if they release it under a free license. --Robth^Talk 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL require copy of the license and list of contributors. It is not very convenient for most book publishers. Fair use in the context of the Wiki will be in the most cases the fair use in the context of book. The difference between responsibility for the promophoto and the GFDL image is one is a product of a known and accountable person the second is a product of an anonymous uploader. When wikimedia accepted this product on its servers it surely accepted some responsibility in the case it was a violation of privacy, libel, etc. I guess it could be an important point for the publisher of a book as well. Alex Bakharev 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find a Wikipedia article about a celebrity, it's very nearly certain that same individual is capable of using Google to find an image of that celebrity. (After all, that's more than likely how we got the promo picture in the first place.) For that matter, our article probably links to the celebrity's website. A handful of 'Wikipedia wouldn't be as pretty without this picture', combined with a dash of 'None of our editors can be arsed to get out and take a picture of this public figure', sprinkled lightly with 'It might take weeks or even months to get a picture, and we can't stand to have an incomplete article about my favourite celebrity for that long', baked at gas mark 7 for thirty minutes, does not a fair use soufflé make.

Regarding your point about 'safety', I would strongly recommend that you consult a genuine lawyer about...well, all of your legal assessments. I'm also a bit confused about the use of the term 'usability' in this context...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of the information on Wiki can be found elsewhere if you spend some time doing googling or doing some research in a good library. In the best case the image is just one click away, sometimes the click goes to a dead link or to a foreign language site, sometimes the image shown on the celebrity's site is not exactly one needed for the text, but who cares about such small things, surely all the readers of wiki do not know what to do with their free time anyway. Alex Bakharev 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that most of the promotional photos on Wiki have provided much encyclopedic information. An article about singer/actor X is going to stand or fall on the content of the text, not on whether the picture is pretty. What encyclopedic question is answered by saying "person X looks like this" ? In most cases, as far as I can see, none. Thus, although I respect the work that many people have put into finding, tagging and uploading these images, I can't say I'm sorry to see them go. I've noted an unhealthy image-focus in many new contributors, as well... If we treat our encyclopedia like a photo blog, we end up attracting users who think it *is* a photo blog. It's imperative that we keep focused on our goal which not just to create a great information resource, but to create a great free encyclopedia... things which divert energy from that are best done away with. -- Visviva 07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Remember that guy? He was in Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? And I think he was in Memento, too? That guy? You know, he's got that thin kinda' face? Glasses? Damn... uh ... Stephen something? Stephen Tobolowsky! That's it! Yeah... What's he look like?" It seems to me that this is the kind of question that Wikipedia should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat (or having a massive policy dispute). Promotional photos help answer these types of questions, and in no meaningful way affect the "free-ness" of Wikipedia content. Jenolen 08:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's the kind of question Google Images should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat or having a massive policy dispute. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedic information about him in the form of free content. —Angr 08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting line of thought. I'm fairly certain that you don't think an encyclopedia should be devoid of images. And there's quite a difference between a series of random Google Images results and a Wikipedia entry, I think we would both agree. I would even go so far as to argue that images, and the ability to actually illustrate an article, are what make an encyclopedia much more than just a dictionary on steroids. At the end of the day, I still have no idea why people are so supportive of content that is GDLF free, and so against promotional content that is, under reasonable fair use standards, equally free. It's just odd. Jenolen 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course an encyclopedia shouldn't be devoid of images. But a free content encyclopedia should be devoid of unfree images. In the absence of free images, images (which are secondary to encyclopedic content) should be left out altogether. This is what German Wikipedia does, and its quality as an encyclopedia does not suffer for it. —Angr 09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But there are very important fair use images in the Wikipedia that are not secondary at all. Marilyn Monroe's skirt was cited above, Elian Gonzales and the INS most of us know, even I uploaded one, Gary Hart with Donna Rice. Those are all easily worth any other thousand words in their article, not just "what does X look like"? So we will always have some fair use images, as long as we try to completely cover the topic. Given that, the argument that we should exclude promotional shots to be completely free is invalid. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Angr, I can't believe you're suggesting that pictures are secondary to text when describing a subject. -Freekee 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't? Well, let me say it more clearly then: pictures are secondary to text when describing a subject. If a picture is worth a thousand words, but the only picture is unfree, I'd rather have the thousand words. And this includes things like Marilyn's skirt and Elian Gonzales. We aren't the only site on the web. For historical but copyrighted images like that, we can provide links to noncommercial websites that make no pretense to being free content and so can use fair-use images without compromising their principles. Better yet, if there is one, we can link to the copyright holder's own website showing the picture. —Angr 06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. And so Angr goes beyond Jimbo Wales' view, which he called "the extreme end of the spectrum". "... Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplaceable...". Shows how naive it is to call anything the extreme end of the spectrum, I guess. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen. To me, ANgr's attitude is the electronic equivalent of using the technology of the Internet at the level of the Gutenberg Bible. I never knew pictures (shudder) were such an evil thing until now. Tvccs 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your post says "pictures". The commentary to your post says ads. Which do you mean? If the latter, I'd say that they decrease the signal to noise ratio by adding noise to the page. By noise I mean something that doesn't contribute positively to my experience with the page. Victor Engel 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument above what should be how is purely hypothetical as it is based on fairuse images banned from Wikipedia altogether. This is not the case. As such, the fairuse images should be based on existing policies. WP:FUC #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. " (in the specific context as any fairuse claim applies to a specific article.) --Irpen 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite heavyweight enough to address all the issues being discussed here, but I'd like to chime in that I think that the anti-fair-use crusaders are making a mountain out of a molehill. Outside of this little enclave, the distinction between fair use and free images is hardly noticeable. Promotional photos are provided for the purpose of public release, and I don't see why downstream use of Wikipedia's content wouldn't be acceptable under the fair use doctrine. So why is this an issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that it is a free content encyclopedia. That does not mean using everything we can get our hands with low likelihood of getting sued. —Angr 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, as an intellectual matter, the difference between fair use and free content. However, as a practical matter, in the real world, is there any discernible difference, for the purposes of Wikipedia and its downstream uses? I'm not sure that there is.

Remember this is a free culture project, it's being done out of ideological activism, and that activism is why many of us spend our time here doing professional quality writing without getting paid. If all I wanted was a good practical encyclopedia, I'd buy a Britannica cd-rom from Amazon instead of trying (alongside lots of other people) to write a free encyclopedia from scratch. There are more considerations than pure practicality. We're aware of practical concerns and we do things to accommodate them, but those who want us to ignore the ideological side are missing the point of this project. 67.117.130.181 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just worried that by making a fetish out of strict interpretation of "free content" we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• As a relatively new Wikipedian, with no previous experience in the policy-making end of things, let me throw out my perception of the situation to see if it has more than a passing relationship with reality. 1. Official policy directs that a "free" image should be used rather than a "fair use" image, even in the case of promotional images clearly intended to be widely distributed (which legally constitutes an implicit waiver). 2. Recently, rigorous enforcement has begun, including deletion, as if the policy stated that free images "must" rather than "should" be used. 3. Even the most casual glance through this discussion would seem to indicate that nothing approaching consensus has been reached on whether these deletions are appropriate, let alone advisable. Am I missing something? Is there a mechanism to put a hold on the enforcement until consensus is reached? --Jgilhousen 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion break 3

Support. I see no reason to exclude promotional photos. The purpose that they are released is to make it easier for the media to add the likeness of an artist, author or notable person, when traveling to that person to take a photo might be inconvenient. They are commonly used in newspapers, which follow guidelines on notability, neutrality and conflict of interest that are similar to Wikipedia's.--Dgray xplane 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is supposed to be notable, neutral, etc., but Wikipedia material is supposed to be re-usable in publications that do not have to have those characteristics. Even within Wikipedia there's issues with these FU images. If we use a promotional photo of Brooke Shields (famous for bushy eyebrows) in her biography, we might have a problem if someone cropped the photo to just show an extreme closeup of one eyebrow, to illustrate the article about eyebrows. We want content that we and others can re-use like that. 67.117.130.181 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think there's something to be said for reducing our use of fair use, to ensure that we remain a free encyclopedia. Having said that, I would suggest that there are better ways to do this than to mass-delete stuff that's been here for a long time without problems. These ways would include focusing more on getting rid of new unfree images, and to increase efforts to create/obtain free photos/images. These are probably more productive than deleting ancient images, for which the benefit is more than negated by the alienation of long-time contributors. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Hackajar I'm concerned at the requirement of Promotional images being forced into "Fair Use" when the original publisher is dumping images into Public Domain for use. Why does the WP:FU caluse even apply in this case? Hackajar 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Concern Just something minor no one's addressed very well - I noted that one other person suggested 'free' images taken without permission could expose WP to as much, if not more, liability due to using a likeness without permission, but one other thing that I didn't see any mention of - did anyone consider that a lot of celebrity appearances outside of "the general public" are conducted in a "closed" manner such as to prevent people from taking such pictures? It hardly seems a good idea for us to be promoting that WP editors deliberately violate venue rules in many cases to snap GFDL pictures that don't carry the picture subject's permission and risk having venue staff confiscate their photography equipment. UOSSReiska 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell your saying "If I bring my camera to a concert to procure an image that is "Free" for use on wikipedia do I risk 1.) Loosing my camera during entrance search and/or during concert by security. 2.) Open wikipedia to liability because image was procured illigally at concert that prohibits photography." Right?Hackajar 05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I first thought I'd stay out of this debate but Jgilhousen (talk · contribs) has brought up a point that's being lost in the debate storm. Noone can in good faith say that the mass-deletion of fair-use images is massively supported by the community and it's not right for anyone to go on crusade without getting community approval. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I have seen many high-quality free images added to articles after the existing fair-use image was removed. Clearly, restricting fair-use images from being used to depict subjects which still exist (such as living people) has, in many cases, resulted in a freer encyclopedia as there's no doubt that freely-licensed images are freer than fair-use images. That said, the law certainly allows us to use promotional images to depict living people, provided they are promotional images of the people and not of a character that person played. Still, our goal is to produce a free encyclopedia and I believe we should rely as little as possible on fair-use; in fact, I understood this was a core principle. --Yamla 05:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(That is, creating a free encyclopedia is a core principle, not necessarily relying as little as possible on non-free content) --Yamla 05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with replacing, when one is available, a promo or press photo with a GFDL image of generally equivalent quality. I ran into one of these some months ago and after a revert, left the free image alone, even though I don't think it's as good, and it was of a car, and it least it was properly exposed. However, on the now "magic" subject of living persons, what in some cases is happening is members of the GFDL club are out hunting Flickr for images which may be of bad quality, editing and cropping, and using those. Furthermore, they don't even have the courtesy of verifying with the Flickr user what they are doing, and just take the CC license and run with it. I had one of those with an image on the Keith Emerson page, where a period-specific promo photo of Emerson at his peak was replaced with an awful fan image that was washed out, over-exposed and off-color. When I notified the Flickr image holder, a fan of Emerson's, of what had been done, and sent him the link, he immediately chose to relicense all of his images, some others of which have also been "nabbed" in his words, to prevent any such use. Said discussion can be found at the Chowbok Rfc page, If you're going to be changing policy here, you need to have these Flickr grabbers obligated to send a note verifying the use of the image on Wikipedia as being acceptable, especially when they are cropping it as they did in the Emerson case, or you'll open of a far larger can of potential hornets than a thousand legitimate press photos ever could. This copy and run without notice attitude towards Flickr CC images is frankly, disgusting. Tvccs 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here. If the image was posted on flickr with a license that allowed modification of the image (not all CC licenses do), what was the problem as far as licenses were concerned? There's no requirement to notify the original owner of the image, though this may be good etiquette. That the flickr account owner changed the license does not mean that the original image could not still be used under the original license offered by the flickr account owner. The owner of the image clearly and specifically wanted the image to be used elsewhere, this is the whole point of choosing a CC license. This is of course an entirely different matter than the possibility that the image could have been of very low quality and, for this reason alone, unsuitable for use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What I find almost amazing in this instance is that Wikipedians who may be "copyright junkies" don't accept the concept that many of the general public loading images onto Flickr have no real idea how a CC license can be applied, and when they see how, could change their minds, having not understood a CC license in the first place. Tvccs 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I really wonder just how much the average Flickr user understands what CC means. I swear some of them use it because it sounds cool. (Not that I mind when I'm image hunting). Daniel Case 06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• 

  An example image.
  

  ---

  This image is a fair use image. Please help us replace it with a free image.

  Maybe if someone was a bit smarter instead of mass deleting images they could have advertised the need for a new image (using a template) similar to that shown at right. Just a thought. —Mike 06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Now now now...in the words of the Talking Heads, Stop Making Sense. Tvccs 07:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The "help us replace it" caption seems like an excellent idea. Deleting images without replacing them makes the encyclopedia less informational, and seems disruptive and contrary to current wikipedia guidelines. Is there some action that can be taken to get people to stop doing this? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, change the policy. At the moment, images which are replaceable must be deleted after seven days. It is not considered disruptive to follow Wikipedia policies. --Yamla 18:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all about interpreting the policy correctly though. For instance, the Woody Allen article is now illustrated with a picture of a statue of him. Is that as good a representation as the picture that used to be there? Of course it's not and it's not even close. So the quality of the article was downgraded. I understand the objective of free-ness but if we have a fair-use guideline, isn't it precisely so that we can use fair-use images in the event that no alternative of similar or at least close quality? I think editors who are against fair-use altogether are in essence proving their point by deleting them as fast as they can find them. Pascal.Tesson 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this one out - it's indicative of the absurdity of the policy being enforced as it is now. In cases like this, Wikipedia appears as a joke. This helps Wikipedia? Tvccs 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is even more absurd than you think, and illustrates another one of my minor concerns.

