Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8/Template:Linkimage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Template:Linkimage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. I've looked at this one, the previous one, and the talk page, and there seems to be either no consensus or keep. Here, there seems to be a favor to keep, as the reasons cited for hanging on to this template outweigh the deletes. Even if this resulted in no consensus, it would be a keep anyway. Feel free to relist this, in a week or two, if you desire the possibility of a different outcome. —Pilotguy (go around) 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Linkimage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strong Delete. This template survived a discussion at TfD - see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14 for that discussion. A similar template with the same author and a similar purpose, Template:Offensiveimage, was deleted - see Wikipedia:templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/February 2005#Template:Offensiveimage for that discussion. Thanks to all who gave their input in those discussions. The existence of this template falsely implies that there should be a mechanism within Wikipedia to allow images thought to be potentially offensive (by a very small minority) to be hidden from view, or censored. Wikipedia is not censored. This is an encylopedia. We present information. We do not censor information. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Also Wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of narrow minded adults who for some reason demand to be able to read every article at work without upsetting the boss. That some people don't like some information (text or pictures) is not a reason for that information to be deleted, neither a reason to add a warning that the information may be offensive. That some information (lolicon pictures for example) is banned in some countries is indeed sad but WP should not censor information that is legal in the USA. The user who created this template enjoys pushing his POV on others in regard to "offensive" images (and has felt the wrath of arbcom numerous times as a result). The POV he is pushing appears to be a moral one as described at Censorship#By subject matter and agenda consistent with that of people who describe themselves as having right-wing politics. This template and its purpose are POV and therefore unacceptable, and many have been reverting uses of it. Its current uses in mainspace include transclusion in the following penis-related articles: pre-ejaculate; ejaculation; subincision; autofellatio; and John and Lorena Bobbitt. We're not the babysitters of the faint of heart among us. If this template continues to be used, we run the risk of watering down Wikipedia. OTOH, the animated GIF graphic Image:Sonic 2 ss animated.gif which this template hides from normal view on Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit) could actually do damage to users' systems by eating up memory, but I'm resisting the urge to foist my POV (that it's garish and I'd not want to have to look at it for a long period of time) on my fellow editors and readers.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it is ironic that the nominator complains of POV yet spouts his own POV with phrases like "narrow minded adults". There are several misleading items in the nomination, such as the idea that this template somehow contains "a warning" or that it implies some sort of mechanism exists. Johntex\talk 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Can anyone think of an NPOV reason why this template might be useful? Catalogs of images? —dgiestc 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice absolutely agree with the WP:NOT#CENSORED logic of the nominator. (→Netscott) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia's views on censorship should be clarified, but this template assumes Wikipedia permits it. -- Ec5618 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if you look up penis, guess what you are going to see? No need to use a text link. I can think of no NPOV to use this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification - This is an irrelevant example. The template is not used on penis and to my knowledge never has been. It is used on articles that are more pornographic than that, such as a photo of a man sucking his own penis. If anyone ever wants to add a pornographic fair use image to Deep Throat or Debbie Does Dallas it would be useful for that. It would also be useful if any porn producer decides they want to promote their movies by releasing GFDL images of Double penetration. For that matter, it would be useful if an editor goes home tonight and convinces his boyfriend/girlfriend to pose for a photo giving a blow job and uploads it under CC2.5. There are many valid reasons to have this template. Johntex\talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There are those who would question whether the articles it is used on are pornographic (I say no), whether the images it is used to censor are pornographic (I again say no), and whether pornography on Wikipedia should be censored (I once again say no).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply - it is interesting that you think that hard-core pornography should be allowed to be shown on Wikipedia. I think that most people would agree this would be very harmful to the over-all reputation of the project. Johntex\talk 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the template is not used for "censorship". Please go look up censorship. The common definition of censorship is when the government or other central authority imposes restriction by fiat. That is not how this template gets used. It gets used when editors decide to use it. There is nothting in WP:NOT or in any other Wikipedia policy that REQUIRES us to show an image inline in the article.
