Jump to content

Talk:List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZS (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 14 December 2007 (→‎I win?: Correction.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Removal of fair use images from this article

Time and time and time and time again there has been debate about the removal of fair use images from "List of characters in..." type articles. EVERYtime it has ended with the images staying removed off of the article. Why? Because the Foundation has taken a very strong stance with regards to the overuse of fair use images. If a character is sufficiently notable that it deserves an image, then it deserve its own article. Such an image should not appear on this "list of" article, but on the article about the character. If the character is not notable enough for its own article, any argument that it 'needs' an image is exceptionally weak. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free content encyclopedia. We don't get to use fair use, copyrighted imagery liberally wherever and however we like to use it, even if there are fair use rationales associated with the image. This article is no different than the literally hundreds of other articles that this policy has affected. The edit warring over this will stop. If those of you who insist on pushing thes images on this article insist on edit warring to have your way, I will recommend blocks to prevent this abuse of Foundation policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WHERE does it explicitly say that we cannot have images in a "List of characters" article? You keep removing the images under the claim that the Foundation does not allow it, but you have failed to provide where that is stated, and only provided links to pages that do not say anything about this at all or a discussion that does not constitute as a policy. You have mentioned about the overuse of fair use images, which is quite clearly not acceptable on Wikipedia, but this does not mean that the article cannot have any images at all. Until you provide something that states that the foundation does not allow images on this type of article, the images will remain. .:Alex:. 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many images, but doesn't mean to remove every single one there is, they are given fair use so why are you trying to bit it? Maybe the images of minor characters should be removed but not the major and supporting one's.--Flesh-n-Bone 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then if the policies doesn't have to state this example, where are you getting this from? I've read that signpost article, and it was about Lists of episodes using completely unnecessary images in a table for decorative purposes. In this character list, the images are being used to illustrate main characters that are highly significant to the game, most notably CJ and Frank Tenpenny, who are the protagonist and antagonist respectively. .:Alex:. 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there as notable as you say I'm sure they deserve their own article, where an image of that character may appear. In fact, Carl "CJ" Johnson has an article, where an image already appears. Thus, having an image here is utterly redundant and abusive of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Frank Tenpenny? He is certainly very notable within the game and perhaps the series. There just isn't enough information on him to warrant an entire article about him. A few of the characters on the list have been merged in from their own articles because they were too small and would probably not get much bigger, that is no reason why they should not have an image as they are highly significant towards the game and the series. Notability, most particularly on the basis of whether they are notable enough to have their own article should not come into whether they should have an image or not. .:Alex:. 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's so little information that they don't warrant their own article, then there's hardly an argument that they warrant an image. If he's central to the game, then there might be a case for an image of him on the main article, but not on "list of characters" article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be delving into opinions and interpretation of policies and whatnot. Reading all this, I could say that because they don't have enough info to have an article, then they deserve a picture. I could also say that we should follow what history has shown us and keep all the articles off. Another thing I could say is that if there is a fair-use for all of these images, then it should be "fair to use" them all in this article. Sooooo many interpretations of a vague policy, so little consensus. At the risk of sounding like "I like it", which I don't necessarily, I say that if the article has been fine all of this time with the pictures up, then there shouldn't be a problem with them. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And that's another argument that's frequently attempted in this type of dispute...supposedly no consensus to remove the images. I'm sorry, but the consensus does exist. This sort of removal is routine business, and has been for months. All of you need to understand that just because something is "fair use" doesn't mean it's acceptable use here. There's considerably larger hurdles to be cleared. Wikipedia was, is, and always will be a free content encyclopedia. In no respect can copyrighted works be considered free. They must be used as little as possible. Creating articles with dozens of such images, as this one had, is directly against our m:mission here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Issue resolved, I say. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An actual consensus of editors who edit the page needs to be made now. This is becoming ridiculous. I repeat, an actual consensus needs to be reached on this matter before doing anything to the pictures. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to act in such a way that we had to achieve consensus every single time a policy is implemented, NOTHING would ever got done here. The policy is as it is. Minimal fair use must be supported. This is the decree of the Foundation. This practice of removing fair use images from lists like this has been going on for months. We are not going to attempt to argue this to death every single time this policy is going to be implemented anymore than we would argue over the placement of fair use images on userboxes every time one is removed from a userbox. This is policy. Pure and simple. You don't like it. That's fine. That doesn't mean you get to ignore it. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out. If you'll look a few inches up the screen, you'd have realized I agree with you. But it's still possible warring is going to continue, just like what just happened on the page. If people won't stop, then a consensus will probably be the only way this issue will be resolved. That's what I was suggesting. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hammersoft here; WP:NFC#Unacceptable images seems pretty clear on this. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry, I do not agree. I have no problem with removing most of the images, because I do agree that there are a phenomenal number of them, but not all. Surely one or two images to illustrate the main antagonists would be acceptable. Hammersoft, you yourself have said we should use them as little as possible. That does not mean we should not use them at all. Wikimedia's mission statement is not a valid reason to remove all of the images. .:Alex:. 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikimedia's mission is absolutely fundamental to this project. If you disagree with it, and insist on operating against it, I dare say you're in the wrong place. It'd be like trying to serve Pepsi from a Coke machine. I made it clear above what the criteria here was; if the character deserves an image, they deserve an article where the image is appropriate. If they're not notable enough for an article, it's a very weak argument to state they must have an image here. Montages of characters produced by the copyright holder can be acceptable. But, individual images for depiction purposes are not. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article qualifies as a "list", despite its title, and therefore that the "unacceptable images" section of the guideline does not apply. This article should probably be titled something like "Characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" rather than making reference to a list. As this would then be considered an ARTICLE ON the characters rather than a LIST OF them, the language of the guideline would not apply. I would be in favor of restoring at least most of the images. A compromise to include images for the "major" and "supporting" characters but omit them from the "minor" characters would also work. Croctotheface (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that's a new argument. This "List of characters" is not really a list, and should be titled "Characters of" instead, thus getting around policy. Sorry, doesn't work. Reason; It's still overuse of fair use images no matter what title you put on the article, or how you construe this 'article' of 39 characters. We don't have lists where there's just 39 bullet points, one for each character. On Wikipedia, this is a list, pure and simple. The same sort of argumentation could be used to say that Template:User Wikia isn't really a userbox, since it's in template space, not userspace. This argument doesn't fly any better than the one you're proposing. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me step in. I'd pretty much would prefer if the article had pictures on the major characters. Characters from the other GTA games have pictures. It appears, Hammersoft, that you're starting an edit war. Agtaz 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now you accuse me of vandalism for upholding Wikipedia policy? Excuse me? As to this article being hit and not others, it's just fate. I went to [1] and started working my way through. So you can stop your accusations of selective targetting as well (wow). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Chief, I'm starting to think you're beginning to create some hostile arguments. These images were here for a long time. Agtax 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a list of the characters or an article on the characters?

Your argument seems to be that "because a subject doesn't have an article, it doesn't deserve one". I don't think that really follows. In several cases, entries here are complete enough to be articles unto themselves. I have a very difficult time seeing much of the sections here as "entries in a list", so I think that my contention that this does not really resonate as a list remains valid. The way it is used in the guideline suggests something with trivial coverage. Croctotheface (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I've apparently repeated myself until I'm blue in the face. This discussion has become circular and futile. The images will remain off, per Foundation dictum and Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it, take it up with Foundation. You may contact them at Foundation:Contact_us. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft, I don't see how this has become "circular" if you earlier described my argument as "new" and yet responded to it only as far as telling me I'm wrong. This article bears no resemblance to, say, List of dog breeds or List of scholastic philosophers, which ARE basically just bulleted lists. My contention is that the guideline was meant to address lists such as these, not articles such as this one. The stuff will not "remain off" because you say so. My belief is that, when the page does get unprotected, several images will return. I see no reason that we can't illustrate Tenpenny, Sweet, Smoke, Ryder, Toreno, Pulsaki, and Woozie, for instance. Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument here details a reason that readding images may NOT violate the guidelines. You have not actually engaged me on this point. It is my contention that the guideline does not get an article such as this one. The purpose of having images here is to illustrate the characters and to break up the several thousand lines of prose. Those, to me, are compelling reasons. I'd be fine with escalating this conflict. Your threats don't scare me at all. Croctotheface (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's by no means a threat. It's a voicing of intended action should you act in ways that break policy here. You've been shown policy. You disagree with it. That doesn't give you leave to violate it. If you believe I've violated policy, then please by all means request I be blocked. Do you require assistance to show you how to do so? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a threat, actually, but that's neither here nor there. My contention is not that the guidelines should be changed, it's that they do not get at this case. Perhaps this article, as I said, should be called Characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas rather than "list of", to avoid confusion. I can see why List of dog breeds, as just a bulleted list, may not need pictorial illustration that justifies non-free content. However, this is a very different article. My disagreement with you is not over the wisdom of the the guldeline, but whether it should be applied the way you think it should be. Croctotheface (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of articles I linked above, all of them have more than just a bullet and linked article. That's why I specifically cited those articles in response. So yes, I have responded to your claim. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: first, because there exist such articles without images does not mean that all like articles should lack images. Second, were those articles always conceived as lacking images, or did you go through and delete those, too? Honestly, this article is NOT a list, in any sense of the word. Nobody would think that List of dog breeds should is anything but a list. Nobody would confuse it with an ARTICLE ON dog breeds. If someone saw this article without the title, I don't think anyone would classify it as a list. It is unquestionably an article on characters. Croctotheface (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, I haven't edited the articles I linked to. While I appreciate the point you are trying to make with the dog breeds list, it isn't really relevant to our discussion here. This isn't an article on Grand Theft Auto. It's an article listing all the characters in it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't imagine anybody looking at this article and agreeing that it is not an article on the characters. Perhaps a request for comment is in order? Croctotheface (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<de-indent> How many times do we have to argue this before the policy sticks? Let's presume, for a moment, that the images remain off this article despite all this rancorous debate. What do you suppose I or anyone else upholding this policy should do when they encounter a similar group of highly energized and quite willing to revert editors who insist that this isn't policy? This dispute has happened God knows how many times, and as I noted in the beginning of this section it's always resulted in the images staying removed. So please, tell me what it is I have to do to prevent this sort of ad nauseum argumentation from occurring both now and in the future? All of you seem to have an amazing reservoir of creative energy to see ways to get this article to circumvent policy. Perhaps you could exert some of that energy to offer some advice on how to avoid this policy argument from happening, over and over and over and over and over and over again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of being told over and over again that I "don't believe in WP policy" and blah, blah, blah. I can't speak to previous cases. Maybe the consensus reached then was wrong. I just can't see why an article that is 76kb long can't have a single fair use image. The part of the relevant guideline that you cite says that non-free images are generally inappropriate in "lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements". That, to me, says that non-free images are unnecessary if the article they're in isn't really an encyclopedia article so much as a list or discography. My contention remains that a reasonable person would say that this is an article on the characters rather than a list of them. You haven't explained why this is wrong. I think that it makes all the difference. Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all humor intended, I hope you get over your illness soon :) I've never said this article can't have images. What can be on it is a montage image, as noted before. See what User:Scorpion0422 did with this edit. That's perfect. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but I assure you the distinction is inaccurate. I'm sorry I haven't been able to explain it any better than I've been able to, and I'm sorry if you feel I've let you down in this regard. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to continue making this argument, in larger and larger venues if necessary. The article you link to IS a list article. It does not have prose content there, and a reasonable person looking at it would say that it's a list. This article IS NOT a list article. No reasonable person would see this as a list of characters; they would see it as an article on them. I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am "trying to make" a distinction, since I AM making a distinction. You are not even "trying to" rebut my distinction, you're just telling me, in essence, "You're wrong, so stop talking now." Croctotheface (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to take this to whatever venue you feel appropriate, so long as discussion remains coherent and not scattered across a wide variety of noticeboards, etc. As to the point you raise, for another piece of evidence to show that you are in the wrong, please see Category:Articles with improper non-free content. Please observe that almost all of the character 'articles' in that category are 'articles' with substantial content on each character. Yet, someone decided to add Template:Non-free to those articles anyway (which, by the way, wasn't me). Also, please see WP:NFCC and carefully read the rationale behind the policy. We are here to create a free content encyclopedia, strictly limiting fair use. You are arguing from a position of weakness, that fair use show liberally be allowed. That's not why Wikipedia was created. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That "someone" added a tag doesn't establish anything. It may very well be that those articles have too many fair use images. In fact, I actually agree that having an image for each character mentioned here, including very minor ones like Maccer and Millie Perkins, goes too far. My argument here is not that this article could or should have an indeterminately high number of fair use images; it's that it should have somewhere between five and ten to illustrate the major characters. The idea that we should "limit" fair use doesn't establish anything either. Your argument here is not that we should eliminate all fair use images from the encyclopedia, though you may believe that as well. Your argument here is that this article should have no non-free images because it is a list and therefore falls under the language you quoted from WP:NFC. My repy has been that this is NOT a list, that no reasonable person would think it is a list, and therefore that the quoted language does not apply. Croctotheface (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another response that does not rebut or even meaningfully address the argument that I'm making. Croctotheface (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed what you said (or rather what you did not say), not you personally. At no point in this entire conversation have I made anything personal. If you're not going to respond to my assertions, which make a strong case for why this article should have some fair use images, then I see no reason that the article should not have them. Croctotheface (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You insulted me directly by claiming that no reasonable person would this is a list, while knowing I don't consider it anything but a list. Sorry. Enough rhetoric. You've been good enough to address the points, just remove the rhetoric and we can continue just fine. As to the points you raise, I've rebutted them. I know you disagee. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree that this is/isn't a list. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "reasonable person" reference wasn't meant to imply that you were unreasonable; it was the articulation of a standard, based on actual legal standards for such judgment calls. I don't see how you've rebutted my contentions at all; your responses have basically been to tell me that I'm wrong. This article goes into detail about the characters, their backgrounds and relationships, and their relevance to the story. To say that this is a list of characters despite its length and detail would mean that basically any article on Wikipedia is a list. This article covers all the characters, it does not merely list them. If it is appropriate to call this a list, then instead of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, we should call that article List of Significant Elements of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. What is your response to my argument here? How is it wrong? Croctotheface (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've shown you a rather large list of very similar articles on which this policy has been applied. I'm very far from being alone in applying this policy. You insist that this article is different, yet haven't established a case where this article is different than the dizzying array of other articles I've cited which are essentially identical to this one for the intents of fair use over use reduction. You want this to be 'different' somehow, but it isn't. I grant it's different than List of dog breeds. I don't really care that it is. That article isn't relevant. The array of articles I've cited are, and the policy application has been the same as here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't rebut my argument at all. My argument is that this article is not a list. Your reply begs the question; it says that because images were removed from other "list of" articles and the guideline says to remove articles from "list" articles, then all such articles are lists. Was the argument that I'm making, that detailed articles like this one are NOT lists, raised at the time? If they were raised and refuted, then I would like a chance to respond to what was said in refutation. If my "not a list" argument was NOT raised, then what happened at those other articles is totally irrelevant to my argument here and now. Croctotheface (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I know you'll take this as a lack of response. Frankly, I don't care. I'm a total loss as to how to further show you the error you are making. You insist this article is somehow different when I've cited a dizzying array of articles where this policy has been applied. Yet, this article is different different different different different different different different different different different. Fine. It's different. Good grief. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've explained why I think this article is not a list. You haven't explained why you think it is; you haven't given a single reason to believe it is. It's hardly confusing to see why a policy that deals with lists was applied to articles that are titled "List of characters". People who applied the policy then most likely assumed that the article was in fact a list. Now, that is not accepted as fact, it is instead in dispute. Croctotheface (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're one of the very few on Wikipedia who somehow conclude this isn't a list. You insist I haven't given a single reason to believe it is a list; you're quite wrong. But, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. You win. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what, I'll make it even better. You go and add a thousand fair use images to this article. I don't care. We're not here to make a free encyclopedia. We have no fair use policies tightly restricting the use of fair use images. The Foundation has absolutely no right to tell us what to do. To heck with them! They're WRONG! So, go on, add say...oh I don't know, how about 20 different images for each character in all the different clothes they like to wear? How about different lighting? The different vehicles they use? The different people they meet up with? Can't have enough. Go on. add Add ADD! Fair use means hey, it's fair just because we say it is and heck nobody in their right minds would ever sue Wikipedia, would they? You wore me down Croctotheface. My hat's off to you. You put up an amazing twisted rationale for how this article is somehow above all our policies and resolutions, somehow unique in its approach to using fair use images. I'm at an utter loss to understand how, so I guess I'll just chalk that up to my utter stupidity while standing well out of the way of your every desire to include fair use images as much as possible. Woooohooooo!!!! You go! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I win?

