Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 35

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Disambig and selfref templates exempt from NPOV?

I've recently run across someone claiming that the content of disambiguation/link templates are not part of our encyclopedic content, and are thus not subject to our content policies, specifically that they are not obliged to convey a neutral point of view. In particular at the Wikia article, where {{selfref}} is being used to restore a disclaimer notice that was roundly rejected by the community just recently (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia). Is this supported? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything - images, categories, infoboxes, other templates - it doesn't matter what - that is part of a mainspace page is subject to all the policies and guidelines in Wikipedia regarding content. Content is the face that Wikipedia shows the public. If someone wants to argue that one or more parts of an article page are not subject to certain policies or guidelines, it's up to them to come up with the proof for that argument. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So you will be able to answer the following questions:
Why the template {{POV}} is only transcluded on pages of the main namespace?
Why the template {{talkheader}} displays the NPOV policy only in the talk namespace ({{ns:1}})? 16@r (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The {{POV}} template belongs on article pages because it states that an article definitely has a POV problem. In that location, it gets a lot more attention than if it were on the talk/discussion page. I've removed a number of such templates, often simply noting that no specifics have been given, but also often doing some cleanup. And where the template remains after being reviewed by an editor, it serves as notice to readers that they should treat the article with even less credibility than otherwise.
This template is hardly the only one that goes on article pages: see Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace. The general principle is clear: if an article has a specific problem or needs specific kinds of help, put up a message to that effect. (One article messagebox I'm not personally that thrilled with is the one about an article needing expanding; almost every article does, so what's the point?)
As for the {{talkheader}} template, that provides general advice; there may in fact be no problem whatsoever. (It lists the NPOV policy (along with the two other core policies) under the heading "Article policies", so it's clear it applies to the mainspace page, but I don't think that's your question.) Putting this large messagebox at the top of every article would be extremely distracting - and largely pointless, of course, since most of applies to the talk/discussion page. And since pages are read much more than they are edited, it's not a good idea to provide general advise to the small minority of readers who are also going to edit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

reusing images from wikipedia

im doing a website for a class and i was wondering what the policy is on using images that are on wikipedia articles on this (external and non commercial) website. i know they're not public domain (the pics i need are all attached to wiki articles on british comedies - screenshots/dvd covers/title screens). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhimanyuDas (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Details about what license images are under should be on every image page. I'll help you with specific images if you like, but it is more than likely that screenshots and DVD covers will be used under a claim of fair use, and so you would have to do the same on your site, unless you recieved permission from the copyright holder to use the images. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Click on an image to see the image's description page. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations usually use wrong style

Inline citations throughout Wikipedia are positioned incorrectly, probably resulting from the uncertain appearance of the source code.

Many <ref> </ref> elements and related tags have incorrect formatting around them, examples

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content[citation needed].
Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content. [citation needed]

It should be: Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content.[citation needed]

Popcorn has high density[1].
Popcorn has high density.[2][3].
Popcorn has high density. [4]
Popcorn has [5] high density.

It should be: Popcorn has high density.[6] or Popcorn has high density.[7][8] or Popcorn has[9] high density.

Related pages:Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, example article1, example article2, example article3 and see Random article for other instances of articles that have wrong citation style.

The style needs to be clarified somewhere as soon as possible. Where and how should this be clarified? 209.244.43.112 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps here?. Otherwise, for a more general Manual of Style forum, here. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The style has been indicated on Wikipedia:Footnotes, what needs to be done is the style made overt, perhaps with an obvious notice on all related pages with a link to Wikipedia:Footnotes. Another idea is to make a short summary about use of citations on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (I have a dynamic IP, I would have waited for my address to return to 209.244.43.112 but do not have time.) 209.244.43.122 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Ref tags and punctuation. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus that footnotes followed punctuation was removed from WP:FN after a protracted edit war last November.[1] A handful of editors dominated; everyone else eventually gave up rather than engage in edit warring. A broader audience may help restore the guideline to reflect actual practice and long-standing consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we really, really care that much about where the {{fact}} template is placed, then we should ask for a bot to fix this, not try a massive (re)education program of thousands of editors.
As for replacing "Popcorn has high density.[10][11]" with "Popcorn has high density.[12]", sorry, that's wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to support one sentence with multiple sources (rare, but acceptable); and it's a bad idea to combine two sources into a single footnote because that is inconsistent with using a named reference in multiple places in the same article.
And yes, I support putting footnotes after punctuation, but wonder how important this is, overall. I'm always quite happy just to see new information added to articles supported by anything, even just a URL. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there were multiple sources was not the problem, the issue was that often there is a period before, and after the inline citation, probably because the source code for multiple inline citations is confusing. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
May be best to just add a statement like "Be sure to place <ref></ref> case correctly in the text, directly after a word, comma, or period without any characters added." to one or more guideline pages, and try to straighten out the style of inline citations whenever we happen to be editing an article. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
From memory, the dispute in the guideline was whether it meant "Always put the citation after a punctuation mark", or "If a punctuation mark is present, place the citation after the punctuation mark". Personally, I'm in favour of the latter, but not the former Bluap (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it said for a very long time (and this still reflects current practice on most articles, certainly on most FAs):

Wikipedia's house style is that ref tags are placed at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the footnote refers.[2] This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line. The same is true for successive ref tags.[1] The exception is a dash — which should follow the ref tag, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.[3]