There are many valid reasons not to have an image prominent at the top of an article. For instance, many people will come to an article not fully understanding what the term means. For another thing, many people will know what the term means but will expect an encyclopedia to cover such a topic with pure prose, not with photographs. For a third thing, we can make any link go to any article. For all these reasons it is not correct to say "if they come to the article they should expect what they get". Johntex\talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"For instance, many people will come to an article not fully understanding what the term means." and "For a third thing, we can make any link go to any article." Those are two reasons why we have the disclaimer.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but relying on the disclaimer is not a good idea. If a store put up a sign that said "We sometimes give crappy service", would you be inclined to shop there? Also, our disclaimer is not clearly presented to people. They have to go and find it. If they follow a link from Google to any particular article, they will be completely unaware of our disclaimers. Johntex\talk 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"For another thing, many people will know what the term means but will expect an encyclopedia to cover such a topic with pure prose, not with photographs." What people are these? Why can't they browse with a text-only browser like lynx if all they want is text?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Because most images are not pornographic. Why should they have to turn off all their images because you think there is some noble point to be made in featuring pornography in an encyclopedia? Johntex\talk 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This template is a wonderful compromise between people who say these articles should not carry a picture at all, and those who want to display the image. This lets people view a plain text article if they want, but the image is just a click away if they decide they want to see it. Johntex\talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So you think all articles on Wikipedia should be plain text?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If you will point out to me where I gave any suggestion that all articles should be plain text, then I will give you antoher reply.Johntex\talk 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to keep this template and have it available as a tool. It is up to the editors of a specific article to decide if this tool is best for that article or not. Johntex\talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The implementation and utilization of MediaWiki:Bad image list essentially negates the further need for this tool. (→Netscott) 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply - that is really not the case. For one thing, the "Bad image list" includes exceptions for pages where the image is still displayed inline. The whole point of the linkimage template is to keep the image available, but not inline. It is not a substitute at all. Johntex\talk 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not obvious to everyone that an article about pre-ejaculate will have a photographic image of a penis. Having that image be the first thing readers of the article see has some shock value that detracts from the encyclopedic content of the article. Images are supposed to improve articles, not detract from them. The article is currently too short to be able to move the (useful if not used for shock value) image further down the article to put it on the second page. I am not aware of any articles on Wikipedia that display a graphic image at the top of the article. For example, in the penis article the color image is (on my monitor) on the third page (i.e. enough article space to fill my monitor twice before the color image). The color image in the vulva article is on the second page. This template appears to be used to avoid exactly this situation - in pre-ejaculate, ejaculation, subincision, autofellatio, and John and Lorena Bobbitt, the linkimage is found very near the top, viewed on the first page of most any monitor. Lyrl Talk C 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"I am not aware of any articles on Wikipedia that display a graphic image at the top of the article." So you haven't visited the Main Page?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as Netscott mentioned, many of these images appear on the bad image list: an issue that transcends any outcome of a TFD, really. To rephrase: this template is a way to include in articles images such as those that are listed there, and once this template is deleted we can't just say "take it off of the list!" or call for scrapping the list altogether. Provided that this template is only used for bad images, I have no problem keeping it, since they can't be displayed in articles anyway, and might as well have a pretty link to them. I personally do not view those images as offensive, but would prefer not to eat breakfast looking at them. But this vote isn't about censorship. GracenotesT § 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this vote is about censorship. Most uses of this template are for censorship purposes.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain. I'm talking about censorship, but clarifying that the active logic behind my vote is not that censorship should be allowed. It is already given that censorship is allowed -- see the bad image list. However, my vote shouldn't use WP:NOT#CENSOR as a reason to keep or delete, because this discussion should not be about whether censorship is allowed or not -- it's given that it is (by discretion and consensus of admins on the MediaWiki talk page).