If I win, does that mean we can unprotect the page and put back a handful of fair use images? Croctotheface (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this article and this article only; any article that is titled "List of" but does so much more than merely list things is not a list. It is incorrectly titled as a list. Your argument hinged on language from a guideline that said we should generally avoid using non-free images in lists. If this article is not a list, then that language in the guideline doesn't get at it. Note that it does not suddenly become OK to add 20 images because that would run afoul of numerous other elements of that guideline, not to mention make the article look crummy. A lengthy article such as this one deserves five to ten images illustrating its subject. Croctotheface (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you care? Please add as much fair use as you can. The guideline doesn't apply, since the guideline, policy and resolution don't say ANYTHING about character articles. Since they don't, you should feel free to add several hundred fair use images. It's perfectly allowable. Your rationale is stunning. I can't find fault with it. Why should you stop at five or ten? Why not 54000? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline applies; just not the part about not using a single fair use image in "list" articles. The rest of the guideline, particularly the part about using images only as far as they're necessary to illustrate what we say in the prose, would most certainly apply. Croctotheface (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're confusing my argument, which says that language tailored in a specific way (in this case, only to list articles) should not be applied to cases that do not meet that specific criteria (in this case, that this is not a list article), with some argument that language that is meant to apply generally (the majority of WP:NFC) should not apply only if it is specific. They are in no way the same. Croctotheface (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is flawed because it assumes that a general guideline must be tailored specifically. The parts of the guideline that are meant to apply to all articles apply to all articles; it is not necessary for the guideline to specifically call out all types of articles if it is meant to apply to all articles. Parts of the guideline that are meant to apply only to specific classes of articles should not apply to articles that are not part of that class, despite being incorrectly titled so as to suggest that they are. Croctotheface (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you're the one saying that since this type of article isn't specifically mentioned, it doesn't apply. Works both ways. You want to ignore policy and guideline, but then want to apply it. Umm, that's not possible. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never said anything to do with the need to mention this type of article specifically. The guideline mentions "list" articles. My contention is that although we call this article a "list", it is in fact not one. The name is a relic from when the article was first started. At that point, it WAS a list. Because this article is not a list, the parts of the guideline TAILORED SPECIFICALLY to lists should not apply. I never said that the guideline should not apply to all "list of characters" articles; it should apply to List of characters in The Simpsons because that article is clearly a list. This article is clearly not a list. Croctotheface (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you do want it both ways. So, the guideline applies and doesn't apply? Could you please discuss how the guideline would apply when this type of article isn't mentioned in particular? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parts of the guideline that cover all articles apply. The parts of the guideline that SPECIFICALLY SAY that they apply ONLY to list articles do not apply here because this article is not a list and therefore does not belong to the category that those parts apply to. Do you seriously not see the difference? Croctotheface (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that applies, and these are software screenshots. Considering that what we do on Wikipedia is never "critical commentary", which would be deleted as original research, I'd have to think that "critical commentary" here is defined as illustrating the material the article discusses. Just to be clear, at this point, you are abandoning the idea that this article is a list and therefore should have zero non-free images? Croctotheface (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that you'd be wrong. But, you'll dispute that too. You insist on a narrow interpretation of "list" to suit your needs to void policy on this article, and are now also insisting on an unaccepted interpretation of "critical commentary" to achieve the same end. How many special circumstances would you like to use to get this article out of the realm of policy jurisdiction? And no, I'm not abandoning the idea that this article is a list. You just wore me out, that's all. I couldn't penetrate the granite. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(removing indents) My interpretation of "list" is hardly narrow. This article bears no resemblance to a list; the title is left over from when the article first began. At that point, it was a list. It may be that my interpretation of critical commentary is wrong, but I have trouble seeing how content that would fit a more conventional interpretation could ever be considered acceptable on Wikipedia. It could be that none of our articles can ever use screenshots from games if that's the requirement we hold for their being fair use. Could you give me an example of acceptable use of a game screenshot for critical commentary? I'd be curious to see how you think that language should be applied. Croctotheface (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The very first iteration of this article was considerably more than the List of Dog Breeds article, which is just a bulleted list. This page always had more than just a bulleted list [2]. As for an example, I recently gutted another "List of characters" article