That image of the statue is currently dually licensed as CC and GFDL. But it can't be — it's a statue. Statues and sculptures are not specifically exempted from copyright when photographed by themselves, per §106 (as opposed to architecture and fashion). Therefore (and I learned this the hard way), no picture of a statue can be a free image. It must be licensed under {{statue}} instead. And guess what? This kind of fair use is only permitted when you're writing about the statue.

This is dangerous because, by suggesting any pictures of anything taken by a user to represent something are automatically free use, we are conveying a misleading impression of U.S. copyright law.

I'm going to go relicense that picture, and notify the uploader. A lot of people don't realize this one yet. Daniel Case 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is now my understanding that since the statue is located in Spain, where panorama freedom is complete, it's OK. Daniel Case 06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This debate is now in danger of becoming a Woody Allen-style comedy "bit."

"So, how goes the fair use debate?"

"Well, the article on Woody Allen is now illustrated with a picture of a statue of him... and for legal reasons, the statue has to be in Spain."

"I'm going to take that as a "not well."

:) Ah, Wikipedia... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I've had three promotional images tagged for deletion recently. All three are of African artists, and all three came from the website of the National Museum of African Art. Which is part of the Smithsonian Institution. Which allows such images to be used for educational purposes. Now granted, they're articles about artists, which means that they might be better served by being illustrated with an example of the artists' work. But the images are there, and are available, and I don't see why they oughtn't be allowed for use in this instance. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I preface my comments by saying that I support the use of "fair use" photos at Wikipedia, even of living people.

I think the policy on "fair use" needs to be revised before it will be possible to come to consensus on the issue "fair use" photos of lving people. Currently, the the fair use policy does not have aclear definition of "free content". It's not clear whether "free content" is meant to apply to only content produced by the individual supplying it, or whether it also includes proprietary photos which a company has decided to make publicly available free of charge. Clearly those people that are indiscriminately deleting photos that are tagged as "fair use" seem to think that promotional photos are not "free", yet I don't see anything in the "fair use" policy that invariably leads to this conclusion.

Where the policy is clear is on the preference for "free" photos over "fair use" photos. The relevant portion of the policy is:

"Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.......However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."

Whoever wrote the last sentence seems to think that any "free" photo that can be created will adequately give the same information as any "fair use" photo. While I think this is true in many cases, I don't think it's true in all cases. The biggest set of cases would be photos of actors as characters in movies, plays, tv shows ect. Another case would be people whose fame came decades ago, have since faded from the spotlight, and who no longer look anything like they did when they were famous (ex. child actors who only acted in childhood, and who ceased being famous after they stopped acting).

The definition of free content that I would be in favour of would allow for the use of "fair use" photos that have been provided by comapnies free of charge for public use. If this could not be agreed to, then at least the line "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." should be removed. We shouldn't make it impossible to post photos that identify a character from a tv show or movie.Librarylefty 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Free content is any content that gives you the following freedoms:

1. The freedom to distribute the content by any means.
2. The freedom to modify the content in any way.
3. The freedom to distribute modified versions of the content by any means.

As you can see, money does not show up anywhere in the definition. --Carnildo 09:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a case of wikilawyering to push an agenda. The rules say that "No free equivalent is available or could be created". But "could be created" is being interpreted to mean "has any possibility, no matter how slim, of being created". Saying that a picture "could be created" for all living people uses a very unnatural interpretation of that sentence. People aren't just enforcing an existing criterion; they're enforcing an extreme reading of it that nobody who just reads the rule will get from it. Ken Arromdee 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the word that's being misinterpreted in "No free equivalent is available or could be created" is "equivalent". Some editos have dicided that all photos of living people are "equivalent", so that they can use that sentence to justify removal of all proprietary photos of living people. The thing is, all photos of living people are not equivalent. A screen shot from decaeds ago is clearly not equivalent to a photo of the same person taken today.Librarylefty 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

could be created must also be open to interpretation. Could be created - at what level of difficulty? In the Automotive project area, we are constantly removing 'free use' images scanned from car makers brochures because unless the car is really rare or ancient, it's very easy indeed to get a high quality free photo of that car - so we prefer GFDL to free use in almost 100% of the cases. But if we considered...I dunno...a photo of a flag planted at the top of Mount Everest that we were using under some free use criteria - it's almost impossible for us to get a Wikipedian to the peak of Everest with a camera...but one could argue that a GDFL image "could be created"...hypothetically...well, yeah - but if it's impossibly difficult then that's not a fair test. We'd have to agree that such a photo would fall into the "could not be created" category. This issue with celebrities falls somewhere between those extremes. It's actually very hard indeed to get a decent GFDL photograph of a celebrity for an article you are writing. - it could be years before a Wikipedian with a camera gets a good shot. So while you can definitely argue that a free image "could be created" - that's just not a useful measure. The criteria needs to be "could reasonably be created" or something. We need flexibility in these rules - some celebrities are easy to get photos of - others stay hidden and are virtually impossible to photograph. SteveBaker 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support — Deleting promotional images is damaging the project. It is placing the free part of our mission before the encyclopedia part of our mission. I welcome an effort to replace unfree images with free ones, but let's not delete promotional images if we don't have a replacement. Images, free or not, strongly benefit a number of articles in Wikipedia and this stricter approach to images is not helping the project. Cedars 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stongly disagree: We are here to write a free encyclopedia. One that can be redistributed freely. Think beyond this pathetic little website—it may be the 12th most popular in the world, but that's nothing compared to the impact that it could have. That is, if it is free. If it isn't free, there's no more growth beyond this website. If it's free, it can be redistributed around the world, to places without internet connections, without restrictions. Promotional photos with free alternatives do not fit in this mission, and must not be used. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This website is Wikipedia. There has been very little success in creating a offline version of it. Most offline versions would also be able to use the images as fair use. If this wasn't the case, such images could easily be removed since they are all tagged as promotional images. Cedars 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support with every fiber of my being. I hate taking as much time away from editing as I have to argue about this, but this is the right forum for this knockdown dragout. (Also, interested readers might want to check out the guidelines for when images are replaceable or not that I've started drafting. We need to settle that).

  I incorporate everything I said here as if fully included on this page, and add the following thoughts about what happens when this policy comes face-to-face with the law of unintended consequences:

• • The creation of fraudulent "free-use" images: Does anyone really, honestly and truly believe that people won't cheat on this? I'm not the only one whose Adobe Photoshop skills are such that I could disguise an unfree image as an original free one. And, given that one of the most infamous pictures in Wikipedia history was only recently discovered to have been impermissibly enhanced, to the point that it has been taken out of the article in question, after a year or so within with the evidence of enhancement in plain sight, if I were the sort of person so inclined to do this, I would do it. Especially given a strong encouragement to show that quality free photographic content can be created to replace a deleted fair-use image.

    All you'd need would be some flopping (without a telltale giveaway like something in the wrong hand), putting in a different background and perhaps reorienting the subject a bit, then changing the lighting and I bet no one would find for ... months. Do we all remember the last time it took months to catch the sort of thing we like to brag that our million or so pairs of eyeballs will find and quickly remove?

    The policy direction we are headed at the moment will absolutely encourage this if we continue to send a huge message that we want free-use images and we're not too picky about where they come from as long as we get them.

• • The whoring of Wikipedia. I got into this when I was notified that the book cover photo of Alice Sebold I had found and uploaded was being bounced. So, I tried to do the right thing and emailed her agency about getting the photo released. They don't own the rights; instead, Jerry Bauer, the photographer, does (makes sense). Well, I was given a phone number in Italy to call and ask him about this. If one of the free-use junkies wants to front me about US$20 to handle the phone bill for that, I'll gladly take it and refund you the balance (But how "free" is the image then?).

    Now, if and when I do call him, I have every intention of asking him if he'd like us to create an article on him as a way of sweetening the deal. As someone who's published several books and taken a number of book-jacket photos, he's undeniably notable so I'm not worried about that.

    But what about the borderline cases? I'm certainly not the only editor to see the quid pro quo possibilities here if free images are to be easily acquired. Can we, will we have to add to WP:BIO: "The person has taken quality and representative photographs of a notable person, place or thing that would otherwise not be available to Wikipedia"? Will we create an article on Alan Light? How will this affect the public's perception of Wikipedia? How seriously will editors in deletion debates be taken in arguing for non-notability?

• • It inextricably involves us in the commercial process, with all the attendant ugliness. I have always liked about Wikipedia that decisions here are taken with absolutely no regard to the market, just our own ideals. We don't have to worry about advertisers pulling support, we don't have to worry about keeping our page counts up, we can decide things purely on the basis of whether they're good for the site and its ideals.

    But paradoxically, going to more free-use images would actually commercialize Wikipedia more than permitting the current level of fair-use.

    Why, you ask? Well, the proponents of all free-use images of living people imagine that publicists will eventually see things our way and provide us with pictures of their clients of suitable quality for online distribution (but not as good as what they send out in press packets). Suppose that actually happens, arguendo. Even if the same publicists can somehow stand up to their clients complaining about detailed, unfiltered (and likely vandalism-prone) coverage of their drug arrests, messy divorces or rumored homosexuality right next to the picture they gave Wikipedia and not threaten to relicense them unless we write it their way or get rid of it entirely (in which case, of course, we can respond that we'll put the mug shot in the infobox, but what kind of Wikipedia is that where that would be SOP?), we would thus be more explicitly acknowledging Wikipedia's role as a promotional tool merely by that level of involvement. We have enough "fun" on AfD explaining to angry garage bands that Wikipedia is not there to promote them; imagine trying to make the same argument to someone who can point to Wikipedia's active relationship with the entertainment industry. Yes, the article would probably still get deleted; but maybe you just created a future Willy on Wheels.

    Nope, the current arrangement of sort-of picking up publicity photos second- or third-hand helps us keep that discreet distance from "the industry" that works well for both us and them.

    Another scenario: someone here is able to take a bunch of high-quality free-use pics of some celebrity, uploads them to the Commons at a high resolution and then gets featured picture status (And as an aside, when we consider image quality we should consider that currently our featured picture collection includes only one free-use image of a notable living person (McCoy Tyner) ... and that one is 30 years old). Naturally, media outlets glom onto this and use these images, as well as it being widely reused on the Internet. There is thus no commercial market for most pictures of said celebrity, at least for a while. How will the photographers who make their living taking this sort of picture feel about this, especially when they get emails from Wikipedia editors asking them to release rights or change the licensing on other images?

    Oh, wait ... there would still be one market left for these images: Paparazzi shots of them getting out of cars to buy groceries in sloppy clothing without makeup, or canoodling with spouses of people other than themselves? If that were about the only way to make money taking pictures of celebrities, do you think they'd be even more amenable to allowing free images of themselves to be created and distributed? And if the reverse were true, if we got free images from paparazzi, how do you think they or their publicists would feel about giving us those pictures?

    Can we think about these things? Have we? Daniel Case 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that I support, in that I agree with Jenolen, et al, that the current way policy is being enforced is both legally dubious and unnecessary. I'm not sure I accept Daniel's doom and gloom predictions as particularly likely, but I don't see any good reason for the current policy, except what I've described before as a kind of Leninist attitude that sometimes we have to make things worse to make them better, which I don't think we follow in any other content related area (and, personally, a really really terribly written article that is focused on some really idiosyncratic aspect of a topic and is full of two barely literate POV warriors arguing with each other would seem to me to be generally more worthwhile to delete "to encourage creation of a better article" than a perfectly good fair use picture.) john k 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope most of these don't come to pass, but right now that's all I can do, and as they say in the Army, hope is not a plan. Daniel Case 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion break 4

• 'Strongly agree' - Here is a great example of why requirement of rationale for such images needs to be done away with. Read all the sordid details at Image_talk:John_F._MacArthur,_Jr.jpg. CyberAnth 12:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I personally would stand by the common sense idea that using copyrighted publicity photos is a fair use, as long as we attribute it as a promotional image provided (first or secondhand) by the person in question, or their associates. However, I would prefer use of GFDL images if such are available and of comparable quality to the publicity photo in question. (The use of Flickr CC images concerns me for the reasons others have stated.)

Implicit license is a tricky thing. (I Am Not A Lawyer)

Just as the purchase of a music CD includes the implicit license to play the CD on a single CD player, but not the implicit license to copy that CD, and the purchase of a book implicitly allows the gifting or loaning of that book to a friend, the handing out of a "publicity photo" by a "celebrity" implicitly allows its use in "media".

What is the legal status of the licensing of "publicity photos" or "promotional images" in printed books? In encyclopedias? In tracts handed out on street corners? Online? Until we answer these questions, we have a mess on our hands.

In addition, I would support creation of a new license, modification of an old license, or research into the existing licenses, to explicitly allow such images to be used, with reasonable modification allowed for size/resolution/cropping, and reminding our mirrors that they are as liable for violations of fair use as we are. --BlueNight 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that fair use images and free-use copyright press photos should be allowed. In my opinion, some of these 'completely free' materials are ... well ... not good. I'm not saying ALL are not good, but here's a prime example: Kirsten Dunst - her press image was replaced with a fairly low quality user-taken free image. Now, WHY would you want to degrade the quality of the publication just to satisfy an overly zealous policy of "everything should be free use" etc?

You'd want to portray an image of reputability & quality media to the outside world, AND, keep things free at the same time.

If the subject is not being an issue (say, Kirsten Dunst wants her Wikipedia page to portray her beauty as it is - rather than having a grainy yellow-hue photo of the top of her head ....) - then leave it as it is, with the copyrighted, but free-to-use-and-distribute press photo or publicity image.