Now given this, perhaps you could see how deleting this template would be censorship more than keeping it, in an indirect sense that there would be no standard means of linking to images on the bad image list, such that they are as close in appearance to regular thumbnails as possible. After all, if an image was linked inline, you wouldn't be able to see it as easily, and thus it would be "censored" by lack of visibility/conspicuousness. And if people use the template for gratituous censorship, that is too fucking bad. It really is. But it's not a reason to delete the template. GracenotesT § 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:NPOV, we should not decide whether an image of X on article X is inappropriate/offensive. Per WP:NOT, we should not censor information. Besides the two policies, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states that "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." Also, although this template does not say "Warning, NSFW image!", that is still the message it gives to the reader. Prolog 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Once again, deleting this template does not mean that we are going to get rid of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, or make pictures uncensored in any way. That is a separate issue. GracenotesT § 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - ironically, deleting this template would be more akin to censorship than keeping it. If we keep it, it is still up to the editors of a certain page to decide whether or not they want to use it. Keeping this template preserves editorial choice and freedom. Johntex\talk
  • Keep. This has many uses, but first I want to rebut the arguments given for deleting it:
1. The argument that this is censorship is downright silly. The image is still there. It's just not brought up automatically. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy to indicate that that would be considered censorship. Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Template:Linkimage withholds nothing, and it removes nothing.
2. The argument that a template designed by the same person was deleted is also silly; it is beyond argumentum ad hominem, since the linkimage template survived while the other template was brought to TfD by its creator.
Now for the uses of the template:
1. There are articles in which it is a good compromise. See pre-ejaculate. People looking up the article might expect to see the substance, but I think many will be surprised to see a penis. On the other hand, many contributors think it's important to have such an image. The only consensus that could be reached was to use Template:Linkimage.
2. Secondly, some articles may be viewed because it is not clear what the term is about. I'm not going to find circle jerk in Webster's dictionary, and a reader might not know going in that it's something sexual. Imagine if the topic were deemed important enough to have its own article; someone might decide that the appropriate image, failing the finding of any erotic art, to be a photograph of the act itself. So a Template:Linkimage might be good there, too.
3. If a user has popups, an errant mouse push after leaving a page up on an article like birth control can conjure up an image they might not have wished to see.
4. There's Special:Random. Imagine the surprise of someone who thinks that Wikipedia's a good research tool comparable to a paper encyclopedia (even though Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia), only to find a link off the main page showing something that they would never expect to see there.
5. As pointed out, animated gifs are often annoying in articles but useful as links.
In short, this provides a useful function without violating WP:NOT#CENSOR, and ad hominem reasoning to the contrary (as with all ad hominem reasoning) is fallacious. I know there are many people who think that using Template:Linkimage violates some core belief of theirs, but that belief is not the same as WP:NOT#CENSOR, so they'll have to come up with a different argument for why this should be deleted. Calbaer 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. In an optimal world we would have no linkimage template, no bad image list, and no one disturbed by those images. Given the reality of the bad image list and people disturbed by those images (and many editors who assume that the images are vandalism and that they're doing a favor by deleting them), I think keeping the template is in our best interest. In order to make it seem less like censorship, it would help if we used it more on images of things other than penises. LWizard @ 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not completely sure what this template does, but doesn't this just do the same thing as adding a colon before the image name, such as [[:Image:Example.jpg]]? If so, then delete for redundancy. Reywas92Talk 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Clarification: no, this template does not do same exact thing. For example, we can have the text "The shortcut for this page is [[WP:TFD]]", or we could have "{{shortcut|WP:TFD}}". Templates like this conveniently afford us a consistent (and more aesthetic) user interface. GracenotesT § 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The template currently displays the following for the Example.jpg file. It displayed a box on the right side the last time I touched it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template does have legitimate uses. This is the wrong forum for arguing about what is censorship. -- Donald Albury 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this the wrong forum?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I think that I have a reasonable complaint when I say that I should be allowed to read about autofellacio without seeing someone actually doing it. Same goes with many other articles that have potentially graphic subjects. I don't see how it could be censorship if a link to the image is still given. It's not a matter of censorship, it's about a human sense of repugnance. Look at the violence article. It has no blood-splattering examples of violence. That's because such an image would detract from the quality of the article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem is that this template does get used for censorship ends. Having edited heavily on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article I saw this happen: here and here. This is wrong. (→Netscott) 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just because it has the possibility of being misused does not mean that the legitimate usage of the template should be scrapped as well. Would you like to read the Goatse article with a huge picture of it right in front of you? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, why not?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. You're arguing that something should be banned because someone somewhere used it a few times for censorship? I think that belongs in irony as a premier example! Calbaer 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of its uses in mainspace are for censorship.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no censorship exists here. ALL the uses of the template in the namespace was because of consensus by editors to use the template. An editorial decision taken freely by editors is not censorship in any form. Johntex\talk 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: on the rare occasions where an image is useful but including it inline is not appropriate, this template should be used and it's therefore certainly useful. Mikker (...) 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Not appropriate according to whom?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the consensus of the editors of that particular page, clearly. We make editorial decisions all the time. Is this source or that source more reliable? Is this sentence clearly worded or not? Is this picture good enough to be a featured picture? Etc. There is no reason to take this tool away from the editors who are working on a particular page. Johntex\talk 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to go against standard practices in writing an encyclopedia by removing an image from its article. Loom91 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. "Standard practice" in writing an encyclopedia would be not to include photographs at all, only including diagrams and artistic depictions, if that. But Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Calbaer 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Gasp An encyclopedia without photographs? What is this, the 18th Century?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeff G, your sarcasm does you no credit. Please be more polite. Thanks, Johntex\talk 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship — it is to give editors flexibility in making editorial judgements. — Rebelguys2 talk 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. It's valid to reject the subjective editorial judgment of what gets shown immediately and what doesn't. If someone needed to read an article predicted to have an graphic image, they could always disable images in their browser, but this is not always going to happen, and there are other cases as mentioned above. So ignore all rules and go with this apparent POV. –Pomte 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible keep - no, no, weaker than that. This template has the potential to cause serious problems, and it's already being used in a problematic way. However, it also has potentially legitimate uses (e.g., to view images that aren't directly includable for technical reasons). We should keep it for that reason, but we need to watch to ensure it's not being used for violating WP:NOT#CENSORED. Gavia immer 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And also possibly for large .gif files. GracenotesT § 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that large .gif files are automatically scaled down - please see the "Files" Tab on My Preferences, which currently has "Limit images on image description pages to" defaulting to "800x600px" and "Thumbnail size" defaulting to "180px".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you any examples of "images that aren't directly includable for technical reasons"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Two that have already been mentioned: images on Mediawiki:Bad image list that are relevant but haven't gotten article exceptions yet, and very large images that are not useful scaled down, but would destroy article layout if they were included at full size. Gavia immer (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know that this has some potentially useful applications but it is being abused right now. It would be good to be able to go to an article and read about it without seeing a horrible image, especially for those browsing at work, but this is only in relatively few cases. Instead we find the template being abused and a victim of POV-pushers which has led to edit wars on a number of articles. violet/riga (t) 07:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I like what the template is trying to do, but it doesn't do it very well, does it? A cleaner solution would open the image in place. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've changed the template and made it have a show/hide function so that you do not have to navigate away from the page. I have changed away from a delete vote but am not convinced enough to go towards a keep. violet/riga (t) 12:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - after experimenting with the new version of the template I've decided that it is now useful, but needs to be used only through consensus.


  • Extra Strong Keep - Certain pages need it, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is true that a show/hide function within the template would improve this template to streamline the process.
Using this template in sexual related topics has NOTHING to do with CENSORING. Don't be silly. It is not censoring unless it the content is suppressed or deleted. That means censorship is when someone is preventing or not allowing people to access information. We are not trying to prevent anyone from accessing information by using this template in sexual articles. The content is still easily accessible with the use of it. Please to not misuse or abuse the rule that states Wikipedia is not censored. The intent of that rule is very clear, and it should be respected for what it is rather than using it to favor and spread the POV for "positive sexuality politics". I do believe in positive sexuality politics, but I think deleting this template is an awful way to try to gain acceptance from people. It does no good when somebody forces another person to view a picture. That is just giving the "narrow minded" people more reasons to fight for their cause. Not to mention, deletion means it opens up Wikipedia to be used as some kind of political promotion tool for those who desire a more graphic/explicit society.