where I left an image alone, because it at least had something regarding critical commentary of the image itself. See the image in this section, which I left intact. I think that's a very liberal interpretation of critical commentary. But, simply displaying an image of a character is pure illustration. If you're not discussing the image at all (and this article didn't near as I can tell with all the images) then it's pure illustration. That's not fair use. You can't use fair use images for illustration purposes only, and there is a difference between that and critical commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And before this line goes any further; this doesn't mean you get to push images back onto the article ad lib with critical commentary meant to barely get past policy. Again, that's why we have m:mission and the Foundation's resolution. But, as I understand it, your stance is apparently that the mission and Foundation's resolution don't apply here, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that one sentence or two about a character is "considerably more", though I hope we would agree that one or two sentences is considerably less than what's at this article now. I contend that the first version of the article resembles List of dog breeds much more than it resembles the current article. I don't see what the commentary being made at the image you cite is. I continue to maintain that almost any instance of either criticism, commentary, or critical commentary would violate WP:NOR and should not be at this encyclopedia. To your second bullet point: no, no, and no. I just said that the section we are now talking about does apply. I have no idea why you think it is my belief that the guideline does not apply. Again, please stop misconstruing my position. Croctotheface (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that it may be the case that, at the end of this, I come around to agree with you in a more fundamental way than we disagree. That is, if the screenshots can only be used for critical commentary, and that term is defined in such a way that it encompasses what WP:NOR prohibits, then the result would be to delete all non-free game screenshots from the encyclopedia. I don't think, for instance, that any of the screen shots at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are used for what I would think of conventionally as critical commentary. It could be that they all have to go. Croctotheface (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've stated that the guideline regarding the use of images in lists does not apply because this, according to you, isn't a list. There's one exception to the rule (and I cited a bunch of similar articles where this policy was applied). Now, you want to have another exception because having a monologue about the character counts as critical commentary by your definition, which isn't the accepted definition. So, we're now up to two exceptions such that our fair use guidelines and policies don't apply to this article. Could you please inform me how many special exceptions you'd like to make? You can't just use an image for illustrative purposes and call it critically commented on. That's completely insufficient. Assume for the sake of discussion that Image:Hindenburg burning.jpg was a fair use image. It's used at LZ_129_Hindenburg#Disaster and the image is directly discussed and is important to the furtherance of the article for the reader to understand what happened. Simply displaying Image:GTASA Tenpenny.jpg, which has no critical commentary associated with its display in version of this article where it was used, is utterly insufficient, most especially since there's already a substantial article on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; the user doesn't need this image to understand the general concept of the game. For the Hindenburg case, not having the image significantly impairs a reader's ability to understand what happened. I'm at a loss as to how to explain this any better to you. I'm sure you'll have a comeback on this that invalidates, from your perspective, everything I've said and concludes that we should allow the images. Since I have no further time for this dispute today, I'll just have to say that you once again wore me out and yes, this article really is a special case in that it's not a list when so many other articles just like it have been treated like a list under policy and that yes, this article doesn't need the commonly held definition of critical commentary because it's...well, I don't know...special I guess. Sigh. Good night. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What IS the "commonly held definition of critical commentary"? You don't provide it. I don't understand how anything that either criticizes something, comments on an issue, or critically comments on an issue does not fail WP:NOR. It may be that I'm missing something here, but you're not helping me understand it. The Hindenburg example is an illustration/understanding example. It's not a case that displaying the image is a case of "critical commentary". Are we now discussing whether seeing images of characters helps readers understand them? I just wanted to know what the definition of "critical commentary" that we are using is. Could you help me by providing it? Croctotheface (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given you two examples already. I'll give you a third, but no more. Each time I've attempted to educate you on these issues, I've run into walls whether due to my poor inability to convey meaning, by intransigence on your part, or a combination thereof. Simply displaying an image of something discussed in an article does not meet critical commentary. Let's say we have an article subject "X". The article goes into great length to discuss "X". Someone adds a fair use picture of "X" to the article. However, the article does not discuss the photograph of "X", only "X". This is not acceptable. This is why there is a restriction on the use of fair use images of living people for the sole purpose of depiction. For example; look at the article on Jane Fonda. The main image of her, use for depiction purposes only, is (the rather poorly titled) Image:255273574 c1aea8c232 2.jpg. That's