Plus, whether we like it or not, a quality image portrays a notion of you're a good source. I'd go to cite a shiny new page - like Wikipedia - vs some 1996 crusty HTML3.0 relic. We like to say otherwise, but people do judge the book by its cover more often than not.

Keep it free, maybe with a little limitation, but I'd say quality & reputability comes first over 110% free.

--Kyanwan 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Break #5

Strongest Possible Oppose Against Not Being Able To Use Promo Photos- If there is any reason why a photo can be used without Wikipedia being used, why would Wikipedia not want to use it? Some might say that commercialization of Wikipedia will follow, but guess what -- that's going to happen anyway unless Wikipedia removes the dynamicism that's made it so big. It's best to move that future into a positive direction -- let people make money off Wikipedia, but while being transparent about it, and with the first goal being contributing to the collective knowledge of humanity. Just H 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose mass deletion of images In my view it amounts to institutionalised vandalism. Changes to and deltion of templates and tags plus the use of 'bots as part of the deletion process has only made it worse. --Henrygb 15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• One counter-example for NO fair use photos: photos of criminals (mugshots, newspaper photos). There's usually no practical and safe way to get picture of a mafioso, yet such image may be valuable for an article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo request boilerplate

User:Chowbok has a boilerplate at User:Chowbok/Photo request boilerplate for requesting "free" images from famous people. Here is the letter copied from the source:

Dear [whoever],

I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is among the
most-visited sites on the Internet, ranking near the top ten according
to the estimates of Alexa Internet (alexa.com).

Unfortunately, our article about you at
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[Whoever]) currently lacks an image.
I am aware that there are publicity images of you available, but since
Wikipedia aims to be reproduceable even for profit and even in nations
where generous United States "fair use" provisions in copyright law are
inapplicable, we cannot use an image that is not released under a
so-called "free license". Essentially, the copyright holder of any image
that we use must irrevocably permit anyone else to use it, modify it, or
sell it, with the only permissible requirements being that the author be
named and that any modifications be released under an identical license.

Example licenses that would permit us to use an image would be: the GNU
Free Documentation License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode), or a simple
"no rights reserved".

Given Wikipedia's great popularity, I was hoping that you could provide
us an image under such conditions. Please do consider this, and feel
free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Kim Scarborough

I find the sample letter he offered very interesting but unclear.

I thought I would therefore suggest a much more clear wording of the letter. This version avoids euphemisms and jargon. It also responsibly lets the celebrity know of some important implications of their decision to release a "free" photo of themselves.

Since our Jennifer Love Hewitt article currently lacks an image, I thought I'd just go ahead and address this letter to her, to make it more realistic.

Here is the sample letter:

Dear Jennifer Love Hewitt,

I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and use for any for-profit or non-profit purpose.

Unfortunately, our article about you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Jennifer_Love_Hewitt lacks an image.

I am aware that you have already made copyrighted publicity photos of yourself available for fair use, and that these depict you as you yourself wish to be depicted in media such as Wikipedia. However, fair use images are not actually allowable within Wikipedia. This is because we must maintain the encyclopedia's entire contents, including all images, as reproducible and alterable for for-profit purposes by anyone anywhere.

We are therefore requesting you to legally and irrevocably release to the world an image of yourself, an image that

• Anyone anywhere may use for profit, and;
• Anyone anywhere may modify as they see fit.

However, we can require that attribution is always made to the producer of the image.

After you have released in perpetuity a photo of yourself under this type of for-profit-allowable and derivative-allowable licensing, we at Wikipedia along with anyone anywhere can then use the photo.

We hope you agree, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Joe Gotdagall

I for one cannot see any possible reason why a famous person would not wish to eagerly fulfill such a request.

CyberAnth 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the letter is somewhat wordy (the response I got when requesting a picture of Morningwood included "that's the wordiest photo request i've ever received"), so thanks for writing up a new one. The new one seems a bit too direct to me though. Would it be possible to rephrase the part about keeping content free so that people know that's one of Wikipedia's objectives and then remove the word "anywhere" (since if anyone can use the image, where they are doesn't really matter)? —ShadowHalo 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not out job to explain the extremely unlikely down-sides of free-licensing. Providing a link to both licences is enough, and it doesnt actively discourage permission... Oh, and that "big boob" site is blocked at my work, so I can only guess at it's content! But, parodies are usually protected by fair use... so licensing under GFDL/CC doesnt actually increase the risk. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys don't understand. Like Tvccs, CyberAnth wants to discourage free images. Their position goes beyond most of the fair-use advocates in that they are actively against free images in any event, at least for celebrities. Don't make the mistake of assuming this "letter" is meant seriously. —Chowbok ☠ 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that they're against free images. What I think they're against are crappy, fuzzy, poor quality free images. And they're trying to make the point that when Jennifer Love Hewitt or whomever actually understands what it means to release a photo under one of these licenses, they're gonna say "forget it".

On a side note... what is Galvatron doing in that photoshopped Jennifer Love Hewitt photo? TheQuandry 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Chowbok does not dispute the accuracy of any of the claims in the exaggerated boilerplate. (Which, I think, makes its point rather nicely...) Sadly, all these things are true... or, at least, so close to current Wiki-truth that they cannot be challenged. I would submit the only fib in the letter as written is: However, fair use images are not actually allowable within Wikipedia. only seems like it's true. Actually, fair use images are allowed... you just wouldn't know it from the number which get deleted for "no copyright info" or "replaceable" or "a photo that only shows the person"... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A prime example of the abuse of the free image license. [1] This photo, which someone apparently uploaded to the commons, appeared in a newspaper article (Daily Mail comes to mind, but I could be mistaken), is copyrighted by that newspaper, and is 100% a fraudulent upload. Yet, here it is uploaded to the commons under a PD author license. And we're worried about fair use images? Give me a break. TheQuandry 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, dare I ask - have any actual lawyers weighed in on this? Surely there's got to be a few out there who'd be willing to do pro bono advisement work. IANAL, but my brother is - and in discussion with him, it turns out that the what the law actually means is rarely as "clear" as some people make it out to be. --moof 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not against "free" images per se, especially when it comes to photos of things or anmials. What I wish to do is responsibly make full implication disclosures to living persons before they release a photo of themselves to the world under a for-profit-allowable and derivative-allowable license. Once that is done, of course, 99.9% of especially the most famous people will respond by summarily discarding the letter in the trash where it rightly belongs. In contrast, this bluebird has no rights it cares about. During its very brief life, it cannot really be harmed by someone snapping a "free" photo of it. And it doesn't care what happens with its photo. I do not think the accuracy of any of the claims in my satirical boilerplate to a famous living person can be countered. Fair use images of living person they release for use is the way to go. CyberAnth 06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me Chowbok, I have never discouraged free images, I have discouraged bad "nabbed" images from Flickr and other sources. I have specifically and publicly stated that I have no problem at all with quality free images replacing promophotos, and have also publicly supported the template proposed that would identify promo photos and ask users/editors to help locate free images. I support an artist or celebrities' right to control the use of their likeness when they are the ones providing it, and fair use images on Wikipedia. The above Jennifer Love Hewitt letter suggested is a very good one in explaining the realities of a GFDL license, something you seem loathe to do to Flickr users. What I do not like is bad amateur images, such as your Keith Emerson Flickr-nabbed image, being substituted for good ones, and not telling people posting on Flickr that their images can end up on Wikipedia as a primary artist image, or notfying Flickr users of your intentions. While some photographers may be flattered, many others do not want their images used in this way. And I do not support the illusory claim that free images are readily available for all of the people we need them for, as has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt, despite the oft-offered flowery statements otherwise. All of the above are facts which, has often been the case, you seem to have trouble dealing with, and others simply ignore or deny. Tvccs 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion break 7

I would like to resurrect this topic, for I believe it is far from settled. Many have argued that the use of fair use non-free images somehow limits the for-profit distribution of wikipedia content. However, they seem to have no problems with for-profit distribution of all the other wikipedia fair use material. This appears to be internally inconsistent.

The purpose of wikipedia is educational. If you want to highlight the "free" aspect of wikipedia, then the current image standard should also be applied to all other media currently approved under fair use rationale; otherwise, said non-image media is somehow "not free".

The removal of fair use image for the purpose of encouraging users to find free images is nonsensical. What is more important to the educational purpose of wikipedia: to provide accurate information, or to unreasonably try to force editors to go out scampering for similar but "free" information in order to facilitate for-profit distribution, especially when such a standard is not applied to other media?

And I say unreasonably because it is not reasonable to expect editors to track down the subject of an article, wherever they may be around the world, to provide a free, still dubiously legal equivalent (acquiring said photographs does not shield wikipedia and its derived content from litigation: photographs taken without the subject's permission or in an unathorized venue are illegal in many if not most jurisdictions, subject to prosecution. And asking people whose living is influenced by their image to release pictures of themselves under a GNU license is both unreasonable and an ineffective way to build content [most artists do not want their image altered for unknown and unauthorized purposes, which the GNU allows]. Using images that said people have already approved, such as promotional/press kit/professional website images, under fair use rationale is much easier to defend as fair use, more likely to elicit the person's approval and much more effective when building content).

Lastly, as I mentioned before, applying the current draconian prohibition on fair use images as opposed to all other forms of wikipedia-approved fair use media appears inconsistent and nonsensical. If someone wanted to distribute wikipedia material for profit, how would it make sense that they could use all other fair use media but not images?

I thus suggest that all forms of fair use media be held to the same standard: either images of living persons or buildings should be allowed under fair use rationale (with a narrower interpretation of the nonsensical "reasonable possibility of procuring free image equivalents" idea), or all non-image fair use media should have the current draconian image standard applied; ie, they should not be allowed in place of free equivalents. Maybe the idea of fair use media should be altogether banished from wikipedia (would that make sense for an encyclopedia whose ultimate apparently implied motive is to be educational)? Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

communication = notification be phone [or even] eMail and at least Snailmail

why not ALERT a user that [at the worst] our 'TOPIC' is about to be deleted or [ the LEASTE] an important responce is in your Bit-Bucket ? ! ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNiRaC (talk • contribs)

Wait, what? Are you saying you want us to send you a postcard before AfDing "your" page? No. A talk page posting and maybe an e-mail is more than sufficient. --tjstrf talk 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But most of the time, users don't even get a notification on their talkpage when an article is AfD'd. Admins just use their arbitrary powers to delete anything they don't like. Walton monarchist89 10:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please (re)read WP:AGF - the view of most of us here, I believe, is that admins try their best (and usually succeed) in being objective about deletions.

Having said that, I do think that it could be a major improvement to have an automated system post a message on user talk pages (as is done, for example, with the Signpost), for, say, the person who created the article (but does NOT, as noted by someone else, own the article), and also post the same message on the talk pages of (say) the last ten editors (or, alternatively, anyone editing the page in the last 30 or 60 or 90 days). John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are huge numbers of editors who fix typos, refine categories and DAB wikilinks on pages they have not made major content changes on. No bot could distinguish them from actual content editors. I would think most of them would be, uh, less than thrilled to start getting their Talk pages filled with notices like this. Fan-1967 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep things simple. Users want their page in good condition : they respect our policy and they put the page in their watchlist. They may use RSS too - see VP:Tech. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• We have such an automated system, it's called a watchlist :) (Radiant) 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contacting users for academic surveys.

Should requests made to user_talk pages, article talk pages, and/or emailing editors be prohibited? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Spam#Academic user surveys. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-17t10:36z

What is your opinion of a Wikipedia user page that announces the following:

I am a born again 5-point reformed/calvinist noncessational, covenantal, evangelical, presuppositional, nondenominational, protestant Christian. I am an apologist in training and a member of CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry). As a member of CARM and the Counter-Cult Movement, I seek to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not yet receive it, defend the Christian faith against nonbelievers, and counter nonchristian cults such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Catholicism, Oneness Pentecostal, Unitarianism, Christadelphianism, Christian Science, and so on.

I personally find it mildly disturbing. He has a lot of other stuff on his page too. And he has a long history of vandalism of other's pages as well in his "spreading the gospel" mission. Comments?--Filll 05:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of that is just basic personal information and the rest is disclosure of bias. Any disruption case against him would have to be pursued based on his activities, not merely his statement of beliefs. --tjstrf talk 05:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can keep an eye on his contribs and take action when necessary. Xiner (talk, email) 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xiner and tjstrf; watch his posts and edits for bias, warn him if NPOV violations are spotted, suggest less inflammatory ways of phrasing his edits or pages, and remind him that Wikipedia is not a tract. I myself am a born-again Christian, and though I believe the necessity of spreading the Gospel, I do it through reasoned arguments when passionate appeals are inappropriate, and through clearing up misconceptions of the faith when reasoned arguments are inappropriate. (And they're inappropriate here.) For example, I recently heard someone say that Jesus was "born again" when He rose from the grave; that is a misunderstanding of the mainstream Christian belief in the Resurrection. Stating common misconceptions is allowed on Wikipedia, but calling someone false or wicked is downright inappropriate. So watch him, watch me, but don't go ballistic at the first hint of an NPOV. Remember, he's an apologist in training. --BlueNight 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As a Roman Catholic I am a little disturbed to find out, after all this time, that I am not a Christian. But I guess he's allowed to say it.--Anthony.bradbury 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He is entitled to his personal beliefs. Evangelism, however is immoral, and we should stop any attempts by him, or anyone else to evangelize their religious beliefs on Wikipedia, should this occur. Atom 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• How dare they hold a controversial belief?! --Infrangible 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Evangelism includes such activities as getting together and debating the pros and cons of a belief system and whether adopting it would be a good idea. There is nothing wrong with this. What would be wrong would be to try and enforce a particular point of view on wikpedia and to prevent others from having their points of view fairly represented. Would you agree with that, tjstrf? Ireneshusband 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that trying to skew articles towards your own personal view is wrong. Though why you target your comment towards me specifically I have no idea. --tjstrf talk 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you might be replying to. I am stating that people that feel that they are obligated to interfere with other belief systems are immoral. We should respect all belief systems and superstitions. No one is suggesting that the facts about any belief system should be omitted or prohibited from Wikipedia. NPOV would suggest that allowing all perspectives is appropriate. What I object to is evangelism, not religion or other superstitions. Evangelism is not a religion, evangelism is a mode of preaching or proseltyzing ones particular religion. Moreso, Christian Evangelists believe that it is their obligation, their duty, a directive from God, to "save" others from their "incorrect" religious beliefs and make them christians. It is a kind of religious imperialism. So, what I am saying is that people who want to interfere with others religious views, or feel obligated to force their personal dogma on others should be asked to do that elsewhere.