I think this issue is about writing a decent and respectable article for researchers who are investigating sexually related issues (and anyone else who cares to read them). All this nonsense about "we don't censor" and "we do not baby sit for the weak" simply does not apply to this issue. Those lines are ammunition for protesting a completely different problem. I don't know why people are saying that stuff here. That battle has already been won, and we all support it the way it is now.
Having a link or a "show/hide" option before a sexually explicit picture is just the way of the Web, and it allows Wikipedia to gain credibility. If we show some consideration for the people using the project, they tend to respect us. Maybe we should consider what the end-user determines as "information" when it comes to sexually related pictures. There is nothing wrong with allowing them to have an option to see or not to see.
By the way, it's not just a few "narrow minded" people who prefer to have a choice when it comes to ejaculating penis pictures and other sexual pictures. I am not offended by any of those pictures whatsoever. I have worked with all types of nude pictures for years. All I am saying is we should follow logically decent guidelines just like other respectable sources of information do on the Web. I'm simply not interested in spending hours writing an article just so the readers think the inline photos are some kind of prank (and many of them do. I have received emails on this issue). That is why I want a decent presentation for articles.
If we delete this template, it will be censoring our own editors because they will not have the freedom to use it. As of now, editors are not required to show inline photos. If this becomes deleted, than it infringes upon our own freedom and the legitimate decision-making power of editing.
If we have other issues with POV editing wars, deleting this is not going to solve them anyway. If anything, this templete allows editors to solve POV wars because they can come to a compromise and still have the picture. APatcher 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- this template needs properly categorized, not eliminated. There are many technical articles where another image or three could be crowding the text where this can be used to add quite useful understanding and content for what would otherwise be too many images in the page. It is also useful for optionally not displaying 'optional content', letting the reader decide for themselves. Moreover, it is (by far) mostly used on talk pages... like See also Templates: lts , lc, tlx, and tl and other such tools. Why throw away a tool? Keep it in the proper box until needed. // FrankB 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
My objection to its use related to mainspace. Use in talkspace is irrelevant.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet this is inconsistent with nominating it for deletion. If one wishes to use it even in talkspace the template would have to be retained for that usage. Johntex\talk 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. While I personally disagree with it being used in many cases, I acknowledge that it does have utility. There is no reason to delete this template. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep new improved version. Allows some images to be used where otherwise they wouldn't be. But recommend a rename. Maybe ClickToShowImage Regards, Ben Aveling 22:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - in my opinion, this template is a good compromise between two opposing factions. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What factions, the censors and the rest of us?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Using the template prevents censorship whilst adressing the concerns of those who want certain images removed. To my mind, this is only equivalent to an Are you 18? splash page on an adult website - anyone who wants to be there can do so with an extra click of the mouse, anyone else gets fair warning. Although perhaps these are comments to be made in a larger debate on censorship rather than here. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I should add that each use of this template should be a consensus editorial decision, but I support it as a suitable tool for some cases. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Accusing editors who wish to keep this template of being "censors" and implying that they are against "the rest of us" is neither accurate nor polite. Johntex\talk 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep That Wikipedia is not censored only implies that we can have nude and sexually explicit images in articles related to nudity and human sexuality, not that we must. The choice of images, and whether to display such images inline or as links, is, of course, a question of editorial discretion, to be settled by consensus. John254 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re noinclude I'd like to point out that I was not the one who removed the noinclude from the around the {{tfd|Linkimage}} notice (which reads " ") on the template with this edit; I consider that action to be canvassing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment -- The standard practice of displaying a TFD notice on a template being considered for deletion is manifestly not "canvassing". Indeed, the decidedly nonstandard practice of nominating a template for deletion while hiding the TFD notice with <noinclude> tags [1] is disruptive to the deletion process, and grounds for overturning the deletion of any template nominated for deletion in this manner. John254 11:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. (this censors are a pain in the ass..) --BMF81 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:NOT, WP:NDT and WP:CSD#G4. Seen it before plenty of times. >Radiant< 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain the relevancy of those links to this discussion. It is not furthering the discussion to simply link to policies without stating how they compel the deletion of this template. Johntex\talk 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. A much needed template for any wikipedians to exercise editorial judgement. This is not a censor, as I don't see a controlling body dictating its use.