acceptable; it's a free license image, so it's fine to use it for depiction purposes only. If you go to Jane_Fonda#.22Hanoi_Jane.22, you will see another poorly titled image, Image:HJGE.jpg. This image is fair use, depicting Jane Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft battery. The image is acceptable in its use because the article discusses at length Jane's posing for the shot and the controversy it sparked. The image is not being used to depict Jane, but in direct support of critical commentary regarding that pose and its historical relevance. Contrast; Image:GTASA Tenpenny.jpg was used on this article simply to depict Tenpenny only, not in support of a discussion relative to that particular image's significance in any respect. That's why it's depiction only, without critical commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, using an image for the purpose of "critical commentary", in the Fonda example, means "direct support of critical commentary"? That seems to me to be depiction, just depiction that is related to a criticism made by somebody else. That's still illustration, just illustration of a criticism made by somebody else. If this is the case, then I think we need to remove every game screenshot that I've seen used in the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stop

Stop now. This is getting ridiculously out of proportion. Sarcasm is not productive discussion. This has just been constant arguing without trying to reach a consensus. Seeing as we cannot have a productive discussion I have a put in a request for comment. .:Alex:. 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop what, pray tell? I'm hardly out of line anymore than people insisting this article is somehow unique. --Hammersoft (talk)

Goodness gracious, why can't we just attempt to get a vote or consensus of some sort??? That's the only way this particular incident is going to be solved. I don't care about the policy OR the fact that these images have been here for a long time. In this particular situation, the best course of action is a consensus. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus already existed, but the devotees of this article insist it doesn't apply. So, we have to get consensus every time we apply a policy for the first time to an article. That's the message being sent. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. One person using foundation mission statements and policies to back their argument does not automatically make it consensus. If there is a disagreement, all the parties involved must attempt productive discussion. If the request for comment fails, I will request mediation. Now lets calm down, and try to talk this through slowly. Stop to read, then THINK about that post before immediately bashing a few keys and hitting "Save Page". .:Alex:. 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been alerted of prospective deletions towards a shitload of orphaned images I uploaded for this character list and related articles. Just found out the notifications were from August, but it's still a stark reminder of what might happen soon enough. This debate has gone on long enough. The fact that Wikipedia has increasingly opted in purging unfree images that do not comply with an ever changing WP:FU policy speaks for itself. Wikipedia is showing signs that it no longer the place for unfree images deemed unnecessary, seeing it's going free like the German Wikipedia, which has foregone unfree images altogether. I'm prepared to take ALL my screenshots and fair use materials elsewhere if need be. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ ╫ 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Template:RFCart

Isn't this getting just a little bit disruptive? The argument that you're making is nothing like mine. My argument deals with a case where you want to apply certain language, and I have contended that the language does not apply to this article. Your "character article" argument does not parallel mine: the guideline is meant to govern all articles. This is certainly an article; therefore the parts about restricting fair use images to what is necessary to illustrate the article's text most certainly applies. Croctotheface (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that you've said several times that I don't believe we should restrict the number of fair use images here, I do not believe that. I have never argued that WP:NFC should be abolished. You have attributed that position to me without any reason to. It is my belief that because this is a full article, not a list article, the part of the guideline that talks about list articles does not apply here, or to any other article improperly titled as a list. If I turn out to be correct on that point, it would have next to no effect on WP:NFC as a whole. Croctotheface (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that guideline is meant to apply to all articles, so it applies here. The parts of that guideline that are meant to apply only to a specific class of article, a class to which this article does not belong, do not apply. Croctotheface (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and since this type of article isn't specifically mentioned, you should be in the clear. I don't understand what the confusion is here. By the Foundation resolution, fair use is allowed if it's within certain limits. You've done a wonderful job of demonstrating how this article is a perfectly acceptable location for fair use images, so I don't understand what the confusion is? Why can't you include a few hundred images here? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because hundreds of images are more than is necessary to illustrate the concept. My argument has never been that principles meant to apply to all articles should not apply here. My argument has been that principles meant to apply to "list" articles should not apply here because this article, despite its title, is not a list. I would appreciate if you could stop misconstruing my argument. Croctotheface (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I request comment? Because this discussion has turned into a brawl, and I do not tolerate sarcasm and provocative posts in any discussion on Wikipedia. This discussion was supposed to achieve consensus, not become a battleground. We obviously cannot handle this matter ourselves so I've requested some outside intervention to help put things on the right track. If you wish to be disruptive, go ahead. I'll just be right here, ready for a productive and sensible discussion and resolve this matter once and for all. .:Alex:. 