Several persistent editors objected and edit warred, wanted no rule whatsoever, everyone gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your obsession with format is silly. I'd rather read editors discuss the merits of a reference than its format. If you must dictate the form, create a pop-up template every time someone clicks on the <ref></ref> markup, like for example with photo upload. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference itself is certainly more important than the style for the position of the tags, however the current not unified system for the appearance of citations on article pages is unencyclopedic. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply to the mid-sentence example just added, there is nothing wrong with a sentence saying "The high density[13] of popcorn allows it to...". This is consistent with the old MOS paragraph that SandyGeorgia quoted above. Bluap (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If perfect consistency is desired in these matters, a bot should be created, or editors who care can form a WikiProject. This should NOT be an editor responsibility. If we want editors to be bothered with things like this, we're going to have to start paying them for full-time services -- a volunteer organization means that a volunteer gives the organization a limited amount of attention and can only be expected to follow a limited number of rules. Professional organzations with full-time personnel are needed beyond that. There are literally hundreds of things that would be higher on my priority list for an education campaign for editors. As others have said, I'd rather editors spend as much of their limited time as possible focusing on good content and reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The pages describing how to add internal citations are guidelines, not policies, editors may ignore them. Someone else with more time can cleanup the style if they chose. I propose a alteration for the How to use section on pages Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, here. Already altered Help:Footnotes, here. I believe this will be all that is needed. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There's two separate points being discussed here: 1) Whether we should have (reinstate) the MOS guideline on footnote placement standarisation and 2) whether all editors should be "trained" to follow it. Obviously #2 is not going to happen and yes even if it was possible, there's a number of other things far higher on the "train editors" list—but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guideline. MOS guidelines are used to define standards for Good articles and Featured articles, where we want to be as encyclopedic as possible. So yes, IMO the old guideline quoted above ought to be put back. --jwandersTalk 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Test Wiki? Nostalgia Wiki? What are these things??

I recently stumbled upon http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org and http://test.wikipedia.org. I assume the first is there, as its title suggests, for nostalgic reasons, but what does the second one do? Are there any other similarly obscure Wiki sites? Why isn't there a http://test.wiktionary.org, for example?

Also, could someone make an article listing all such "obscure" Wiki sites and clarifying their purpose?

Thanks It Is Me Here (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See m:Table of Wikimedia projects. For explanation see also the main page of each project. I think http://test.wikipedia.org is not specifically related to Wikipedia but more generally a site of Wikimedia to test the MediaWiki software.--Patrick (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the Test Wiki's where they patch code fixes before they go live here. It's also used for experimental features that aren't ready for production use yet. One of the interesting features is flagged revisions support, so that good revisions of articles (e.g., featured versions) can be marked in the history. If such a system was implemented, vandalism by IPs wouldn't become visible to most users until someone sighted the revision (rather than reverting afterwards like we have now). Interesting ideas eh? There's another list of all these wikis at Special:Sitematrix. • Anakin (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedians

I'd like to get some input on my entry at Template talk:Notable Wikipedian#When should this be used? about when this template should be placed on talk pages. It is my view that it should only be used if the person is either a) a regular contributor (hence 'Wikipedian', or b) there is some other good reason for adding it, e.g. they were fiddling with their own biography to make themselves look good (edits of a controversial nature, I guess). For minor things like single edit accounts I don't think we have any good reason to be highlighting this. If you read a section just above my own there you'll see a case of this being potentially harmful. Richard001 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Visitor counter request

Could you please have a look on m:Meta:Babel#Visitor_counter_request? (Regarding privacy policy) --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see Wikipedia tracking visits to individual articles. As usual, we don't have 99% of stats we need. No surprise there (see meta:GUS for another much needed thing to do).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Immigration to Brazil

Please, can somebody block the article Immigration to Brazil. There is an IP doing vandalism there.

He is including information about Dutch and French settlers there, which is wrong, since both did not have any impact in Brazil's demography. They only settled Brazil for a few years then returned to Europe; they do not make part of the "immigration to Brazil" issue. I told this to the IP, but he is reverting me.

Can someone do something about this vandalism? Opinoso (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. You are incorrect in calling the edits by User:91.141.232.77 to be "vandalism"; this is a content dispute. No administrator will protect this article or block the IP editor. Rather, the matter should be discussed on the article talk page.
I also note that if you have documented evidence that "Dutch and French only settled there for a few years and then returned to their homecountries", then that information should be added to the article, since the question will inevitably arise again, rather than removing any mention of early Dutch and French settlers because you believe it is irrelevant.
Also, please remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is not only to provide information but also to point readers to further information. The ideal way to do so is to cite your source of information in the article. That also makes it clear that what you're saying is not simply your personal opinion.
For further information on content disputes, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Since my edition on the article is not vandalism, I ask someone to please revert the edition of user Opinoso. He is trying to omit that the French, the Dutch and the Spaniards settled in Brazil.
--91.141.238.10 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My Dutch ancestors settled in Brazil and then moved on to New Netherlands, they didn't return to their home country, therefore your edit is incorrect. Corvus cornixtalk 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No policy or guideline addressing anonymity?