--Vsion 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Something like this is necessary for people who may not suspect an article has an explicit picture. It doesn't present any obstacle to viewing the image, it just defaults to hiding it. Last, it was inappropriate for the nominator to make a remark about the nominator's political leanings. Ad hominem remarks are not useful to the discussion. Rhobite 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like the way how it is used in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Special Stages, without this template the animation has to go. --32X 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This template shouldn't be used indiscriminately; it should be used on a case-by-case basis when editors determine through consensus that it is appropriate for use in a specific article. WP:IUP contains an important caveat: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." I think this template is a suitable compromise between editors who do not desire to see graphic material removed entirely and editors who do not wish to see such images displayed inline. I think the value of an image should be determined by how much it adds to the informativeness of the article, but that this should be balanced against maintaining readability. If you look at John and Lorena Bobbitt, you'll see that the linkimage template wasn't put there to hide an image of a penis, but one of severed penis. There is a significant difference between content that depicts nudity and/or sexuality and content that depicts blood, violence, or gore. Graphic imagery can be extremely off-putting to those who do not have an iron stomach, as it can be disturbing on a very fundamental level, leading to nightmares or lost sleep. I think that Wikipedia should strive to maintain readability for as wide of an audience as possible and I would hate to think that sensitive readers would be deterred from reading our articles due to the up-front presence of graphic/violent imagery. This has nothing to do with censorship — censorship would be the complete deletion of material, whereas this template maintains the content, but makes viewership a voluntary action. It's like the difference between entirely banning all pornography or simply keeping the skin rags behind the store counter where one must ask for them. I've always thought that WP:NOT#Censor is too often interpreted as an open door policy. Just because a certain type of content isn't forbidden does not mean that its inclusion is obligatory. I think a counter-policy to balance WP:NOT#Censor could be beneficial (I've jokingly dubbed such a policy "Wikipedia is not Rotten.com"). Nonetheless, I'd oppose indiscriminate, blanket usage of the linkimage template. The use of this template should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I also have reservations toward the use of this template to de-inline sexually-explicit images; I don't believe that there's really as much of a case against displaying sexual imagery inline as there is for not displaying graphic/violent content inline. But I'd be willing to differ to a consensus if it turned out that way. Ultimately, I think that this template is conducive of the collaborative environment of Wikipedia, because it allows editors to make finer judgements about how an article is composed. -Severa (!!!) 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Well said. Calbaer 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:NDT. ^demon[omg plz] 02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Did you read WP:NDT and its links? To quote The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means." Calbaer 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did. And it's the basis of my opposition to this template. ^demon[omg plz] 11:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That page does not apply to this. This is not a "disclaimer" template. It does not contain any text at all, much less a disclaimer. If you read the page you linked to, it gives an explanation for why "disclaimers" should not be added to pages. This explanation says in part "By the time you see them, it's too late — the article has already been loaded." That does not apply here. In fact, the very opposite. This template is designed to GIVE OUR DISCLAIMERS A CHANCE TO BE READ before the reader sees the image. Johntex\talk 18:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you also read that page, you'll notice criteria 3 says because "Wikipedia is not censored." I see what you mean by saying that hiding the image makes the disclaimer visible before you see the image, but that violates the entire spirit of NDT, which is that we do not use disclaimers, not just because they serve no purpose in cases of images. Now, if this article's usage of this template isn't a disclaimer, I don't know what is. ^demon[omg plz] 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because something's a template and it seems to you to be a disclaimer, does not mean it fits the description of a "disclaimer template," as described in WP:NDT. Likewise, lack of initial