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to get a consensus started, I'll vote on the matter: I say the photos should be removed for the reason that some companies and other similar entities have complained about the use of pictures in plenty of instances and I feel we should prevent that any way possible in this situation. Crap, that's why we can only use free images on the front page. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, which should be abundantly clear at this point, is that we should restore five to ten photos of the most important characters. Klptyzm's logic would extend far beyond this page; if our goal is to prevent confrontations about fair use images in any way possible, then we should remove all non-free images that exist anywhere on the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "in this particular situation," which consists of extreme circumstances. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't see why your logic would just confine you to this situation, or even why this circumstance is so extreme. It seems more or less like every other circumstance. Croctotheface (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because this particular issue is taking forever to be solved due to lack of consensus and the excessive warring. I also stated that I voted mainly to help get a consensus started; it didn't seem like anyone else was gonna do it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fair. I don't think Hammersoft will ever change his position. I may change mine, but only if facts or logic end up proving me wrong. For instance, if it turns out that we can only use screenshots for some use other than how they would be used here, then OK. However, I really DON'T get how "critical commentary" is defined here, since including critical commentary in the voice of the article would be OR, and I don't understand why it's OK to illustrate critical commentary sourced to someone else with a screenshot, but it's not OK to illustrate anything that is not critical commentary sourced to someone else. And that just seems like "illustration" of something from the article anyway, not using the image for the purpose of critical commentary. Anyway, I'm still confused. Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought everyone might want to see this (bottom comment by llywrch). My stance still stands, I still think we should have a few images to illustrate at least the VERY main characters (like the antagonists). Of course we can try to come up with a compromise. .:Alex:. 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll jump in here and respond to Klptyzm's request for a consensus. I have to agree that the images should be removed in the interest of eliminating fair use issues. Because the relevance of the characters outside of the games' universe(s) is minimal (owing to a lack of real-world influences for most of them), I think we need to limit screen captures to those characters who are important enough to justify their own separate articles. Besides, this list is already a little crufty to begin with, to be honest. Do Wikipedia readers really need to see a screen capture of Frank Tenpenny or Mike Toreno? People seeking that kind of information should go to a gaming site, not Wikipedia. I think although unfortunately not as attractive, the list should be limited to text descriptions. But don't get me wrong: I would love to keep any and all images, since I think they augment articles in general. But if we've got such a rancorous debate festering over fair use, why not just agree to disagree and play things safe by removing the contested images? EganioTalk 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is VERY crufty; in all honestly, articles like this one should probably be deleted. However, so long as the article exists, the idea that we can't use a single fair use image to illustrate an article that's 76kb long is flat out ridiculous. The "play it safe" rule basically asserts nothing at all. We could play it safe and remove each and every fair use image from the encyclopedia, too. Croctotheface (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion on WP:NONFREE about the same issue and this summary and proposed addition to clarify the issue. Individual character pictures on a list of character pages is considered to be a decorative purpose only and should be removed. If one can find a group shot (and note, not one p'shopped from separate images), that is allowable. Note that this is still in discussion but it follows clearly from the fair-use guidelines prescribing minimal non-free image use.

I will also agree that this list is way too much WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. --MASEM 16:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croctotheface, I'm not arguing for removal of all the photos, simply those for more or less ancillary characters for which descriptions (and any mention at all) are only necessary when a Wikipedia reader seeks a little more "behind the scenes" knowledge of the game itself. The only time I think it's necessary to keep photos on a list such as this one is when a character is central to not only the game's plot, but also to establishing the link to the real world via the user, i.e. the playable protagonists. Interaction with all other characters exists only in-universe, and their influence on the real world is by definition secondary (i.e. only via the protagonist). I think if we use this definition, we avoid over-estimation of the gravity that the game universe possesses with respect to reality, which is one of the underpinnings of fancruft. EganioTalk 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting every single image on this page, maybe only images which do not comply with Wikipedia policies should be deleted. --JayJ47 (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas_characters&oldid=177921319"