Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8/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)[reply]

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

Strong Delete. This template survived a discussion at

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)[reply]

• Question: Can anyone think of an NPOV reason why this template might be useful? Catalogs of images? —dgies^t_c 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice absolutely agree with the
  WP:NOT#CENSORED logic of the nominator. (→Netscott) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wikipedia's views on censorship should be clarified, but this template assumes Wikipedia permits it. -- Ec5618 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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).   —

talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"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

talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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?   —

talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So you think all articles on Wikipedia should be plain text?   —

talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

• 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
  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)[reply
  ]

"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

talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - as Netscott mentioned, many of these images appear on the
  Gracenotes^T § 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, this vote is about censorship. Most uses of this template are for censorship purposes.   —

talk|contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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.

Gracenotes^T § 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Per
  the message it gives to the reader. Prolog 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Once again, deleting this template does not mean that we are going to get rid of the

  Gracenotes^T § 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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, so they'll have to come up with a different argument for why this should be deleted. Calbaer 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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. ^L_Wizard @ 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  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.

  Gracenotes^T § 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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.   —

talk|contribs) 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]

Why is this the wrong forum?   —

talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]

Sure, why not?   —

talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • 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)[reply]

Most of its uses in mainspace are for censorship.   —

talk|contribs) 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Not appropriate according to whom?   —

talk|contribs) 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Gasp An encyclopedia without photographs? What is this, the 18th Century?   —

talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Jeff G, your sarcasm does you no credit. Please be more polite. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]
  • Agreed. And also possibly for large .gif files.
    Gracenotes^T § 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

It is my understanding that large .gif files are automatically scaled down - please see the "Files" Tab on

talk|contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you any examples of "images that aren't directly includable for technical reasons"?   —

talk|contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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

Template: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)[reply

]

My objection to its use related to mainspace. Use in talkspace is irrelevant.   —

talk|contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Keep - in my opinion, this template is a good compromise between two opposing factions. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What factions, the censors and the rest of us?   —

talk|contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Comment re noinclude I'd like to point out that I was not the one who removed the noinclude from the around the {{
  talk|contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
• Strong delete. (this censors are a pain in the ass..) --BMF81 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the future, please try to follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Thank you. Rhobite 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:CSD#G4. Seen it before plenty of times. >Radiant< 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]