I was surprised to find out we have no such policy. WP:ANON is a sketch of an essay with a few useful links... that's it? Anonymity is an (unofficial??) fundation of this project, yet we seem to ignore it. Isn't this strange? At the very least, I think we should try to make WP:ANON more useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the "Privacy" section of the Editor's index to get a more complete list of pages where this subject is covered. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance categories etc.

It appears we now have an elegant solution to the problem I raised a few days ago, namely how to stop maintenance categories (like "Articles with unsourced statements...") showing up on article pages. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HIDDENCAT. Would it be considered in breach of current policy to go around putting the new magic word on all maintenance categories? If so, can I propose a slight change to the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline, so that it allows such categories, but only as hidden categories? (Previous discussion has taken place at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Maintenance categories.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is dismissing someone's views because of where they live a personal attack?

Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#HD-DVD. Firstly I'll freely admit I got carried away in the heat of the moment and undoutedly violate WP:Civility in the discussion as well as let the discussion get too off topic and to ORry (partly my fault). However I have concerns about one of the comments, specifically "Blu-Ray had not already 'won' in Europe, please stop saying things like that when you don't even live in the same continent as me to judge.". It is my understanding that this is a personal attack. A minor one perhaps, which is why I don't want to complain about it. However in discussing the matter with the person who made the comment, the other person does not agree it is a personal attack so I wanted to see what others think. As I understand it, you should never use what someone is and what they believe in this way. It may be okay to say something like 'I live in Europe and from what I've seen this is how things are here'. But it is not okay to say 'you don't live in Europe so you obviously don't know' . Just the same as it is wrong to say 'you're not a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever you obviously don't know' . Both are a form of personal attack, even if not meant to be one because in both cases you are dismissing the views of the person based on who they are. Ultimately of course, it doesn't matter, all that matters is what the sources say which is why people should be careful about saying 'I am XYZ and from my experience' since that's OR. And as I already said, I admit I let the discussion get too ORry (and so did the other contributor). But IMHO, it's still not acceptable to dismiss what I was saying based on where I live (in any case, I was clear from the beginning I was basing my views on the sources I had read including some which I linked to, not my personal experience, even if I didn't include enough of these sources). What do others think? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read all your exchanges. I think this is a tricky call. The IP was making arguments with an original-research component, but was also arguing based on sources. I don't think he crossed the line into personal attack--if he had said "What do you know, you're a stupid American" that would have gone over the line. The tricky part comes in that he was obviously thinking something to that effect--he definitely thought you were an American for most of the exchange--and that was flavoring what he was saying. You caught that something was going on. Online exchanges that leave people with a sour taste in their mouths often come from false assumptions on the part of one (or more, of course) of the parties.[2]. Darkspots (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Darkspots. What was said doesn't appear to be a personal attack. --Kbdank71 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if it was a personal attack, it sounds like it was minor enough to not get in the way of a constructive dialog, unless you decide that you want to let it get in the way. The best way to handle minor personal attacks is to ignore them. Wikipedia isn't the "real world" - you don't lose face if you fail to respond to provocation. (In fact, as far as experienced editors are concerned, you gain reputation if you're able to stay focused on content discussions.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the real world works like that too... People who go around getting upset at the slightest provocation are usually not well respected either. In general, people who act in a mature, dignified manner even in the face of insult usually gain the respect of other mature people. Its only the juvinile and immature that have respect for those that escalate conflicts rather than resolve them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think I would classify it not as a personal attack, but as an ad-hominem argument and therefore a logically invalid argument. Saying that you live in a certain place is not an attack. Dismissing your point of view may violate the WP:CONSENSUS policy but is not necessarily a personal attack in itself. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For those who are not aware, this is an idea that has recently been proposed, and the supporters want to see the idea experimented with, despite some objections. From my understanding of this, the envisioned end goal is really no different from the experiment. So, I think it would be appropriate for the community to comment on the idea more fully. Mangojuicetalk 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the reason for the objection. It's kinda like if someone said, "We want to test what effect it will have on deletion debates if we set up a page at m:AIW for people to post endangered articles. If it helps our cause, we'll keep it; if not, we'll scrap it." And they go and set it up, and somebody objects, "Wait! This experiment is the same as going ahead and doing it. You haven't obtained community consensus." We could have set up delegable proxy without calling it an experiment, so the distinction is basically meaningless. There are no proposed changes to policy or guidelines at this time, although we've noted that we might propose them in the future based on the results of the experiment. Absidy (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get at here is that I think this idea needs to get broader input from the community. I would always have insisted on this at some point. If you think it's ready for an "experiment" then it's ready for community input. Mangojuicetalk 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy issue here? The brainstorming proposal has always been open for community input. At this point, the "proposal" for all practical purposes -- besides speculating a little about how delegable proxy might be used -- has been to design format for a proxy file, to be placed in a user's space, a Proxy Table that transcludes information from the proxy files and presents it in a form where it can be analyzed, and then to see what users make of it. With the caveat that the file format may well change, users can designate proxies already. Currently the draft proxy table doesn't have warnings that were on it at one time; but the intention is that it be made clear that these proxies aren't binding, no user is obligated in any way to recognize them, that the community has not recognized the validity of proxies, and, as well, that there is no proposal here for "voting" to become standard on Wikipedia. The current project page focuses on what !voting might look like in an AfD, if proxies were considered, but it should be realized that this was just an example, and nobody participating thinks that AfDs should be decided by vote. In outside study of Delegable Proxy, the most important thing it does -- in theory -- is to formalize networks of members to improve communication, cooperation, and coordination efficiency, and the establishment of the file formats will make it possible to begin simple and easy experimentation with the idea here. This sets up no bureaucracy, and neither involves nor suggests any policy changes. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why both of you have felt the need to defend the idea from this request for input from the community. That's all this is. Mangojuicetalk 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I interpreted earlier statement as an objection. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and open it to new participants. Anyone who wants to sign up can do so at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. Absidy (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do object; we can discuss those objections further on our user talk pages or on the talk page there, but I don't think it'd do much good because I think my mind is made up and so is yours. I was trying to write the stub here neutrally though, so that people would come to the page with an open mind. Mangojuicetalk 05:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I appreciate your efforts to keep everything fair and balanced. So anyway, while we disagree on this particular issue, I hope you will still consider appointing me as your proxy. Since you are actively participating in the delegable proxy discussion, the proxy designation will be of no consequence within that context, as you are already speaking on your own behalf. However, I can represent you in many other matters, and believe I am well-qualified to do so. I have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures and an excellent working relationship with Abd, who I intend to appoint as my own proxy. I notice you are a Mergist Wikipedian. Well, I'm Inclusionist, which is pretty close to that. Anyway, here are the instructions for nominating me. Just go to User:Mangojuice/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:
{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}
I'll take care of the rest, don't worry. I'll go ahead and include this message on the VPP so others can begin nominating me as well. OK, at the moment I am just 3,000 users away from superproxyship! This is going to be awesome. Absidy (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a cool advertising banner I came up with:

This user supports delegable proxy.
 Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}}

Let me know if anyone would like to apply for campaign manager. I am temporarily performing this role. However, our goal is to fill the position by March 1, 2008. Applicants will meet on IRC with the Executive Vice-President of Marketing of the Delegable Proxy Program. Be prepared to answer these questions:

  1. Tell me about yourself.
  2. Why are you seeking this position?
  3. What makes you uniquely qualified for this role?
  4. What lessons do you think can be learned from Esperanza?
  5. Why are manhole covers round?
  6. How many gas stations are in the state of California?

In addition, we are seeking 40 candidates to run for spots on the Delegable Proxy Senate. The first 20 seats will be filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. The next 20 seats will be filled competitively using the single transferable vote system, with votes allocated using interactive representation, with voters for any defeated Senate candidates being represented by the Delegable Proxy Governor and by defeated candidates for the gubernatorial office who aligned themselves with said defeated Senate candidate, all of whom will serve as ex officio members of the Senate. This will be a semi-presidential system, however, in which despite the existence of these executives, the head of government will still be appointed by the Senate. Absidy (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This idea is terrible. I've tagged it as rejected and explained my viewpoint on the talk page. Darkspots (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
When you check out the page to come to your own conclusions about it, you should know that User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, and User:Absidy are all the same account. Figuring that out made the whole thing make a lot more sense. Darkspots (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow! This raises a really good point. Yes, that user is a serial accountant. (CPA, actually, I'm told). However, a basic Wikipedia principle is that numbers of votes or supporters or opponents for an idea should not count, nor who their identity is, only the arguments are of interest as a basis for decision. If someone is having trouble following some Talk page or reviewing edits, because of user name changes, isn't that a sign that it is not the arguments being considered, but the numbers or personalities? RfAs are typically decided by vote count (though that is not binding on the closing bureaucrat), but, say, AfDs are supposed to be totally independent of vote count. Yet a big flap is made about canvassing, not to mention sock puppetry! If AfD is Not a Vote, then what harm has been done by meat puppetry or canvassing? Such behavior has two effects: first, it may bring in users who make telling arguments who might not otherwise participate, and it may distort the vote counts. But, surely, a closing admin will disregard vote counts (except to decide, perhaps, that there has been insufficient participation to close with a consensus). So .... if we actually knew and trusted that vote counts didn't matter, we would see shorter AfD discussions, with minimal repetition of arguments, and far less time would be wasted popping in with "per nom" !votes, which, of course, mean absolutely nothing if they are !votes (except for the case where participation is short, but a few per nom votes changes the outcome from "no consensus" to "Delete." In which case they are votes, with effect as such.) Let me put it this way: in an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, a statement that we "don't vote" would be discarded immediately as blatant nonsense. "Votes aren't binding, but may be considered at the discretion of editors or servants" would be far more accurate. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD is bad example - AFDs aren't about votes or representation - they're about policy. Personally I think the AFD example was a poor idea - AFD's have to be based on policy, we do not open the floor to 'votes' but rather opinions on the application of policy. In theory (although hardly ever in practice (see: deletionist admins)) 1 keep vote can trump 12 delete votes if the 1 keep vote has a good reason. The implementation of proxies implies the more opinions/votes your team has the more likely your opinion is to be implemented. That might be fine for voting on what a policy should be, but not for implementations on that policy. In other words, change the example to people voting on a new policy, not on whether an article should be deleted. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be bad example, in a way, though, in fact, votes do count in AfDs, see above. They shouldn't count, except in a narrow way which is described above (insufficient delete votes without keep votes may be grounds for "no consensus" or extending the period of an AfD; or not, it really is up to the closing administrator, properly). The effect of DP on AfD, I anticipate, if it is broadly adopted, would be fewer !votes and more attention to arguments and the presentation of evidence. I've seen sound arguments -- including reports of reliable source showing notability -- buried in piles of "Delete" votes when the pseudoscience anti-quackery cabal gets exercised. What effect proxies would have, then, is to probably lower the number of !votes, increase their quality, and, under some conditions, signal to the administrator that there is some broad community consensus involved. Because notability is really a quite fuzzy concept, and the bottom line for most AfDs is notability, there is, in fact, a role for "numbers," if participation bias could be overcome without destroying the efficiency of the present system (which radically and rapidly becomes a huge mess if enough users actually care about the outcome).
In any case, no matter how often those who are proposing we begin playing with delegable proxy here say it, that this proposal makes no changes in policy, does not shift from dependence on cogency of arguments as determined by servants to dependency on vote counts, certain opponents keep raising that is if it were the purpose and core of the proposal, which it is not. The purpose is to create a network of expressed trust among users, with totally voluntary and nonbinding participation, and see what happens. It can be expected, from what reactions we have seen so far, that some will attempt to disrupt this. It's actually quite resistant to that, and efficiently so (avoiding massive and useless debate) but, rather than explain at great length -- this is a matter I've been considering for twenty years -- I'd rather simply show it as the occasion arises. It is actually key to the proposal, in my view, that it is not binding and I would never make it binding. Others may disagree and may try to make it binding, or try, on the other side, to kill it out of fear that it will become binding or a waste of time, but ... that is not my vision.--Abd (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Now, maybe the admin considered those and rejected them, but the closing statement was simply "Delete." No explanation. Twere it up to me, as an administrator, I'd be tempted to move all redundant noise to a separate section so that it doesn't get mixed up with arguments, then I would explicitly rule on each relevant argument, as to why it was accepted or rejected. This, then, provides a basis for some kind of precedent (though precedent isn't binding, for sure), as well as a basis for appeal if the rulings were contrary to policy or guidelines."