presentation is not identical to censorship. I realize that they are similar ideas, but, if policies and guidelines are to be followed, they need to be followed to the letter, not what you imagine to be the spirit. Calbaer 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The template has value, but should not be used indiscriminately. However, it is being used indiscriminately. It is used for a number of purposes, one of which is for people who wish to censor an image. Their reasoning is often explained differently, but amounts to the same thing. "The image is yucky", "People can choose to look at the image, or not", "We don't censor, but some people could be offended", "We want to avoid school children seeing things like this", etc. I think that if an image is not legally obscene, is pertinent to the article topic or section where used, and editorially the best free use image available for that purpose then we should use the image. If there is another image that illustrates the topic better, then use it, if not, go with the best we have to date. If some few people are offended because of their choice of life philosophy, they will eventually get used to it, or choose to not use Wikipedia. Pandering to the lowest common denominator of "the potential to offend" is not acceptable. An editorial decision to use the least potentially offensive image that illustrates the topic well is acceptable. This is a global project. Remember that in some cultures and religions, any image of person at animal would be offensive, a picture of a woman more offensive, and a picture of a section of skin of a woman extremely offensive, and a naked breast even worse. For other philosophies, images of any bodily fluid, any religious icon, a woman driving a car, or even people eating meat (especially pork) would be offensive. Per Wikipedia disclaimers, policies and philosophy, we need to be able to lay the bare facts on the table (facts supported by reliable references) and let people who choose to use Wikipedia as a reference get used to a culture of openness and honesty. The Wikipedia polices, guidelines and way of resolving issues is a culture all itself. Too often people bring their cultural context to Wikipedia and expect it to apply, and then expect Wikipedia to change to meet their cultural norms. In Wikipedia culture, there is nothing embarrasing, obscene or offensive about a scientifically based article with an image of a penis or a breast. Atom 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'm curious what policy or guideline you believe applies in this case. Several contributors above have evoked their own favorite guideline, but each has been challenged, so I wonder what you believe the reasoning is as to why the template is against policy and/or guidelines. By the way, your idea that a picture of a random person eating pork would be offensive seems without basis. I am reminded of this recent story about banning Three Little Pigs to avoid offending Muslims, even though there were no Muslims who were actually offended. Also, many of the images in question could easily be found by a court of law to be obscene, but I thought that Wikipedia was not censored, at least not more than the State of Florida would demand. Calbaer 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
See Miller test. None of the images in question meet that test. Key is: "The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value." Do you seriously think that a picture of a penis on the penis article, or a breast on the breast article, in the context of Wikipedia as a whole, or the article as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value? Atom 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You are only addressing my final comment, correct? In that case, I think the image in pre-ejaculate fails the Miller test. It is not literary, artistic, or political. It lacks scientific value, as there's nothing in it that is not (or could not be) described in a few words. However, there are a-penis-being-removed-from-Wikipedia-is-censorship dead-enders who believe strongly that it should be there, and the linkimage template is a good compromise there. Not that that's linkimage's only use, but it's worthwhile in making sure that censorship does not occur (unless a court orders it) yet no one is surprised by obscene images. Calbaer 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, first I want to say that I see your meaning when you express that you feel that Linkimage could be useful in some cases to avoid conflict while still allowing content in controversial cases. As the pre-ejaculate, I'd have to say that I can't agree with your view. In the image Image:Precum.JPG there is nothing offensive or obscene in any way. It seems obviously to be an anatomical image (and therefore scientific). There is nothing obscene about the human penis, nor of the fluid shown. The image is obviously better, and much clearer than "a few words" could describe. In the context of the article of the same topic, which has text such as "Pre-ejaculatory fluid prepares the urethra for the passage of semen by neutralizing acidity due to any residual urine. It also lubricates the movement of the penis and the foreskin over the glans. The amount of fluid that the human male can issue varies widely among individuals, from imperceptible amounts to a copious flow." and gives references to a journal, such as "Contraceptive Technology Update" it is quite obviously a sicentific image. Much more, if you read miller more closely, there are three parts. It has to fail all three parts', to be legally obscene. First, "Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest". The community is Wikipedia. This community