Remember that the original context was concern given about editor/user User:Jedi_Davideus whose user page says "I seek to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not yet receive it, defend the Christian faith against nonbelievers, and counter nonchristian cults such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Catholicism, Oneness Pentecostal, Unitarianism, Christadelphianism, Christian Science, and so on." and "My goal in Wikipedia is to ...Counter/correct biased articles that are slanted towards a secular point of view ", "From my experience, many articles are presented either from an atheistic, evolutionist, or simply a secular point of view."

Of course I respect his right to be whatever he wants, and to believe whatever he wants, and to practice his religion however he chooses. I do have concerns if his intent is to vandalize Wikipedia articles by trying to remove non-theistic, evolutionist and secular views in favor of views that he has stated (for instance, that catholics and mormons are not christians, and his intent to push his views on others.)

Atom 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree except I don't think you can call it vandalism. Nil Einne 09:50, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Advertisement

(moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (all))

Is it just me or has someone just broken the guideline about not having any commercials on WP sites? The "this company will match all the donations" in the banner surely doesn't stick to it, although it is supposed to be for a fundraising purposes. But this can lead to a snowball. Just mentioning, probably someone else pointed this out before. --Tone 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The "someone" you speak of is the WMF Board. I think they know what they're doing. This is helping to bring in significantly more money, which will let us serve up even more free content over the long run. --Cyde Weys 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with any fundraising efforts by Wikimedia, but I wish there were a way for registered users to dismiss the ad for the duration of the campaign. Xiner (talk, email) 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You can! Click the "dismiss" link. --brion 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But it gets undismissed if MediaWiki:Sitenotice id gets incremented? (which it just was) --Interiot 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may have to push the button once or twice more over the course of the fundraiser when major new announcements come in. I hope that is not too big a hardship. If it is, you could hide all sitenotices in your custom CSS with something like "#siteNotice { display: none; }". --brion 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dismissing the notice only disables it for that page. If I only had to do it a few times over a campaign, I wouldn't mind it at all. As I know I can't afford to donate right now, the only thing the notices are doing is bringing the donors to my attention, i.e., making the notices a form of banner ads. I wish I didn't have to hide all sitenotices just to avoid them. Xiner (talk, email) 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dismissing the notice sets a cookie which suppresses that particular notice from being displayed ever again on your browser. When major changes are made to the notice, it can be set to a new version number which thus requires a new (one-time) dismissal. This is so that your dismissing the present fundraiser, for instance, won't suppress a notice of downtime in the future.

For the current fundraiser, we're also bumping the notice version when major new developments are added (such as a new matching donor notice). That's not my personal decision, but I don't run the fundraiser, I just make the machines run.

It should not be different for each page you visit; due to caching sometimes effects can be funny but you shouldn't see that. Can you describe the problem in more detail? Details of your web browser/version and if you're using some kind of cookie-suppression proxies would be helpful. Suppressing cookies, obviously, will prevent the information from being saved and you would see the notice anew on each page view. --brion 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's reassuring to know. It just seems to me that the ads are appearing on, say, an article page after I've dismissed it on my watchlist page. However, I'm sure you're well aware of the feeble memories even advanced computer users have in relation to their experiences on their computer, so I'm going to make a conscious effort in the future to observe what exactly happens when I dismiss any of the notices, and I'll post here if the behavior is truly not as you describe. Thanks in advance!

For the record, I use Firefox 2.0.0.1 on WinXP Home, nothing between it and my DSL connection besides very lax settings on ZoneAlarm. Xiner (talk, email) 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Offhand I'd suspect something blocking the cookie, either in Firefox or ZoneAlarm. There should be a 'dismissSiteNotice' cookie on en.wikipedia.org, which should have contents '3.2' for the current version. In Firefox's preferences check the cookie settings; is there an 'exception' blocking that cookie, maybe? Or it might be somehow stuck at the wrong version? Offhand I'm not sure if ZoneAlarm can do that sort of cookie-blocking (I only use Windows for IE testing, really, and haven't fiddled with ZoneAlarm), but check that too maybe... --brion 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"en.wikipedia.org FALSE/FALSE 1169863658 dismissSiteNotice 3.2" Xiner (talk, email) 13:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, it's obnoxious and hypocritical of them in regards to WP:SPAM. Basically they're saying you can buy out WP:NPOV if you've got enough cash. Get rid of the Virgin thing. Just H 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way is NPOV being bought out by Wikimedia publicly thanking a donor during a fundraising drive? Examples please. --brion 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no we're not. Look at the Virgin articles; [2] is the net change to Virgin Group since this time last month. I didn't see any apparent sign of NPOV violation.

We're getting a large donation. We're thanking them for it. It's not spam; it's not an advertisement; it's not selling out. It's common politeness. Shimgray | talk | 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Their recognition isn't being limited to a proportional sized banner on the donations page. Their recognition isn't being limited to a ditty that says "matched by Virgin..." underneath each donation that they match. It is being foisted upon every site visitor. Please don't insult our intelligence by saying that an advertisement isn't an advertisement. They have paid WMF to carry their ads, and the board for some reason has permitted it. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is common behavior for a non-profit. Ever notice the corporate logos of the sponsors on the back of those 5K runs for charity's T-shirts? Ever notice that (for profit) Pro Sports leagues have official charities? WMF isn't Jimbo and Brion and a couple of servers at a Co-Lo anymore... it's a rather high profile organization and I for one would like them to do what they need to (within reason) to fundraise sufficiently. If WMF can't get enough funding for what an organization of its size will be expected to do, we'd all lose, I think. --W.marsh 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have permitted it. To address one of your points, the matching donation notice isn't just for donors to see that their donation has been matched. It is also to encourage others to donate knowing that their smaller donation will make a larger difference, which it generally does. People will not know that there is a matching donor unless there is notice. For the other, this was not an exchange, not a "we'll give you this if you'll put up the logo". They offered to make the donation. It is rather expected that there will be some public recognition, not because it is a contracted-for obligatory part of the transaction, but because it is simply the Thing You Do in recognition when a donor offers you large amounts of money. (Look at other nonprofits to see how they recognize their benefactors!) We chose what it would say and how it would be presented. Their identification will be up for the one day during which they have pledged to match individual donations. Not one word of the site content has been touched because of this, nor will it be, nor do Virgin Unite have any say in what gets displayed. You may wish to read the Fundraising FAQ, if you haven't already, for more background on the matching donations. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the FAQ again. Yes, I did read it. But it is still an advertisement, no matter what the guise used is. I do understand that most other non-profits are quite unscrupulous in advertising these days. WMF has for a long time been a refreshing relief from that commercialism-creep. I do not understand why the decision was made to 1) sell a logo space, 2) mention the donor's name at all on the link to donations. You very easily could say "Contributions today are generously being matched by a benevolent corporate donor", then, on the list of contributors page, go hog wild. I still do not see the urgency that prompted the board to take such a vitriolic action. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

all points raised so far are very valid, but personally (and i'm certainly not disputing the fact that all donations are welcome), i would feel a hell of a lot better about things if the notice linked to the wiki article rather than something that is metawiki. --Kaini 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting reason here - it originally linked to their website. Within twelve minutes of the sitenotice going up, we killed their website; so we put together something to do as a replacement. We used the Foundation site, rather than the Wikipedia article, because a) it removes the risk of vandalism, which would be unbelievably tempting for a page *linked from everywhere on the site*; b) no other wiki had an article on them (and the en one wasn't even a separate article at that point; it was two lines which had been merged); c) it wouldn't have been appropriate to have something which is in effect an editorial message for the Foundation in article-space; at least there we can say "thank you". Shimgray | talk | 11:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see both sides in this. I have one question. If this is not an ad, but a thank you and an attempt to encourage donations because they are being matched, why doesn't the banner say "All donations received today will be matched"? If there is a quid pro quo, then it is an ad. If there isn't, then we should get it off the front page. -- Samuel Wantman 08:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. No amount of repeating that it's not an ad will make that go away. The board says it isn't quid pro quo, and I'm sure that's how they see it, but they're mistaken. Putting up a company's logo in the site notice gives their logo tens of millions of views, i.e. it recognizes their donation several orders of magnitude more than the donations of others. To get that extra exposure, all you need to do is provide enough cash. That's quid pro quo.

Other donors don't really need to know who is matching their donation to be encouraged to donate more. We already have pages where we recognize donors, and we can link to them. At least the logo, which includes a recognizable logo of one of the world's major corporations, should go ASAP. Zocky | picture popups 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If the link and logo are considered to be an advertisement, it's an advertisement for a charity. Would there be equal amount of complaints if the link said "All donations today will be matched by International Committee of the Red Cross" with the Red Cross logo displayed next to it? --Bobblehead 08:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would still argue that it would be better to say "All donations today will be matched" and have a link to where it says who is matching the contributions. I also wonder what effect being linked to every Wikipedia page will have on the organizations Google rankings. Perhaps that is all they are after. I just don't want to see the same slide into commercials that happened with public radio. I don't care who the sponsor is. Today the Red Cross, tomorrow the Gates Foundation, and next week Microsoft, Wal-Mart and Exxon. -- Samuel Wantman 09:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be arguing against the red cross too, although this is much worse than the red cross. If the idea of Virgin Unite was 100% charitable and 0% commercial, it wouldn't be advertising the fact that it's Virgin that's financing it. Zocky | picture popups 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the PBS runs ads; the fact is some companies will only donate if they can get their name in front of a desirable demographic. The Red Cross isn't the greatest argument, however, as we all know -- or should know -- about the persistent mismanagement of the American Red Cross and of its blood banks. Maybe there's a bigger point here too. Xiner (talk, email) 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an ad for The Red Cross would meet objections for all the same reasons. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this started quite a debate. First of all, sorry for putting the comment on the wrong place at the beginning. Now I've read the FAQ and of course everything was done in good faith. Still, I would prefer having just a link to the thanks notice, not a full logo, as mentioned above. Although I am not perfectly happy with it, let's hope that this way of foundraising with asociation with some companies remains the only one used here. I really wouldn't want it to spread and neither would the community, I think. --Tone 11:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say I agree with most contributors here, that this is clearly an ad. Why can't we just write that donations are being matched by an anonymous sponsor like we did before? This is a step in the wrong direction for the WikiMedia Foundation! Snailwalker | talk 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here, it's clearly the wrong direction :-( -- Yalla 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to live in an ad-free world. The reality is that in exchange for a NAME (not a video, not a full-page ad, not a pop-up box, not a banner ad), which appears for a FEW DAYS during an annual fund-drive, the Wikimedia Foundation gets at least an extra hundred thousand dollars. Which gets more servers and bandwidth and maybe even another programmer or two, and makes the site a whole bunch better. And there even is a way to hide that "ad".

That is insufficient justification for compromising morals and ethics. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a slippery slope, this is a well thought out tradeoff. Does anyone here refuse to get a flu vaccination because getting the vaccination hurts (pointy needle)? Insist that until there is a fully-effective, fully painless flu shot available, no one should get flu shots? Argue that if doctors are allowed to do anything painful (like give shots), the next thing that will happen will that they will be torturing patients? This isn't a step in the wrong direction - it doesn't commit the Foundation to anything in the future, and the extra money is precisely what will reduce the need for any type of more obtrusive advertising. John Broughton | Talk 14:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind an ad I can click a dismiss button on. But it keeps coming back, it is very annoying. If I was going to donate I would have. Is it a bug that causes it to keep returning, or by design? Is there something I can use in my monobook.css to get rid of it once and for all?

Sorry, but advertising bugs me, I avoid websites that advertise. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a bad analogy. Flu shots are bad not because of the pinch felt on delivery, but because they weaken the collective immune system of the entire human race (ironically, in the name of strengthening it.)

Actually, that is a good analogy. Allowing advertisements for any reason, in any fashion whatsoever, infinitely compromises the integrity of all WMF projects. It also breaches faith with every single contributor to helped build it during the "ad-free" era. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are the minutes from the board meeting publicly available? I presume there was a vote of some sort taken by the board for this action - are those formal/informal vote results published anywhere? (With or without the discussion that accompanied it.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC, see some of the above comments by Brion; once you click the "dismiss" link, the SiteNotice should disappear everywhere. (It will occasionally re-appear if the SiteNotice is updated, but these should be extremely rare, and you can simply click "dismiss" again.) Do you have cookies enabled? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, why are ads so evil?

There seem to be two main objections to ads here:

1. We're giving Virgin publicity
2. We're giving them influence/the appearance of influence/a slippery slope towards influence

In case #1, I hardly see how the publicity is a problem. Sure, Virgin is gaining something out of this, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to lose.