  • Applause*. Finally, someone with brains! Can I crown you king? I can't express how much better this would make AFD. As the Bard said "...alas, far too many an AFD closing had been without coherent reason or logic, based on the whims of the deletionist tendancies of the closing admin, how unfair to the sole, lone, voice of reason that voted 'keep' with a coherent reference and implementation of WikiPolicy, ignored." or whatever he said... or was it Ghandi that said "You can judge an admin by how they summarize an AFD". A wise man, Ghandi. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No. My head is too big, crowns don't fit. However, *if* you were to look over my contributions, and decide that you'd like to express a general trust in me, which doesn't mean, by any means, that you agree with me on everything, though it "should" mean that if I participate in some discussion, and you disagree with what I wrote, you would give at least give my view a fair hearing, then you might name me as a proxy. But if you know someone better for that, please, do it with that person! This system works best if you pick the best available person. If you name me, I'd look over your contribution history, and I'd probably want to have some email contact off-wiki, plus, even better, if you are in the U.S. -- or maybe if you are anywhere -- some phone contact. To me, accepting a proxy is almost as much expression of trust as nominating one. As to AfD, my goal is efficiency: obtaining the very good results that we *often* get with increasing reliability and less conflict. As noted above, AfD is actually a minor application, but policy and guidelines would be, possibly, more to the point. How does the "community" decide these things? They are presented as a community consensus, but ... most of the community, the vast majority of users, are totally isolated from the process, there is a severe participation bias. As I've noted, this is functional, in certain ways. But in others it breaks down, and, as the scale increases, I predict, unless we head it off, it will break down more and more frequently. So, "How do we keep the benefits of participation bias while averting the damage?" Delegable proxy was actually invented as an answer to that problem. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Initially, this looks like a bad idea. Arguments should matter more than votes. If 10 users say they want me to represent me, that shouldn't give me 10 times the say of a regular user. What we need is informed consensus, not vote trading. Superm401 - Talk 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not discuss this here. Join me for a wiki-latte at the Delegable Proxy Coffeehouse and we'll thrash these issues out. Absidy (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Of course it looks bad, because you are thinking of it being about votes. Arguments should matter more than votes. In fact, as long as there is one telling argument, and at least one user who uses that argument to conclude in a certain direction, votes should not count at all. Delegable proxy, applied in a free association context (like the Wikipedia user community), is really counter-intuitive in many respects; my experience is that, while a very few people "get it" almost instantly, others are, quite reasonably, well-defended against now ideas that are outside the box, and it seems to take a year or so of exposure for this to shift. What this "proposal" does is very little: it simply announces an experiment: what happens if we set up a file standard or standards for user proxy files, and some table formats to display these through transclusion. If you think it is a bad idea, I'd suggest not wasting time arguing about it, for if it is a bad idea, it will go nowhere. It's actually fail-safe. Yes, we need informed consensus, not "vote-trading." Vote trading would only work if (1) votes counted, which isn't what this proposal establishes at all, and (2) enough users traded votes to matter, though "matter about what," given that votes don't count, is quite unclear.
Now, about the "10 users" who "say they want me to represent me." You mean "represent them," I assume. A delegable proxy system here would not give you, holding 10 proxies, any more "say" than you presently have. However, if someone needs to make a decision (for themselves or on behalf of the community) as to whether or not your opinion is isolated and can be disregarded as rejected by the community, or it is -- even if only expressed by you -- likely to be trusted and backed up in subsequent process, they may have better information on which to proceed. In doing this, if it's me, I'd pay close attention to what is actually in the proxy table, what users have named you, what their contributions looked like, and all that. This might seem complex, but it's a lot less complex than going, say, to full dispute resolution. Whether or not I decided to even look at a proxy table is up to me, and "closing administrator did not look at proxy table" would not be an offense of any kind. Further, if you were to argue in some debate that "my arguments are sound because I have ten proxies behind me", I'd be a bit tempted to make sure the proxies know you are arguing like that. If you were my proxy and you wrote something like that, I'd yank the proxy. There is an exception: if there is some discussion and you were the sole participant, and you were being rejected as "isolated" or "simply unwilling to accept the consensus," and you informed them of the support, I'd consider that legitimate. Basically, it is an answer to an illegitimate argument, an argument from numbers. It says, "Okay, if you think numbers count, look at these." And then they will look, or not, and make their own decisions, and if you were bluffing and all those were your sock puppets, what do you think would happen? The most likely outcome: if you made any fuss, and maybe if you did not, you'd be blocked. Using sock puppets to increase proxy count would be, in my view, quite similar to multiple !voting with sock puppets -- grounds for immediate block. It would be singularly stupid to try to add proxies with sock puppets, you might as well wave a big red flag that says "checkuser me" if there is any abusive behavior at all. Plus if I saw ten accounts naming you with scanty edit histories, I'd disregard them, maybe you asked your friends to register and name you, and they haven't a clue.--Abd (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delegable proxy is a euphemism for a "lawyer." This seems to be a re-hash of WP:AMA.

