- File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
I feel a bit sorry for King of Hearts (talk · contribs) who closed this one, because he's in a rather difficult position. I think that there was a (weak) consensus to delete. There was a 50-50 split of !votes, but if we're going to play the WP:CON game and do some assessment of quality of argument, then it must be said that at least some of the 'keep' arguments failed to address NFCC8 – ie. they failed to rebut the point made by those lobbying for deletion that not seeing the image would not harm readers' understanding of the article. I think that there is also some equivalent of WP:MUSTBESOURCES going on here with regard to critical commentary. For instance, Masem (talk · contribs) stated, "At the present time there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist," (his emphasis not mine) but this position does not seem compliant with WP:NFCI, which stresses that there must be critical commentary in order for the image to be included. Admittedly some tangentially relevant material was added to the article after the comment I just quoted was made – but it was tangential, because none of it made it necessary for readers to see a picture. Background information on the fact that the design was the result of a competition doesn't require people to know what the design looks like to a 100% plausible depth, and more than one editor in the discussion agreed that the proposed wording "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others..." seems sufficient for purpose.
Anyway, much of that was actually a discussion of the image itself rather than the process, but simply because I think that balancing the quality of the 50-50 !vote split is the only way forward here. Either that or agreeing that in this case, no-consensus should default to deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 10:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Keep There were 4 Keep and 2 Delete !votes. That's not 50-50 and certainly wasn't a consensus to delete. Warden (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting, because I count three delete !votes. Admittedly it's not 50% exactly, but it's approximate enough that the WP:CON-quality-assessment-thing can come into play. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 10:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the meaning of "overturn" is going to be ambiguous, as there's going to be people saying "overturn to delete." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: You claim that Xeworlebi's "keep" !vote lacks substance. But aren't Future Perfect and Scott Mac's !votes just parroting what you said? So as I see it, votecount doesn't matter, and except for a brief disussion with Col. Warden at the beginning the whole thing was pretty much one-to-one between you and Masem. And I do not see a consensus emerging out of that discussion on whether it contributes significantly to the article. As for the default decision for "no consensus," I think that is best left for a sitewide discussion. (The previous one failed to get any useful results despite the massive participation, so we would need to try harder in getting a consensus.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete this is about copyright material. Under foundation mandate, and community policy, we must be very conservative about what we permit. We are a FREE encyclopedia - and we should avoid UNFREE material unless it is entirely justified. This is not. The problem with Dr who screenshots, is that we have a number of devotees, who have continually sought to find images to fill infoboxes, and then find loophole in the NFCC to get them through - when they've failed another image has been uploaded, and those who have been seeking to enforce our FREEness have been forced to continually nominate for deletion. This matter has already been on ANI and resulted in one upload ban. If it isn't absolutely clear that the upload is justified, the result must be delete. It is certainly not absolutely clear here.--Scott Mac 10:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the uploader, 1) I think I've uploaded only 1, maybe 2 DW-screenshots in the past, and if it was 2 , that got deleted and I didn't fight it because I agreed with the assessment of those seeking its deletion. I am not zealous about having screenshots for episode articles and in fact have agreed with their common removal in the past. 2) Most know that I'm one of the vocal defenders of NFC policy, so I know there are specific cases when NFC can be completely avoided. That said, I checked the talk page of the article and figured that there's at least two , if not three, valid reasons that can be sourced to secondary materials (presently not in the article but a google news search easily shows them), which greatly strengthens the NFC use. Would I do this for every DW episode? Hell no. I may make a few "mistakes" (images later found to be unnecessary by NFC) but I know I'm thinking every NFC requirement when I upload images, so I don't think characterizing anyone that defends these DW images as a zealot that wants to fill every infobox with a picture. I fight this one because I think there's a line that some editors are enforcing that is stronger than what present consensus across the board (every NFC image, not just episode ones) based on the subjectiveness of NFCC#8 as well as the concept of equivalent free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete - Copyrighted content with a non existant fair use claim. Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close DRV isn't meant to be AfD part 2 as the above two users seem to think it is. Per the discussion at the AfD, it seems clear to me that the No consensus close is appropriate. While I may have my own personal opinion about the image in question, my personal opinion doesn't factor into the purpose of DRV, which is to see whether the close of a discussion was done properly. This one was. Making any arguments for or against the image or article in question and then voting in accordance with that personal belief is at odds with the purpose of DRV and I think both Scott MacDonald and Off2riorob should re-read what it says up above, namely, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome" This includes the people voting in it shouldn't be using it for their own personal opinions. SilverserenC 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close per Silver seren. Close was done properly and according to the original discussion's outcome. Also, NFCC is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Those arguing for deletion are the ones that have a detailed knowledge of the subject and subsequently think they can describe it in detail, when in reality that wording is useless to the casual reader, who may not even know what a 'TARDIS' is. This is a common error in that editors do not realize that the target audience is not a group of fans, but rather readers that have no knowledge and come here to seek it. — Edokter (talk) — 11:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I explicitly stated numerous times (eg. "I agree that it would not be possible to perfectly convey the console's appearance without a picture,") that it could not be described perfectly by words. The point both I and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) made was that readers didn't need a perfect comprehension of what it looked like. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The question wether a reader needs to comprihend one aspect of the article is one of an editorial nature rather then wether this image does or does not aid in that comrihension. The editorial aspect is outside the scope of NFCC#8. — Edokter (talk) — 11:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of whether "an image's omission would be detrimental to readers' understanding" (or, in the words I used above, "that readers didn't need a perfect comprehension of what it looked like") is precisely the subject of NFCC8. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another DRV that hinges on the closer's assessment of the "quality of the argument". Treasury Tag's position is that his view was qualitatively better and should have been weighted higher than the "keep" position, which was most usefully presented by Xeworlebi. Treasury Tag would be correct if NFCC#8 applied, so the key issue we need to decide is whether King of Hearts ought to have found that it did.