Case #2 is potentially valid, but objecting to the sponsor notice is totally missing the point. The sponsor notice doesn't give Virgin any additional influence; all the (small amount of) influence they have comes from the fact that they're giving us money. If you really care about that, you should be saying that the Foundation should be rejecting donations from all corporate entities. But since this is a one-time event, and I trust the Board to be savvy enough not to become dependent, I don't see why it should be considered a problem at this time. ~~ N (t/c) 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1. WMF has existed without advertising for a very long time, with the implication (and IIRC, the occasional direct claim) of being ad-free. The reversal now is a slap in the face to anyone who has contributed in the past several years.
2. The propriety of putting a 'benefactors' thing on the existing donor pages was undermined by the addition of an advertisement on every single page.

Someone commented earlier (then removed the comment) that the ad was not a very good one, in that significant searching was required to get to the right organization in the UK. At this point, I'm not sure if that charitable-payroll-deduction donation entity even is who is being advertised. But that would be beside the point. It isn't about who is advertising, it is about the reversal by the board to allow advertisements, now. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Further reading: http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/consumerangst.html#Big_lie. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that WMF official position has never been to rule out ads, but rather to say that other funding options are preferred as long as they are adequate. What is adequate is of course a matter of opinion and subject to what you believe the WMF's goals ought to be, but I don't blame the WMF for deciding that one day of exposure is worth up to $250,000 in matching funds. Dragons flight 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can take it upon your own conscience to sell out all contributor's efforts of the past several years for a quarter mil? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't read the GFDL, anyone can take your work and sell it for any price the market will bear. Many mirrors already wrap ads around Wikipedia derived content. The WMF has generally avoided ads, but the core goal is to create a free content encyclopedia. How that is accomplished is a secondary consideration. Dragons flight 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How could they sell your effort? Whats been sold? I'm obviously confused because you're making no sense at all to me. --Gmaxwell 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny the advertisement is actually an advertisement? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Loaded questions won't help solve this argument. Circeus 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's gone now, so it doesn't really matter anyway. Besides, it was just acknowledging the charity. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is temporarily gone does not imply that it won't be back with a larger logo tomorrow (speaking of fallacies.)

The fact that numerous people above, on this page reiterated the fact that it is an advertisement should give you pause, before coyly calling it a loaded question.

Advertising space was sold, for a company's logo to appear on every Wikipedia page for 24 hours. For tax-status reasons, the board probably can't use the word "advertisement" but everyone else certainly can.

Marketing is the one realm where the "thin-edge-of-the-wedge" argument is not only valid, but very well established. Will tomorrow's logo be bigger? Of course. Should all community members be standing up in outrage at this point? Of course.

There is no way the board cannot recognize the enormity of its offense. The only hope the board has, for pulling the stunt again, is to minimize the severity of the first offense so that impediments are not put in place preventing it from breaking trust again. For these reasons, I think it is very important that the community comes together now, with a much more explicit prohibition against this type of sponsorship.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Members of the community can complain about the ad and choose to quit contributing to Wikipedia, but we really have no power to prohibit the WMF from accepting such deals if they wish to. Dragons flight 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats just what I might do.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation also has the power to take down the website entirely, but that would not be conducive to its development. —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of fallacies, indeed, I'm sure the board is able to avoid slippery slopes and appeals to consequences without you bringing them up yourself. Circeus 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something can be a fallacy in those conditions is precisely why I qualified the facts for those arguments. Perhaps you should read the articles you linked more attentively. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that because this can be construed as an ad (and clearly many disagreed with you so there's no reason to say it is an ad), there will be ads in the future. That's a prime example of slippery slope argumentation.Circeus 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You must realize that many more did agree it is an ad. Those who do not agree obviously have some vested interest (perhaps they've seen compelling arguments that explain the need for matching corporate sponsors, but I have not.) Those vested interests exhibit themselves by people's refusal to acknowledge that fact (that it is an ad.) But you refuse to follow logic. My statement could have been a slippery slope argument, if I had not clarified and qualified it. But I did, and it is not. Argumentation classification aside, the FAQ even said they have only just begun "We aren't done" at the end. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Virgin_Unite, I'm left wondering why they didn't just put that at the top of http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me which scientific poll you have to show more people think it's an ad then it's not an ad? If you don't have any, please refrain from making misleading statements. We have no way to know what percentage of people think it's an ad. We only know some people think it's an ad and are particularly vocal about it. Also, please refrain from accusing those of us who disagree it's an ad of having vested interests. I don't think it's an ad, and I have no connection with Virgin or the Foundation Nil Einne 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not mean direct financial vested interests I meant to say subconscious vested interest but your point is well taken. As far as starting a poll, I think that would be superfluous; I was referring to people commenting on the sections here (and the other two or three discussion areas that have broached the topic.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately people's comments doesn't really tell you much. They only tell you that a lot of people who cared enough to comment were opposed, not how many people were opposed to the either per se. Nil Einne 09:32, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

While that is true that people's comments don't have the weight of a straw poll, it certainly is a good indication. And the hair-splitting had diverged to fallacies and you were claiming I had made a misleading statement - I was not. I was simply responding to your question, based on the available empirical evidence. If you'd like to conduct a poll, to get more specific numbers, you are welcome to. Honestly, I would have expected the board to conduct such a poll, before taking action. The fact that they didn't, leads me to infer that they expected a lack of support. Had they made the case that un-matched donations can't support operating costs, then taken a poll, before taking on a matching sponsor, I wouldn't be able to jump to that (natural?) conclusion. I'm not convinced that the economic situation was so dire. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Site effects of the Virgin Unite

One unfortunate side effect of the Virgin Unite hoohah is we are now getting some people (in honesty or in jest I'm not sure) who seem to think Maraba Coffee sponsored us. This is of course particularly dumb given that we're talking about a fairtrade cooperative who made $35k in 2003. This is of course in addition to all the ad/not-ad/ & no-ads & Virgin Unite is bad & anything to do with Virgin Unite should be hidden talk that's going on. While I support the logo, I think it's likely this stuff will continue as we get more sponsors unfortunately. The foundation probably should have lined up more sponsors so we had one a day so it all merged into one rather then endless repetition of the same old arguments Nil Einne 09:36, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

If Maraba Coffee wants to write an objective and balanced article about themselves and they're honest about it, who cares! That was the big thing with me for Virgin Unite, making it seem like "charity" when it is basically just publicity. Just H 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the rules about deletion of material from talk pages?

I have encountered a very difficult editor who is throwing what appears to be tantrums and is deleting material from my user talk page (at least once), the article's talk page (5 or 6 times at least), and being combative and slinging insults. What are the rules about this?--Filll 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from a user's talk page is considered vandalism unless the content they are removing is vandalism itself (same applies for an article's talk page); insults, I believe, are punishable under WP:PA; as for the combative part, I can't really be sure without seeing the edits myself. // Sasuke-kun27 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The prohibition against editing (or deleting) comments of others on article talk pages is contained in Help:Talk page. You can report personal attacks at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, but (as discussed there) you need to post warnings to the user's talk page before administrators will take action (for repeated attacks). If you revert deletions on an article talk page and the other user persists in deleting the comments, there may also be a WP:3RR violation that you can report. John Broughton | Talk 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all right to remove material from one's own user talk page. Other than vandalism and personal attacks, it's vandalism to remove material elsewhere. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that the policy on biographic material about living people, WP:BLP, requires the removal of some unsourced negative material or personal details about living people everywhere in Wikipedia, including talk pages. See the policy for more details. GRBerry 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is 'unholy alliance' personal attack?

I would like to have somebody clarify a case of application of policy. Is 'unholy alliance' personal attack? In English Wiki I used it referring to some sysops in zh.wiki (the notorious Chinese Wiki, which is recently greatly discredited by major media), and I got a warning from Tjstrf saying such 'personal attack' will result in my being banned from English Wiki. I think it's only a common rhetoric usage. Does that qualify a 'personal attack'? Thank you. --Uponsnow 12:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I said you would be blocked, not banned. There is a major difference. Also, the context of the statement was an accusation, found here, that the zh.wiki admins are a communist conspiracy. --tjstrf talk 12:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is Communism", after all...Just H 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most applicable section in this particular situation is WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --tjstrf talk 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Would you mind elaborate more? What if I used 'holy alliance' to intend some humor? Thanks. --Uponsnow 13:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously using the statement in humour is unlikely to be considered a personal attack. But be wary with humour as it may be misconstrued. I'm presuming here you really mean in humour/jest rather then in sarcasm. Obviously using the statement with the attention to attack a user, even in sarcasm is likely to be considered a personal attack. I don't know about your statements, but if they are in the same vain as those SummerThunder has been making, I think it's quite justifiable that they are termed personal attacks. For example, accusing other editors of being lackeys of the Chinese Communist Party or insinuation such, would generally be considered a personal attack. Nil Einne 02:44, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Thanks. Season's greetings here. --Uponsnow 10:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

Simple yes/no will probably do here. Am I correct to assume that complete song lyrics are not appropriate for articles about a copyrighted song? –  Anþony  talk  14:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Lyrics are generally copyrighted, so including them is a copyright violoation. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are rare exceptions in which the song may be copyrighted but not the lyrics used in it, such as where the lyrics were lifted from a public domain poem, the Lord's Prayer, or some such other ancient source. In this case, however, it makes more sense to link the article describing the original work, or if there is none, to simply mention that work by name. Deco 16:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics are also allowed when there are critical discussions of the lyrics, such as We Didn't Start the Fire or American Pie. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be abused (I think these articles are OK in this situation), and commentary and scholarly discussion about them should still follow acceptable standards for textual fair use. This is essentially the "100 word" rule for a quote, although there really are no hard and fast principles. Verbatium copying of the whole text (or the entire song in this case) is generally not permitted, although quoting a small portion can be considered acceptable fair use. --Robert Horning 08:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those articles has complete song lyrics. Snippets of song lyrics for analysis are fine for fair use, as long as they aren't too much of the song. And the Billy Joel one has a link to the full lyrics on the official BJ website, a perfect example of what external links are for. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I heartily concur. Just wanted to add that external links to sites which contain lyrics are also not acceptable since we cannot link to other sites which violate copyright, but in the Billy Joel case, the site is to his official website, and since he is the copyright holder, that link is perfectly fine. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A question on removing valid warning templates

Hi there,

I was just wondering if there is any policy that implies it is not acceptable to remove warnings from one's talk page? (Of course, it's not my own, but merely a question relating to some other cases.) Yuser31415 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe this is allowed. It would be silly to prohibit it because it would make ordinary archiving activities impossible. Removing warnings quickly and without discussion however is usually frowned upon as covering up your activities, and is often considered as evidence in establishing a wider pattern of vandalism. Deco 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's frowned upon if it is too sudden or seems evasive. Archiving them in general, however, is not. --tjstrf talk 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in asking mainly because we have a template called Template:Removewarn. Should I take it to TfD since it appears to falsely imply that removing warnings is a violation of policy? Yuser31415 03:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess actually. Ask 5 admins, and you may very well get 6 opinions ranging from "it should be blockable" to "not a problem in any way". The discussions on the issue that I have seen concluded either strong argue in circles or judge on a case by case basis. Trying to delete the template is probably unhelpful at this point. --tjstrf talk 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was going to ask the same thing because we are talking about the same person and the same incident (I think).

An user that was causing quite a bit of problems kept blanking his talk page [3]. I as well as a handful of other users reverted his blanking as his blanking was rude and it violated WP:TALK. Users were telling him to stop blanking his talk page, especially when there are current block cautions. Then an admin messaged one of the users that was restoring the talk page (King_Bee#User:Starwars1955). The admin said it wasn't against the rules to delete talk page messages. WP:TALK says;

"Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings."

But the admin said that a recent ruling occurred so users can delete their talk page and that WP:TALK is only a help page and not a policy and guideline. I admit, I've blanked my talk page before when I was new (I was harassed and this guy was not very smart) but there was nobody really there to tell. I think Talk pages should be left up and archived if a user doesn't want it up there. If a user could erase their talk page with a bunch of warnings up, it would be harmful to other users that also put warnings up. The user could keep deleting the warnings without anyone knowing their history or their troubles. Wouldn't this harm admins also because they wouldn't be able to see what people have been warning the users and in turn just warn them themselves? I'm not sure why it's not a policy or a guideline, so if someone could discuss this, that'd be great.++aviper2k7++ 07:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The user could keep deleting the warnings without anyone knowing their history or their troubles. Not really, Everything posted to a talk page can still be viewed via the page's history. Admittedly this can take some time, but only an admin can truly "remove" something from Wikipedia.

If you're an editor posting to a talk page of someone who deletes warnings, it's probably a good idea to mention the prior warnings that you (and others, if you're aware of these) have posted, as in "Third warning; previous warnings [here] and [heretoo]". In this case, [here] and [hereto] should be URLs that are either diffs (obtained via the history page, "compare selected versions") or prior versions of the page that show the warnings before they were deleted).

The reality is that not all warnings posted by users are valid. If there were an ironclad rule about not deleting ANY warning, admin (and other user) pages probably would be filled with bogus warnings from vandals, trolls, edit opponents, etc. And it's probably impossible to write a rule that effectively allows bogus warnings to be deleted (without penalty) while forbidding "valid" warnings from being removed by users (at risk of being blocked).