With that said, I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I think there should be the rule of law in Wikipedia as opposed to the current system of populist Anarcho-Communism.

Having Wikipedia "lawyers" or "advocates" or "delegable proxies" and so on, is a good thing. It won't happen, though, because such things go against Wikipedia culture and tradition, and without a full reform of Wikipedia policy, it's likely to simply be abused by trolls who will delegate full responsibility for explaining their actions to another user. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proxies serve various functions. Yes, "advocate" is a possible one. So is "servant" -- as in, take care of this, I'm too busy elsewhere, and let me know if my personal attention is needed. In the European experiments with Delegable Proxy, what we are calling a proxy is called an "advisor," which, again expresses part of the function. To me, though, the real significant thing is the formalization (very loosely) of a network of users who have, ideally, decent communication with each other. The implications are actually enormous. But, he, this is the Policy page. Is there any Policy issue here? I don't see one.--Abd (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting to elicit a negative response

I am skeptical as to whether the proposal has been made in good faith. It has been constructed and supported by four accounts, in coordination with the promotion of a neologism article, delegable proxy. At the moment, three are indefinitely blocked, and the fourth might be also depending on the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron Duvall‎. Per this diff, the proposal appears to be fueled by a financial conflict of interest -- a startup seeking funding. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has been rejected. Is there a need to keep this thread open? I motion to close. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:AMA, which was closed July 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corpse pictures considered unencyclopedic

Please see this discussion thread from a few days ago on one of the Reference Desks. In brief, it is debated whether it's appropriate for articles such as Wilhelm Frick to include images of the subject's corpse. I say not. (I'm "--Anonymous" in the archived thread.)

I know perfectly well that Wikipedia is not censored and I agree that it should not be censored, but this is not license for images that do not add encyclopedic value. And just because someone was executed does not mean that it is informative to see what his dead body looked like. Only if there was something notable about the person's dead body would that be the case.

And in the absence of encyclopedia justification, the inclusion of such images is simply bad taste. I say they should all be removed -- except, of course, if there was something notable about the person's dead body. A picture of Benito Mussolini's body hanging on a meat hook in a public square, if we had one, might be appropriate. That was a notable event. An execution is not notable, and pictures like the one that started this thread are not encyclopedic, I say.

Since this affects a number of articles (I don't know how many), I call for discussion here.