has clear disclaimers warning people about content specifically like this, as well as a clear policy of non-censoring. Additionally, what could be "prurient" about this image?? It would take an exceptionally sexually hung-up person to consider it "prurient". The second "The work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions..." It fails this as well, as it isn't patently offensive. If you would happen to be of the opinion that it was, then it isn't either "sexual conduct" nor is it "excretory". If you happened to be someone who things any naked genital is inherently sexual conduct, and wanted to feel that pre-ejaculate was "excretory", then the third is "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value. ". As Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and inherently a serious literary, artistic, political and scientific reference, and this image, in that context would probably (certainly by me) to be scientific in value. If you felt that legal scutiny would be placed on the images context within the specific article and not Wikipedia as a whole (a legitimate legal perspective to attempt), then again, the article is clearly scientific in nature, with scientific quotes and references, and the image directly related to that topic. In my view all three of the test fail, when to be considered to be obscene, all three must succeed. Indeed, your comments offer a very good example of the problem here. There are people with extremely conservative viewpoints, some of which participate voluntarily in Wikipedia, and they perceive something as innocuous as Image:Precum.JPG as something erotic, sexual, and therefore, offensive. As the image is not legally obscene, they wish to establish some kind of middle ground policy that will limit viewing of images that fit their filter of offensive, and enforce that on all other users. The reason we have a legal line in the dirt, is because it is necessary. This image, and many others like it, may bother some people, but they don't cross the legal line. Since they don't cross that line, they should be used in appropriate contexts without being censored, or hidden. People who are offended by innocent images should eventually determine that the Wikipedia online community has standards that are different from their own. Their response should be to decline to voluntarily participate in Wikipedia, or learn and adapt. The more perfectly normal images, like this one, that they see the less they will be personally offended by normality. At some point an image like this will elicit no different response than that of a child riding a bicycle, or an outfielder catching a high-fly. If someone finds this image erotic, or thinks of it as a sexual act, their filter needs to be adjusted. Atom 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a sexual act and could be described as "obscene" according to the Miller test: It appeals to sexual desire. It depicts sexual conduct. It lacks value in not being useful (or so I could argue). That leaves only subjective measurements, which could go either way. It's not a horrid picture or anything, but it's not a "slam-dunk" for this to go one way or another on the test. I don't really care what a court of law would say — this page is not a court of law — but for the sake of argument, it's wrong to say that a picture depicting a sexual function is asexual, as you seem to argue. As for the assertions that the image either is "hidden" or should not be linked, those are subjective, too, though the Wikipedia anti-censorship policy says that potentially offensive/surprising/whatever items may be included, not that they need to be displayed as prominently as possible. Again, check the dictionary definition of "censorship," before claiming that's what the template does.
Anyway, you never answered my original question: Which Wikipedia policy or policies are you using as reason for your opinion? I'm guessing from your argument you're using Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, but I'm not 100% sure that's your main or sole justification. Calbaer 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Question for nominator - I notice that the above editor (Atom) came here after an invitation to comment made by the nomintor of this deletion process (JeffG).[2] I would like to ask JeffG for an explanation of how he chose whom to invite. Thank you, Johntex\talk 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I became aware of the debate through following your edits, Johntex, and the message in my userpage came afterward. Besides, does it matter? All users get a chance to give their opinion. Is my opinion less important based on how I determined that there was a debate? Atom 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I used pork as one of several examples. There are many people who are offended by that, including Hasidic jews. Regardless, the point is that if we censor or hide every image that has the potential for offense, most images on Wikipedia would be linkimaged. The policy I speak of, the disclaimer, of course, is at the bototm of every page Disclaimer Which in turn links directly to Content Disclaimer, which, among other things says "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." Atom 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the legal definition, Wikipedia does follow the laws of the State of Florida, however, those laws on obscenity are limited in scope by the first amendement of the constitution, which in practice is applied using the miller test. The Florida laws can be less restrictive regarding obscenity, but not more restrictive -- and is in fact, less restrictive. Atom 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.