The other reality is that admins look to block logs to judge users. Once a user has even a single block, admins are likely to carefully review the recent history of the user's talk page whenever another complaint is received. John Broughton | Talk 15:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect evaluation is required for each incident, and in ways depends on the user's standing. Yuser31415 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Even blocklogs are tricky. A few months ago I got hit by autoblocks four times in six days, without doing anything naughty at all! Granted they were all lifte very quickly on receipt of my anguished squeals, but they probably show in the record somewhere.--Anthony.bradbury 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Autoblocks occur on the IP address and not your user account. Your block log[4] won't show them and the IP block log[5] masks the IP address associated with autoblocks. If you used your talk page to request the unblock, that will show up in the talk page history, but there is no stigma with that as it happens often. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• There exists neither policy nor guideline that prohibits a user from removing whatever he likes from his own talk page. So yes, it is allowed. It is generally assumed that a user removing a warning has read said warning, thus a repeat of the behavior warned against (assuming the warning was proper) may lead to a block. >Radiant< 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

French-o-pedia

I'm wondering why policies in the different language encyclopedia aren't coinciding. Here is an example of the use of fair-use logos in the article used as decorative purposes. Why does the french Wikipedia use different fair-use policies compared to the English Wikipedia? Are all policies like this? Why the different standards when they're both essentially the same?++aviper2k7++ 07:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws vary by country. The English Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright law. John Broughton | Talk 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Internal policies also vary from Wikipedia to Wikipedia it seems. Just H 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Each Wiki was set up by different people, and the rules on each one have evolved as decided by the editors on that project, so they have diverged. Fan-1967 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, shouldn't all Wikipedias hosted in the U.S. follow U.S. copyright law? The fact that it's in a different language doesn't in any way change the fact that the server's located in Florida. -W.marsh 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, each Wikipedia is expected to follow US law. Many also strive to be compatible with the laws of the country or countries where their language is most common. If the French Wikipedia is intentionally breaking US law (as opposed to ignorance or accident) that would probably be an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation to address. Dragons flight 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a large cluster of servers located in Europe (Netherlands? Belgium?) - I saw discussions a few months back about buying a bunch more blades for that. I'd guess that many if not most of the other-language wikipedias are hosted there, not in Florida. John Broughton | Talk 13:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Netherlands, with m:Kennisnet. Actually, it's not really a large cluster (I don't find the numbers, but it must be about 30; compared to Florida that's nothing), consisting only of proxy servers and the m:Toolserver; so no wiki content is permanently stored there. Having said that, there was an announcement on dewiki-l (German) before Christmas that a server will be installed to make regular database backups of all Wikimedia projects. --Dapeteばか 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of modern art works

I started a thread on the Copyright talk page, but I think it is reasonable to add/move that discussion here as well. From my viewpoint, it seems as though the whole concept of fair use has become completely out of control, as with the current rationale for fair-use imagry on Wikipedia seemingly allows just about anything and everything, wheither it has been copyrighted or not.

I mention this explicitly in regards to Category:Fair use images of art, as I consider almost everything there to be a copyvio. I know I'm not alone with this attitude, but at the same time I know there are people with strong feelings about this topic. Even if we in theory allow fair-use versions of art work (the definition of low-resolution versions is certainly debatable here as to what that means), there are many uses of the images in this category that simply don't apply to fair-use at all, even with a huge stretching of the definition.

Of course this is a POV, but I strongly consider this to be blatant copyright violations. Particularly because the express purpose of copyright is to protect against this sort of massive duplication of creative works without explicit permission. As far as being able to provide critical commentary about artworks, that is certainly something that could be debated, but the inclusion of this sort of artwork has gone completely over the top. Of particular note are articles like M. C. Escher that duplicate his (currently copyrighted) artwork throughout the article where it doesn't have a direct bearing on the topic of the article except to illustrate some examples of his art.

If this is a call to arms to defend/alter the Fair Use policies, yeah, I'm saying that. Fair use is simply put broken here on Wikipedia, and far too much is permitted that simply is a violation of copyright. I'm not saying that I'm innocent here that yes, I have uploaded some images in the past that have been copyright violations. I'm also trying hard to learn what the full extend of the law really is in these situations and discovering that much of what I thought was fair use really isn't.

I'm also saying that the current fair use policies (and there are more than one here on Wikipedia) are far too complex for an ordinary Wikipedia user to really get a clear grasp of when they might be violating the standard, much less trying to get an admin to figure out the whole mess when trying to determine what needs to be kept and what should be deleted. No wonder the thread above regarding photos of living people is also so heated and long, as we can't figure out a clear line, with people trying to ride the very edge of fair-use law to justify what content they can be using. --Robert Horning 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism forum and policy

Regarding Vandalism, I've been told that the Vandalism forum isn't the correct place to discuss the misuse of vandalism reporting facilities (eg, sockpuppets being used to place fake vandalism warnings to get another use sanctioned during an edit wars, users plastering vandalism warnings as user-page vandalism etc), and have been given the impression that this is sore topic there that is to be avoided. Is there a another forum for discussing this kind of issue, or an official policy on misuses of vandalism reporting? perfectblue 12:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place is probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. A more general page is Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. John Broughton | Talk 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that leaving wordy almost poetic vandalism warnings or "thanks for editing, your experiment worked and has been reverted" notes on vandals pages is unnecessary. If someone blanks a page, it could be accidental. If someone adds nonsense to a page it's NOT an accident. Even if they only do it once. It may not be a hardcore vandal of course, could be some 10 year old doing a prank, but still, we should be aiming to do a few things: 1) encourage them to be constructive, 2) Let them know that vandal accounts will be deleted/blocked swiftly and 3) tell them that we're aware of their vandalism. Anything which tiptoes around the fact that they ARE a vandal and KNOW they're vandalizing is just going to make them think "how gay!" and continue doing it. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ernest_Percival and see all the vandal edits just in the last 2 days! I am quite prepared to help with getting rid of vandals but I'm simply not prepared to devote the time to make sure each vandal has the right number of warnings, in the right order, and then the right amount of time has passed with each one, and then list them for admin attention and then follow it up to make sure the admin has done the right thing. I'm just not going to do that. And it's a waste of time anyway. Common sense, please. If someone is knowingly vandalizing, telling them in friendly language that their edit worked is not the right response.SpookyMulder 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually telling them in friendly terms is exactly the right response. "Adding nonsense" can be explained by a few things: cat walked on the keyboard, keyboard broken, drink spilled, child borrowed computer, user wanted to see if they could actually edit the 'pedia, etc. I understand your frustration but the controlling policy (really, a principle here) is Assume Good Faith. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence that someone is a vandal, calling them one may push them away, push them into vandalism ("That was just a test edit! But I'll show them vandalism!!!!!!!11"), or any number of other unpleasant reactions. Whereas if we treat everyone as if they mean well from the beginning, we run the risk of converting them to our cause, boring them into behaving, or other fully intended consequences. :) -- nae'blis 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on Wikipedia policies (Original research, verifiability, not primary source)

Hello. I have a question applicable to the Slam Dunk (Manga) article.[6] Slam Dunk is a Japanese manga depicting a fictional high school basketball team, its members, and their exploits. The article currently contains one or two real-life player comparisons for each character it lists; as far as I can tell, these real life analogies have been around for nearly as long as the page has existed.

A glimpse at the edit history of the page will show that there is much disagreement about which real life player corresponds to each character. A brief discussion on the talk page also shows a wide range of opinions.

I am a Wikipedia newbie and I have no desire to wikilawyer, but my impression is that these real-life player comparisons should not be in the article, for several reasons: they qualify as original research as each editor contributes his/her own opinion on the comparisons, they are not verifiable, and they make Wikipedia a primary source as these comparisons have not been published in any other reputable source.

The majority of the editors of the page appear to prefer these comparisons staying in the article. I proposed a compromise on the talk page, and after a few weeks silence I edited the article to remove the player comparisons, but they were swiftly restored. It appears the consensus among editors there is that the real-life player comparisons should stay, but I thought I'd seek an opinion here, from the wider Wikipedia community, regarding its appropriacy. Should such player comparisons be kept?

Thank you. Bhamv 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If such comparisons are to be in the article they need to be sourced. I've tagged them and left a message to that effect on the talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of these policies and guidelines were developed to stop people making things up wholesale or using sources that had been made up, and are primarily intended to ensure factuality, but they seem to be being misused at lot when dealing with the factuality of fiction.

As I understand it, there is traditionally a bit more of leeway in terms of WP:OR when discussing fictional characters just so long as you aren't trying to insert unlabeled fannon as cannon, and aren't attributing mechanisms to things that have not been described in universe (for example, hypothesizing on exactly how Superman generates his heat vision). Basically, stick with cannon, try not to surmise too much, and don't apply out of continuum things to continuum.

If in doubt, find a WP:RS source that says it.

perfectblue 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source (author of the manga, published critic/reviewer, etc) that maintains that X is based on real-life person Y, include it. Otherwise it's opinion and original research. -- nae'blis 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(Not relating specifically to this case, but) it's often not quite that simple when dealing with a fictional characters. Especially ones that predate the internet or whose popularity has peaked and troughed already. For example, I could say that character X is similar to player Y and base it on the fact that they both shoot from the 3 point line. It could be a fact that character X makes 3 plays out of 4 from the line, and that shooting from there is player Y's signature. However there might be no third party WP:V and WP:RS source that actually names both of them and compares their playing style. It's not WP:OR, and it's a valid thing to say but it's not verifiable to policy.

Policy is there for a reason, but it's got to be a little flexible for non critical entries (and rigid for biographies etc).

perfectblue 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree most strenuously, as that is an almost textbook definition of original research. Why do you think that the fact that the character makes 3 out of 4 plays from the line makes them analogous to that real-life player? Because you've conducted your own analysis. It's not rigorous to rely on editor opinion; pre-Internet sources may be somewhat harder to find but that is no reason to allow original research (and it will help get us away from being quite so Google-centric). If the analysis is sound and encyclopedic, it will be sourceable somewhere. If not, it should go. -- nae'blis 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nae'blis is correct, this is original research. The "Real-life Resemblances" ought to be sourced or removed. Looking at them, it seems pretty clear that in at least some cases these real-life players are not in anyway the basis for the fictional characters. I find it hard to believe that Kevin Martin (basketball), drafted into the NBA in 2004, was the basis for a character in a manga series form 1990 – 1996. -- Dragonfiend 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was a bad example, let me rephrase (look at the spirit of what I'm saying, not the exact example). I could say that Superman is stronger than Spiderman based on the fact that one was able to lift a 747 and the other wasn't. I can cite a superman comic showing him lifting a 747 and one showing Spiderman being unable to lift a 747. What I can't do is cite a third party source comparing them lifting 747s, or a source with both of them trying to lift a 747 in the same comic. This isn't WP:OR, but it isn't strictly WP:V either as I'm comparing two separate sources rather than using a single source containing the comparison.

I suppose that the classic example is a list of differences between a book and a film. The individual differences can't be WP:V in most cases (as unless it's something like Harry Potter or a Marvel comic nobody WP:RS would bother), but they aren't WP:OR either.

perfectblue 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating how much is sourceable and written up out there, if you can just find it (which I admit is frequently a problem). The bottom line is that Wikipedia shouldn't be making claims on its own, but collecting data from other sources and publishing them, as an encyclopedia. Many of those "differences between the film and book" sections ought to go as well, but on the other hand some of them *have* been covered in film critic reviews, books on the topic, etc. -- nae'blis 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if there is no source for something there is no indication of its relevance to the article. Why should the article on Superman say that Spiderman is stronger, even if you personally are unequivocally certain of its truth? Why not conceive of comparisons between any number of superheroes, or brainstorm what would happen if they battled each other? A Wikipedia article is not the place for that. —Centrx→talk • 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've run into the policy problem more than once. Often it's not so much that there are no sources, it's that those sources are not considered WP:RS enough. For example, according to some of the people over at the comic book project even an interview with a creator is not WP:RS unless it is perfectly mirrored and explicitly stated in a cannon text, and I've had users blanket revert half an article simply because it covers an event that was triggered by an urban myth, on the grounds that I couldn't prove the myth itself to be true (the myth existed, but was an inaccurate account of events).

"Why should the article on Superman say that Spiderman is stronger"

Again, please look at the spirit of what I'm saying, not the exact example. I shall rephrase again. The page is about a random page that is arbitrarily notable for some reason. Season 1 of Lost is X episodes longer than season 1 of Found. I have a source Lost's length, and Found's length, but no source with the length of both being compared. Would you argue I can't say that one is longer than the other unless I have third party saying so, or that I can use two different sources with, two bits of information, together without violating WP:OR?

perfectblue 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Even in the spirit, you are talking apples and oranges. If you have a source (or sources) that gives the lenth of each season of Lost, it is not original research to say one season has more episodes than another season... that would be a simple numerical calculation drawn from readily available, and sourced, data. However, saying that a Magna character X is based on real life person Y, is not a simple numerical calculation or comparison... unless you have a citation to back that statement up it would be Original Research. Blueboar 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all made things much clearer. This Wikipedia newbie thanks you all. :) Bhamv 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is PROD?