--207.176.159.90 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Most people have encyclopedic value because of things that they did while they were alive, and a picture of them when they are not alive wouldn't seem to have any value.
But this is already covered. I don't see any need to add "Wikipedia is not Shakespeare's Brutus" or "Wikipedia is not Doubting Thomas."
It doesn't seem to add anything that's not already policy, and it would seem to discourage people from adding such images when appropriate. For example, the corpse of John Paul I might be encyclopedic (good luck finding a free image), since the embalming process was actually an issue. superlusertc 2008 February 23, 09:52 (UTC)
1 - It is notable. This was the death of a nazi, it arguably does have encyclopedic value. If there were photos of the corpses of famous people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, etc I would definitely think the images encyclopedic. Certainly the death of a nazi is notable? (given the efforts to find them and bring them to justice, the amount of blood on their hands, the lack of photos of the individual, and, the notability of the individual itself)
2 - The image is not that bad - it's in black and white (which is already less gory - no red blood or skin tone), and is quite washed out. AND its been set to a very small size in the article - you can hardly see most of the detail
3 - It might be difficult to develop a blanket policy on such things. I think the overiding policy issues are things like "How much does it offend" and "How encyclopedic is it?". In this cases there is strong argument for encyclopedic merit and the image really is not that offensive -- however that is subject, and opinions may vary. Therefore, perhaps we should get users to vote on this. I have a feeling the majority would not find the image offensive. I certainly don't, especially because it's not in colour and of poor quality.
Rfwoolf (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a simple policy for images is "Is it notable"? To which I would disagree with your comment in section #1. He was notable for what he did while he was alive, not for anything particular about his death. The anon's Benito Mussolini counter example makes a good point and I would also point out that there might be some encyclopedic value to corpse photos of Bonnie and Clyde or Billy the Kid since there is controversy about their death. Being a nazi doesn't make his corpse photo de facto notable. You could possible argue an exception if we had no other visual image of him, period, but that is not the case here since we do have a very good image of him alive. There simply isn't a need for it and removing it is not censorship, it is just being prudent and using images that actually contribute something to the article. However, I will point out that there would be some value in adding this photo to the Cadaver article. AgneCheese/Wine 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There are Bonnie and Clyde corpse photos for precisely that reason. Without them, somebody's always claiming famous people got away. The Barbarosa syndrome, call it. [3]. Anyway, corpse photos are as interesting for what they don't show as for what they show. In the case of the Nazis, they look good and hanged. And not very well (lots of blood). That correlates with historical accounts and is illustrative. They also look well nourished, which is somewhat ironic, considering. So that, too, adds. Their victims had it harder (all things considered). SBHarris 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
IMO An execution is a notable event so it makes sense to me that a photo of the cadaver of an execution victim would be relevant to the article about that person. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Particularly someone executed by the Nuremberg Trials, a notable legal proceeding. Darkspots (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As the image is free, and there is no other image fighting for that space in the article, and it is an image relevent to the article, I see absolutely no problem. Pictures of the subject's corpse should be treated just the same as pictures of them when they were alive- if we discuss a concert a pop singer was involved in, and have a free picture of said concert, we include it. If we talk about the execution of a criminal, and have a picture of said execution, we include it. Images don't have to be 'notable' to be included in an article. This post basically boils down to 'Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't want to see that.' J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, images should relate directly to something stated in the text of the article. If the article discusses the subject's exicution, an image of that execution is directly related and can be included. If not, then there is no reason to include the image. It's as simple as that. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again I will note that this discussion has nothing to do with censorship, so any commentary along those lines are off subject and moot. The purpose of any image is to illustrate something of encyclopedic purpose. To that regards, what does this photo illustrate? That he died? Yes, is that particularly notable? No. That he was executed? No, looking at the photo (without any caption) there is nothing to indicate that he did not die from a fall down some stairs. That he was a Nazi? No, no Nazi emblems in the photo. That he was connected to the Nuremberg Trials? No, once again this photo fails to illustrate anything worthwhile or encyclopedic. So what is the point? Why is it needed? In the context of the Frick article, it serves absolutely no purpose. However, as I noted above, it would serve a very encyclopedic purpose in the Cadaver. AgneCheese/Wine 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. Also, as the image is in the public domain, there's a good reason for putting the image into Commons. So unless the picture adds more than a brief description of it does (e.g. "William Frick was convicted under the Nuremberg Trials and was hanged until he died."), I don't see the point. It also really doesn't do much to prove that he died, as he would be celebrating his 131st birthday next month. Put the image in Commons, and maybe in cadaver, and certainly add a link to "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:", but don't put it in the article proper.
When newspapers consider printing gory photographs, the arguments are typically not ones of censorship or offending readers, but questions of whether the photos are hard journalism. The papers that don't print them know that the papers that do will sell more copies. That's not the point. The point is: Is it journalism, or in our case, is it encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not The Nazi Hunter. superlusertc 2008 February 23, 21:14 (UTC)

The contrast between the main photo and the one after execution is stunning and says more than words can ever do. Images are also a language and a communication of facts, and should not be undervalued. This image adds considerably to the value of the article. The hanging of this once-powerful individual is a major part of his story. There is no reason not to show this. In fact, as it was such a significant part of his story, there is every reason that it should be shown. Tyrenius (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise Emmett Till. Should we have a picture of Emmett Till's corpse? superlusertc 2008 February 24, 04:47 (UTC)
The contrast of quite a few folks living vs dead photos would be stunning. Should that be an encouragement to start including side-by-side Alive/Dead photos in infoboxes? of Ronald Regan, of Princess Diana, of Benazir Bhutto? of Anna Svidersky? If we had free use photos of anyone's corpse, is the "contrast" alone, truly a reason to include the photo? And before anyone brings up the "Think of their family" angle as a reason not to post corpse photos of the folks mentioned above, I will point out that Wilhelm Frick has family too, possibly still living--though that is not my reason for thinking the photo should not be included. I do agree that his execution was historical and if the photo actually was of his execution, not an after the fact matter, I would probably be arguing for its inclusion because that would have some encyclopedic value. But a simple picture of his corpse, does not. AgneCheese/Wine 04:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Herewith a philosophical thought:
Consider if the image in question was a completely different image, for example "Wilhelm Frick at his 65th birthday". Would it be a problem to include it in this particular article?
Some will say 'yes' because so far the article only has 1 image of the guy, so to add more will improve the article and make it a better encyclopedia.
Agreed?
So can we agree that the problem here that in this case, we need to consider whether or not the image is offensive, not whether we should be adding an image of the guy.
Consider the article we have on cats - 17 images of cats, when we probably only need 5. Why? Because people appreciate as much multimedia coverage on an article as possible, it's "encyclopedic".