I recently find someone add PROD to article for deletion, without prior AfD. So what is PROD? Any official policy establish a new way to delete article besides speedy and AfD? I'll show you an example, Mr. TexasAndroid recently added PROD to article Yi Zhi, his reason was "An official from 3500 years ago? No claim to notability made beyond that.", I'll ask this sir, doesn't anybody live 3500 years ago and still known as of today count as "non-notable"? I strong doubt how many people still remember Mr. President Bush after 3500 years, so Mr. Bush is not notable and we should delete it? HELLO, WORLD! 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod is deletion without the restrictions of speedy and the hassle of voting. It's used when something is not likely to survive AfD in the first place. That said, he could have speedied that article with ease. One sentence does not an article make. Subjects must assert their notablility, not expect others to find it. Your argument is merely a non-sequitor for inclusion. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Prod" is Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It's an avenue for deletion in-between speedy and AfD. As for "notability", all that word means in the context of Wikipedia is "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources". (See Wikipedia:Notability.) If Yi Zhi has been the subject of such coverage, then he's notable, by our definition, no matter whether anybody feels that he's "notable", as they generally understand that word. On the other hand, if his being written about in published works isn't demonstrated, or even asserted, then the page may well be deleted, although it's always best to do a little research first, and checking on a subject's notability. I hope that answers your questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So how can I avoid the article to be deleted? It was not me start this article, and I do not want to add any more info to it. But I find the birth/death date and something else might be useful, I don't want to see this one sentense to be deleted, what can I do if I think the PROD not appropriate? HELLO, WORLD! 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For a start, you could add a citation to a source that demonstrates that the person actually existed and is notable. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. You're also welcome to remove the Prod tag if you disagree with deletion. Contested Prods are taken to AfD, if someone still thinks they should be deleted, except in cases of clear speedy deletion candidates - this article is a potential A7 speedy, though. By far the best thing to do is to find sources for the article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the two articles that currently link to this one refer to him as "legendary great prime minister of Shang Dynasty" and "a legendary regent of Shang Dynasty", so, assuming the descriptions are correct, he does seem notable. In fact, I rather tend to agree with the claim that anyone who's still remembered 3500 years later, even if only by name, not only must be notable, but also must have been mentioned in several books that an expert on the subject could locate and cite. We still do need to have those citations actually added to the article, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a source from a Google search. That should hopefully clear this up. Fagstein 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Official policy on "Cultural references" sections in articles

One thing that has personally kind of irked me is sections in articles usually called "Cultural References", "In popular culture" or "Trivia" that do nothing but list references to that topic in TV shows, movies, video games, etc.

I call it the "Family Guy Effect". Now, I'm not against the show Family Guy, but with the huge amounts of cultural references the show makes it is the best demonstration of what I am talking about. Check out Special:Whatlinkshere/Family_Guy and you will see examples of what I mean: the link will almost always be in a section called "Cultural References" or "Trivia", and be along the lines of "In episode 12345 of the cartoon Family Guy...". Family Guy is by no means the only offender here though, other TV shows like South Park and the Simpsons often pop up in the same manner, as well as movies. Another common sight in these sections is songs that mention the topic, invariably in the format of "(artist) mentions (subject) in their song (song), on their album (album)". These can range from very notable, huge hits by popular bands, to songs by artists so obscure and non-notable that they don't even have their own articles.

Now, I am not completely against these "cultural references" lists. Rather, I think they are being put in the wrong place. Almost always, the article for the movie/album/TV show making the reference will already have its own list of cultural references in said movie/album/TV show. Going back to the example of Family Guy, each Family Guy episode already has its own article with a comprehensive list of everything satirized in that episode. Why duplicate the exact same information in this article in the article for the subject being referred to?

These sections can grow to become an enormous mess. Check out KFC#Cultural_references. The section is huge, with references to TV shows and movies, some of which don't even have links to articles on said shows/movies. It heavily detracts from the professionalism of the article. If someone really, really wanted to know what movies and TV shows made cultural references to KFC, they could just click "What links here" and get an even more comprehensive list.

I have found discussions that seem to indicate that other Wikipedia editors are against these sections as well, but have not been able to find an official policy either for or against them. However I think it can be argued that the sections violate parts of WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Does Wikipedia have an official policy on these kinds of sections in articles? If not, I think it would be helpful if one were developed. Krimpet 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find relevant things at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:Trivia (which there was consensus to merge appropriate parts of, but no one ever bothered to do it). Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Wikipedia:No original research are relevant as well. If there are no reliable sources that discuss the cultural reference in regard to the topic, there is not sufficient evidence that it is important to that topic or why it is notable. A lot of times most or all of these references should simply be deleted, as they are often unsourced, unverifiable, and totally irrelevant. Sometimes, they can warrant keeping for future inclusion in the article, but that does not mean a trivia section is warranted, rather the it is folded into the main text appropriate. For example, the Julia Child article includes culture references, such as a parody on Saturday Night Live and being featured on the cover of Time magazine, but these are integrated directly into the prose of the article and are specifically to indicate the person's importance and involvement in the culture and are cultural references that were included in obituaries and biographies of her as being important. Unverified trivia is a double problem: Aside from having unverified or unverifiable "facts", trivia sections themselves are not encyclopedic. For unsourced trivia specifically, see also the part of the Wikipedia:Verifiability that says unsourced material may be removed. —Centrx→talk • 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles is the controlling guideline here; despite the section header being different, they're still essentially "Trivia". A good rule of thumb is that well-written articles should not have bullet pointed text. -- nae'blis 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the consensus in favor of this approach strong enough to warrant "delete on sight"? So many articles have these, the effort of so many editors, that I rarely bother even pruning them. But they can become a problem, especially for minor but popular figures (Betsy Ross-types). Im seeing more and more quotations from lyrics where the allusion is so minor that it isn't even "fleeting". -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it's an editorial deletion and not an administrative one, it's easily undone, discovered, and/or discussed, so I'd say yes. The guideline is fairly new but will not become widely known unless it's implemented (I've been lax about doing it too, pressed for time usually on integrating). -- nae'blis 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The guideline has been tagged for four months, and also the concept is fundamental to an encyclopedia. You can find evidence of it in Wikipedia:Five pillars ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information") and undoubtedly elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation of course, but if trivia is unsourced, you do have a double problem. Even if it were not a hoax and even if there were sources, the items would almost invariably not belong in an encyclopedia article, but what's more there are usually no sources. Also, these pop culture references typically do not represent any "effort" at all. Most of them are from a fan or some other passer-by adding it to the article off the top of his head (is it even true?) with no effort beyond typing, because it is 'neato'. I have just spent more thought and effort writing this single comment about why trivia sections are bad than the effort collectively put into most trivia sections. —Centrx→talk • 09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for pointing out Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:Trivia, I had not noticed them before. However I noticed at Wikipedia:Trivia#Practical_steps_suggestion that spinning off "trivia" sections into separate "in pop culture" sections seems to actually be encouraged! However this particular page notes that it is not a policy or guideline, and the official WP:TRIV page is silent on the issue; perhaps it should be updated to clarify that "cultural references" sections are indeed the same as trivia and should be dealt with? Krimpet 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In most cases "Cultural References" are pretty much "Trivia" actually in almost all cases they are but the term trivia is not usually used as needed notice this article Flash it should be merged with the complete article but it has two lines having a whole section, not to mention it's out of place. Cultural References are not always this messed up but some can grow up HUGE like an deleted "References in Warcraft" page, I am in favor of regulating this kind of sections however I don't think we should delete on sight, the important facts should be integrated to the main article before deletion-Dark Dragon Flame 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• See also, WP:TRIV, WP:TRIVIA. >Radiant< 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done some Trivia pruning by moving the content from the article to the talk page with a note that the text needs to be sourced and converted to prose. I figure that move is at least respectful of the time and effort of the contributing editors but also encourages a more professional and encyclopedic article to be in place. If something is unsourced and seems highly unlikely then I'll delete it with a separate edit noted my suspicion. Agne 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

With no prejudice to the other mentioned solutions, I've often tried to improve trivia sections by merging related items. For example, twelve separate bullet points for "X is referenced in Y's song Z, where Y sings 'I just love X'" can be condensed to a single one to the effect of "X has been referenced in many popular songs, including Y's song Z, A's song B, ..." etc.

I also agree with the above comments that "what links here" often serves the function that these trivia sections attempt to, and without intruding into the article. I also frequently see categories that similarly try to capture everything that ever might intersect with an article. A lot of these problems might be solved if "what links here" could be made more prominent in the Wikipedia layout, maybe accompanied by a caption that emphasizes its function so that more people realize what it does. Postdlf 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that I very roughly skimmed through much of the above, but to add my own two cents, I generally see three types of "trivia": specific, Family Guy, and arbitrary.

~ I tend to dislike arbitrary things such as "this insert noun here does not contain any letters from insert random word here." The list for these types of things could go on forever, so providing one is little more than a slippery slope into providing hundreds of them.

~ The "Family Guy trivia" can get lengthy, but there is ultimately an end to that information; and I actually think that the What Links Here tool can provide an interesting insight into how things are linked together. I enjoy using the What Links Here tool to see the many things that Family Guy, for example, has referenced. Ideally, it'd be nice if we could separate What Links Here into direct relationships (such as aerodynamics with airplanes) from indirect relationships (such as Family Guy relationships), but I'd guess that doing so would require some relatively-major modifications to the very foundations of Wikipedia's code. All-in-all, I like this trivia if it can be properly handled. One of Wikipedia's greatest assets is that it is virtually infinite. It is unbound by costs of paper and we could, theoretically, create endlessly long pages or as many subpages as we want. Therefore, I'd personally prefer to keep this type of trivia, but designate specific methods for how to organise it.

~ Specific trivia, which is notable for the article, should of course remain. It's really more of a stub that just needs expanding (just like the Wikipedia policies reference).

So there's my two cents... hey, Family Guy had a reference to two cents. :) --Thisisbossi 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of Wikipedia:Notability (books) - historical, proposal, or guideline?

The WP:BK talk page discussion has trailed off -- I would be interested in people's opinions of whether the page is now historical, an active proposal, or a guideline. Feel free to respond below or on the talk page. Thanks, TheronJ 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see WP:BK labeled historical because I've seen it used recently in a number of AfDs. I don't think its a perfect guideline by any means but it does seem to be useful. GabrielF 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I am having some trouble with understanding NPOV. If I am discussing a debate that has several domains that it impacts, and one side has 95-99% of the support in domain A, and maybe 50% of the support in domain B, is it wrong to describe this with references? Is there something I am missing? Should I pretend that the side that has 1-5% support in domain A really has more support in domain A, even when it can be conclusively demonstrated with copious sources that this is true?--Filll 03:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully following your percentages... an example might be in order. Essentially NPOV means that we represent all points of view on any given subject, and the article should not be written in language that implies that one view is more "correct" than another. If one view is more prevelent among the experts than the others, we can say this (with proper citations to back the statement up), but WE do not pass judgement on which is correct. Fringe views can be given short treatment (or even ignored if they are very fringe). Hope this helps. Blueboar 16:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict w/Blueboar)

So I'm guessing this is a situation where 95% of scientists think Intelligent Design is stupid, but 50% of Christians think it's great. Since there are more Christians than scientists, the overall figure is 40% of people think Intelligent Design is great, but reporting it that way would give Intelligent Design more credibility than it deserves.

I don't think you should be pretending anything. Using my example, if there are sources to back up the statement that only a very small minority of scientists believe in Intelligent Design, there's nothing POV about saying so. There's nothing POV about saying 50% of Christians believe in it either, but you can't make the decision for the reader that the scientist figure is important than the Christian figure. Basically, I say throw it all in there with the kitchen sink and let the reader figure it out.

OK, whoa. I just checked your contribs and the first one is Talk:Intelligent Design. Did I guess right? –  Anþony  talk  16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much.--Filll 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to check out Wikipedia:Fringe theories Which talks about it in some detail. Blueboar 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy of e-Sports on Wikipedia

Over the past while, I had submitted a number of AfDs in relation to players in the Major League Gaming e-Sport organisation. The result was that a number of pages were kept, but would have to be cleaned up; the remaining pages were deleted.

The following pages were not kept:

• Chris Smith (electronic sports player)
• Scott Lussier
• Ben Jackson (electronic sports player)
• Alfonso Chartier
• Foulacy
• Brandon Jenkins
• TuLegit

The following pages were kept:

• Eric Hewitt
• Dave Walsh
• Dan Ryan (electronic sports player)
• Carlos Morales (electronic sports player)
• Thomas Taylor (electronic sports player)
• Michael Cavanaugh
• Victor de Leon III
• Tom Ryan
• Ryan Danford
• Zyos

These kept pages resulted in being kept largely due to no consensus. As well, these players and their teams (Team Str8 Rippin, Team Carbon, and Team Final Boss) are not the lone e-Sport-related articles that exist on WP.

When I submitted these players and teams for AfD, I cited that they violated WP:BIO, and it could be argued that they are not notable like sports players. It is cited that those in the MLG are featured on USA Network, as the players compete in their games there.

While I do not agree with the consistent adding of the stats of these teams and players into WP, I am certain that others have a different viewpoint. I would like to see some sort of consensus and maybe have this lead to policy undertakings. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

whilst i will willingly confess to little or no knowledge of this area, instinctually my feeling is that the sport in question deserves an article, whilst the participants do not; they deserve a subsection at best. nevertheless it's an interesting topic; i can see the consensus changing at some point; both xbox and wii operate worldwide rankings in various degrees of implememntation now. at some point in the future wiki will have to deal with people who are really really good at this stuff. nevertheless i think it's safe to postpone this decision for a while to see what happens. --Kaini 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So are you suggesting for now that we let these pages be created or we don't do so and wait and see what happens with this industry or fad? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a reasonable suggestion would be to merge most of the shorter articles on the subject. >Radiant< 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Many of the players/teams seem to be notable based on the fundamental notability requirement of "multiple non-trivial reports." However, the detailed game-by-game breakdowns are not encyclopedic, any more than we want to carry detailed stats for the Yankees-Orioles game played on August 15 of last year (Yanks won 6-3). Provide a basic summary of accomplishments and add a link to those sites which carry the details. Fan-1967 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that if the team members have enough sources from which to create a seperate article, such as T Squared or Tom Ryan (an article which I am currently in the process of improving), then they deserve an article just like any other notable competitor and should not have to reach higher standards just because they're gamers. Most of the players that were kept were at the very top of the foremost national gaming league, which like it or not (and some people in the AfD's clearly didn't like it) is MLG. The players I argued for had more than enough media attention and cult status to meet WP:BIO, as well as competing in the top of their sport. There are different levels of MLG play, and all the kept articles are at the pro level (as compared to semi-pro or amateur). My overall opinion is that if a top level player has enough sources from which to create a good article that adds to the quality of Wikipedia, then they shouldn't have to jump through extra hoops just because they're about gamers rather than other competitors. If they don't have enough sources, but should be noted somewhere, then note them in their team's article. If we're worried about their "staying power", these pros have been around and will continue to be around way longer than the average internet phenomenon and have way more sources. J0lt C0la 13:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why there needs to be a discussion on the legitimacy of the sport as a whole. It's not Wikipedia's job to reach a consensus amongst editors on every type of competition to determine if we feel it's worthy or not. What decides this is whether it meets notability criteria. The MLG clearly does meet the notability criteria. Beyond that, each player needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, in terms of how well they've performed in the league and if they've received substantial 3rd party media attention, which a number of them have. There are many things that I don't consider to be "legitimate" sports by my own definition, but if they meet the criteria set forth by Wikipedia, I have nothing to say against them. Leebo86 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Even with third party sources, some of them still fail WP:BIO and even WP:RS. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would have coverage of any professional sport, and having articles about virtual sports is even more far fetched. If we did that, I'm sure someone would claim that there is no reason to cover sexuality, or any hobby or pastime though. I guess we all have the right to waste our life anyway we choose. Atom 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, Atomaton, I think your edit lacks something. Do you mean "if we decided not to cover them for these petty reasons, somebody would..."? If so, you have my support. :)--SidiLemine 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make value judgements. It generally just comes down to notability. As long as the virtual sports and participants meet the notability guidelines, they are appropriate for inclusion. I don't see any reason for policy to make distinctions between virtual sports and "real" ones. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think e-Sports (competitive video gaming or whatever term is preferred) is definitely fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, just like any other professional sports. There is a matter of caution though. Being a relatively young sport, third party sources, even acknowledged media or press agencies, often drop the ball in their research. For instance, when any players are referred to as "the best gamers in the world", it stops being a reliable source to me, since there is no such thing, being the equivalent of "the best sportsman in the world". At the moment, e-Sports is in a phase where large investments are starting to take place, and the same scenario (yet in smaller scale) may be forming as the Internet-bubble. Including manufactured fame/name and such. I find media too eager to pick up on this, and what better example than the recent MLG player signings. Questionable situations occur when the subject is not at all mentioned in specialized (e-Sports) media, but is in mainstream media. This could be a clear sign of the mainstream media not doing their homework, so those situations need a specialist eye. So where should the line be drawn? As far as I am concerned, the biographies of competitions, players, teams and organizations participating in the three major international professional games mentioned in 2006 e-Sports World Champions (Counter-Strike, Quake and Warcraft) are fit for inclusion without question. These are all notable on a global scale due to their performance and professionalism in their sport. Also fit for inclusion are people who made major contributions to the sport, such as Andreas Thorstensson and Angel Munoz. Then, there is the question of local competitions, such as Major League Gaming (Halo, USA) and Starleague (Starcraft, Korea). Top professional contenders and teams of these should be included as well, as long as the competition itself is notable. However, not all players of these top teams should be included if they are not notable individually. Regarding the MLG, it is generally regarded as being at least questionable outside of the USA. Especially the practice of signing players to the company that owns the competition greatly conflicts with the common practice of players being signed to independent clubs (formerly clans). Also, the games being used by the MLG, being Halo and SSMB lack a competitive nature and are not played competitively (disregarding professionalism) anywhere else in the world. Also the level of play has been a regular subject of debate. Nonetheless, I think it is fit for inclusion, as long as the MLG does not receive the great emphasis it has now. It is regarded as a minor league world-wide and Wikipedia should reflect this. Other things considerable for inclusion are for instance the 2005 and 2006 CPL world tour/season and the 2006 WSVG, as well as yearly WCG and ESWC results. These are all considered world championship competitions. -- DJiTH 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just a couple of comments:

First off, I have a real problem using the term sport and sportsmen here. I think we need to remember that these are people playing e-games. They are, therefore, competitors. I think the language needs to be very clear about that. This is nothing against people playing e-games; but to call someone playing a video game an “athlete” is really stretching the use of the term (and yes, I am aware of the usage regarding ‘mental’ competitions).

Therefore, the same criteria for anyone playing an e-game should apply here. Given that, the basic WP:BIO multiple non-trivial reports criteria should be applied (as User:Fan-1967 points out). This would apply to both the individuals and the teams (although I fear that we might be facing a “garage band” problem with every team that gets blog-coverage and has a my-space account will think that they are therefore notable ;) ).

My other concern is about notoriety. Much of the notoriety being cited on many of the gamers’ pages (not just these specific ones) appears to be very good marketing from the game manufacturers. Getting these people in the limelight is their business, but doesn’t necessarily make for notoriety. If I could draw the parallel to the multitude of developers of various video games that are being interviewed in magazines like Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming monthly, and the like. Those types of citations aren’t normally applicable for notoriety; at what point do we take aggressive marketing campaigns use of gamers to promote their games as legitimate coverage for notoriety? For these specific pages, there is a lot of reliance on cites to the websites of MLG and the USA Network, which broadcast MLG competition. Possibly the ‘criteria’ mentioned by User:Djith would be a starting point, the breakout into the mainstream media (opposed to the specialized), would be a starting point. I don’t know the answer to this, but I think it does need to be included in the discussion.

I agree with User:J0lt C0la that the basic inclusion criteria should be WP:BIO. I think that the delete/keep for the groups mentioned above is an indication that this just wasn’t the case here. Some of them did meet BIO and were deleted, like Dave Walsh, and others who don’t, like Zyos, were kept. SkierRMH 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dave Walsh did get kept. J0lt C0la 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that everyone who has ever competed in MLG (or CPL or insert-a-league-here) should have an article, but if they are at the top of their league consistently (such as Team Final Boss members, who had 2 or 3 national championships in a row) and have enough sources to write an article from (I am having no problem writing the Ryan twins' articles, except my own lack of time) should be kept. But what I am also saying is that someone who is at the top of their league and does have adequate sources from which to write an article should not be deleted just because they have not participated in any international competitions. If we do this to gamers, we should have to do that to every competitor, and then no one who hadn't been in the Olympics or something of that nature could be kept. I also disagree with the concept that Halo 2, for example, "lack[s] a competitive nature", and the idea that it doesn't matter enough to include. I know that it doesn't get played professionally much outside of the US, but neither does American football, and that doesn't keep it from being included. Top of one's national competition is all that is required under WP:BIO. Gamers should not have to reach higher standards than other competitors, they should be held to the same standards as anyone else. If you feel that MLG is over-emphasized, start writing articles about players from other leagues to even things out rather than decide MLG notables should be deleted because you are under the opinion that the league is minor. This may be true from a perspective of the entire world, but again, only being the top national league and the top national winners is required, and if we change this for gamers, then we should change it for everyone. J0lt C0la 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR in relation to user generated images

(If this is the wrong place to post this, please suggest a more appropriate venue)

In relation to images used as a graphical or object representation of the subject of an article, under what circumstances would a user generated image be considered WP:OR?

For example, can a user draw their own sketch of Bigfoot, based on the description given on the Bigfoot page, and use that image as the page's main graphic? Or could a user (using WP:V sources) draw the route taken by a murder suspect and include it on the page about the trial?

Also, would it be considered WP:OR to include a user generated picture of an X identical to the X written about in an entry, or does it have to be the exact X. For example, could a user take a picture of their own Glock 9mm pistol, and use it in a section of a page claiming that the police planted a Glock 9mm in a suspects house (making sure, of course, to make clear that it was stock picture)?

perfectblue 11:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR#Original images would be the current applicable policy.

As for the examples you name: there is a thin line sometimes between "illustrative" and "decorative". Merely "decorative" images are often rejected. Seen the difficulty to give a universally applicable definition of "decorative" vs. "illustrative" in this context, assessment of which of the two applies is often a case-by-case exercise. In other words, I don't know which of the two applies for the examples you mention: would be an exercise in wikipedia:consensus I suppose. Anyhow, I tried to narrow the "illustrative"/"decorative" distinction down somewhat in the Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia guideline proposal, see Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia#Broader concept of illustration (and sub-section of that section) in particular. --Francis Schonken 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (architecture)

I thought it might be a good idea to establish some notability criteria for architecture and I seek discussion and comments. It's my first time at proposing anything like this so please be gentle with (but robust in your comments!). Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since there is significant overlap with WP:BIO (for architects) and WP:LOCAL (for the buildings themselves) I think it would be best to add your work to those pages, rather than creating a new page for it. >Radiant< 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Threats of Blocks"

There's an odd issue with the current policy for handling WP:NPA. At the moment, we require for WP:PAIN posting the {{npa2}} templates.

However, the language of these templates mentions the possibility of blocking. Threat of blocks has been interpreted as a personal attack, so this leaves the odd position of the recommended response to a personal attack being something that could be read as a personal attack. It seems like this needs to be investigated. --Barberio 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Informing someone that personal attacks can result in a block is not a personal attack. It is a warning only. Blueboar 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how warning someone of the potential consequences of their actions can be construed as a personal attack. The threat of a block is legitimate, and routine in higher-level (3 and 4) warning notices. Quite frankly, some people don't pay attention until they see that threat. Fan-1967 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my personal understanding too, but others have read it differently. --Barberio 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I find that leaving canned template turds on the talk page of people you are in a dispute with is really satisifing and often works well. if your goal is to piss people off and escalate disputes. Policies that require us to do such are great ideas if we want editors to leave the project in disgust. Sarcasm intended. Legalistic requirements that people be warned via template as opposed to personalized message are stupid. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Personalized messages are far more likely to end up getting inflammatory and escalate the situation. Fan-1967 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if they are laced with vitriol. A calm and polite warning would always be more effective than a template. The problem is that editors too often forget they are dealing with real people. It is one of the draw backs of online interactions. Just look at usenet. We don;t have to be usenet if we think before we write. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the person placing the warning is the one being attacked, all the more reason to use an impersonal, canned template. The alternatives are likely to seem either angry or whiny ("Please stop being mean to me.") -- Fan-1967 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but better it is left to a third party, if it really has to be done. I can't think of one good reason for an aggrieved party to use a canned template. If their dispute is beyond discussion they should walk away and get mediation. In general allowing others to defend you is ten times more effective than doing it yourself. David D. (Talk) 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PAIN has been modified to allow alternative methods or responding to the editor. Relevant essay on this topic Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars --Barberio 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... And it was reverted by an administrator soon after. Discussion on changes to the WP:PAIN process should be discussed on its talk page prior to such edits. The process and templates have stood for a long time and have developed in this way for various reasons. In addition, there is clearly no concensus even here at this time. Steamrollering such a fundamental change over a page is certainly not a good way to edit even an article. It certainly isn't appropriate for a wikipedia process, policy, guideline. Especially a longstanding one. Be bold, but do it with respect, due attention, care and discussion (in the appropriate place and with concensus). Crimsone 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer being able to use alternatives to the templates, to avoid counter accusations of 'threats'. --Barberio 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PAIN is no "longstanding" process, having come into existance less than a year ago (5 February 2006 was it's first real use). The requirement to use stupid inflamatory boilerplate on experienced users talk pages is even newer, added on 21 June 2006, in a fit of WP:ISTOTALLYALEGALSYSTEM by Paul Cyr. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely frustrated by this. From my perspective, the templates should be worded such that using them should be the accepted course of action. In practice, it appears that using them is often seen as a hostile action, especially when the involved party uses them. Maybe there needs to be a separate set of templates specifically for use by the involved party? --Ronz 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to fan above. The short version, let others defend you. David D. (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw it and don't agree. What you're saying is basically to document the templates with "Don't use this template for warnings if you're an involved party. Instead wait for help." If you'll forgive the sarcasm, it's a bit too close to "You're a victim, get used to it." --Ronz 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with hipocrite) My experience of seeing these things play out is that, victim or not, confronting the problem head-on always ends up in a protracted fight with one party leaving "forever". Mediation from third parties usually calms things enough for normal relations to continue. This has shaped my view of the effective strategy. I know its hard to resist not defending oneself, but it is by far the most effective approach. David D. (Talk) 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, the templates need to be better documented. --Ronz 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More accurate - "If you're an involved party

If both you and the other side both know the warning templates are useless

You already know to email a bunch of adminstrators and experienced users who are likley to stand up for you.

If only the other party knows the warning templates are not useful

9/10 times you are wrong.

If only you know the warning templates are not useful

9/10 times you are using them to browbeat rather than inform.

If neither of you know the warning templates are not useful

They're actually useful.

Hope that helps! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me there. If they know what? --Ronz 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza Category?

I was working on the CFD backlog when I came across the "Esperanza Members" category (Wikipedians in Esperanza). However, it linked to the MFD, not a CFD, as a reason for deleting it. Should this category be kept for historical purposes and renamed "Wikipedians who were in Esperanza", or should I simply delete it as the backlog says I should? I just figured I should check here to avoid deleting without consensus. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

blacklisted domains

I'm unable to figure out the rationale of blacklisting a domain like suite101.com. I can't find where such rules are noted, I cant find out any reason to do so. Certainly such a site is not spam. Can someone help me get to the bones of this and work out a way to un-exclude the work of several hundred very skilled Web researchers and writers, and many, many very high quality, factual articles in cites or outside links? Thanks

• Sites are generally blacklisted because someone continually attempted to spam them into articles and a decision was made that the site would, in the vast majority of cases, not be an acceptable external link. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• The list of blocked domains is at m:Spam blacklist. If you have questions on why a site is listed or think a domain you are trying to add is legit, the talk page for m:Spam blacklist is your best bet. -- JLaTondre 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)