Summary of the arguments (change as you wish while remaining fair):

  • Whether the image is / is not encyclopedic or has / hasn't encyclopedic value.
  • Whether the image is / is not relevant to the article.
  • Whether the image is / is not offensive.

Some people argue more than one of these points:
some people don't care how offensive it is or how enyclopedic it is, but as long as it's "relevant" to part of the article it should be included.
some people don't care how relevant or encyclopedic it is, they find it too offensive.
You may amend this comment as you wish. Rfwoolf (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The cats & dog examples both serve your point and discount it. On almost a monthly basis a battle will rage on some cat/dog breed article about the excessive amount of images and the point that Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Gradually consensus seems to be emerging that more editorial discretion should be used in images and you are starting to see fewer photo galleries in these articles. That is significant, since I'm sure that more editors have a stronger emotional attachment to their kitty or puppy pics then to a corpse photo. As for your birthday example, yes there is a difference with that verse the corpse photo because while people are living they are doing notable things and obviously their appearance changes as they age and people will have different "visual images" of that person at different stages of their lives. While multiple photos from the 65th birthday party would be redundant and not needed, having one photo to show how he look at that point of his life would serve the encyclopedic image of illustrating the figure that was doing these notable things and show the readers how the people who interacted with him at that point saw him. Now, in contrast, what notable thing did Frick do after his death? In contrast to Mussolini, whose body hung on a meathook in a town square following his death and impressed an indelible image upon thousands, what kind iconic or encyclopedic image was Frick's corpse-which was taken by a few US army officers before his body was disposed? What impact did that "iconic" image have on anyone that has some lasting encyclopedic relevance? Now, suppose some credible sources say that one of the US army soldiers who saw Frick's corpse was so haunted and distraught by the image that he climbed a water tower and started shooting people, then you would have some encyclopedic relevance since that image meant something--it did something that is worth noting in history. But alas, Frick's corpse has none of these elements of encyclopedic worth or relevance. In the context of the Frick biography, it serves no purpose-provides no illustration of something encyclopedic and notable. (In contrast to the encyclopedic illustration it would serve in the Cadaver article). So, again, what is the point of having it? AgneCheese/Wine 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Some Remarks:
I think I'm beginning to see your point of view... Some people above, however, do make pretty good arguments about the relevance and importance of this picture as well as the idea that it covers something notable - wheras your comments suggest that his dead body was not notable/relevant/important, but his execution was, and since the photo isn't of the execution it shouldn't be there.
Indeed if I had to go to a World War II museum or Aschwitz I think I would want to see this photo. The article does mention his execution and death, and no other photos are fighting for space. The only real reason I can see to remove the image is if it is highly offensive, but in it's current form (smalled down, black and white) I can't really agree that it is offensive, although that is a subjective thing - I think the supreme court had their legal test for something like this "We'll know it when we see it".
To the article cat's credit, all the images it does have of cats are in fact relevant (bar 1 or 2 of the 17-18 that could still be weeded out).
Rfwoolf (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't offend me personally so I am really not viewing it in that context. I'm sure it could offend some, but that is not really relevant since obviously Wikipedia is not censor. It is interesting that you bring up Auschwitz. I was thinking about the appropriateness of the photo in an article about the Nuremberg Trials or Israel's response to the Holocaust because it seems like you would see the that photo at a Holocaust Museum. With some Jewish family background, I think I would find seeing that photo in a Holocaust museum would be strangely therapeutic for me, as if justice was served and there is some sanity in the world after all. But yet I still question that appropriateness in the context of this article since, essentially, Wikipedia is not therapy either. :p AgneCheese/Wine 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm bothered by the photo a bit. That's why I've been trying to scrupulously check for bias each argument that I make. Actually, above when I was talking about Emmett Till's corpse, I do think that a photo of that should be in the article, since the article says that Till's mother encouraged people to take photos at the funeral. That makes it encyclopedic. I just still don't see the value of having a photo of Fritz's corpse in his article. In the Nuremberg article, yes, but unless there was something notable about his corpse, then no. superlusertc 2008 February 24, 18:47 (UTC)
I'm drawn to the argument that puts the corpse as a record of completion of an infamous life. It seems truly relevant when that person's work was putting others to death. It doesn't strike me as gratuitous. What I don't understand is the argument that separates the corpse from the person-as-notable – is there a difference? My guess is the corpse would be right in there if there were no other pictures, so why not include it for the record? It's another fact of their biography. I'd feel more offended if the story itself, quite apart from pictures, was about the guy getting away scot-free (cf the policemen in the Jeffrey Dahmer article for instance) and succeeding. My feeling of offense there is no grounds for censorship. There's more to "offense" than pictures sometimes. FWIW, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC) PS, I don't know if it's acceptable in this discourse to link to this nice resolution between two minds but I'll put it in anyway [4]. Scratch it if it's not, JR
  1. ^ example01
  2. ^ example02
  3. ^ example03
  4. ^ example04
  5. ^ example
  6. ^ example05
  7. ^ example
  8. ^ example
  9. ^ example
  10. ^ example02
  11. ^ example03
  12. ^ example05
  13. ^ example
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_35&oldid=1142561218"