Xeworlebi and Treasury Tag both stated their positions in the discussion. Then they repeated themselves until the close, in a conversation that might be summarised as "Does apply!" - "Does not!" - "Does so!" And that was it. These users failed to engage with one another at any deeper level than simple contradiction. In the circumstances, there is no reason why King of Hearts should have weighted one higher than the other, so we have to endorse the finding of no consensus. And I agree with Silver seren (above):- DRV isn't FfD part 2, so arguments that would have belonged at the FfD don't belong here. In the normal course of things we're supposed to evaluate the close, not decide whether we agree with it.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I only repeated myself because TreasuryTag claimed I did not address one of his points, while I did, not necessarily my stance but the validity of my response. TreasuryTag has a long history of trying to discredit every disagreement with him in whatever way possible, including saying the person did not respond to every part of their post, and that there comments are not valid because of it, which was an invalid assessment of my comment on his behalf. I only tried to clarify that I did to the closing admin. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'd agree that there's some weak arguments going on on the keep side, but this is another of those images where it hinges strongly on personal opinion of NFCC #8. There's quite clearly no consensus on the matter in the discussion, and pulling a delete closure out of that discussion would have really looked like an admin "supervote". ~ mazca talk 11:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) endorse close, it's up to the closing admin to assess the quality of the arguments made by the parties, not the deletion nominator. TreasuryTag believes his opinion to be more valid than the rest, the closing admin didn't, and that's about it. While I personally find closing an FfD as no consensus isn't a particular good idea in the first place, taking that the closing admin misread a post and changed his delete, I understand why it was done, as I guess the only other way was to reopen the FfD. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to delete The picture just does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" as required for NFCC 8. At first and second glance it's the two actors standing over a console, and it needs a lengthy caption to explain what the image is showing. This explanation just duplicates a fuller one in the text, from which the same understanding is gained, making the image purely decorative. Removing it would not decrease readers' understanding of the topic one bit.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. The discussion never reached a consensus. The main reason the discussion (and quite a few related ones) didn't reach consensus is that the community is divided on the application of the underlying policy. The NFCC policy, interpreted strictly as written, along the lines some participants here argue, wouldn't allow many sorts of nonfree images that community practice accepts -- for example, most nonfree images of deceased persons would also fail NFCC#8 under a strict reading. Probably no less important, our NFCC policy doesn't fit in well with the Foundation resolution, which appears to accept images of this type generally because they complement articles about contemporary copyrighted works (WMF resolution, bullet #3). Rather than these contentious, divisive, and generally unproductive serial debates over individual images, we need a systematic discussion about the fact that our practices regarding images have become difficult to reconcile with our NFCC policy, which itself doesn't line up well with the Foundation resolution. My personal opinion is that most of these "identifying images" for TV episodes aren't well-chosen enough justify the use of the particular image involved, and we might be better off with a blanket rule against them than burdening the community with repeated debates. But that's a policy discussion we've never had (or perhaps had so long ago we need to revisit it.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A good way to supersede an image that isn't "well-chosen" is to choose a better one. A think a lot of editors dig in harder to support less important images when the choice presented by someone favoring deletion seems to be that mediocre image or no image. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse nc close, there was clearly no consensus to delete, and there was a good-faith disagreement about NFCC#8 that was not clearly resolved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as "no consensus." Of all the non-free content criteria, #8 is certainly the most open to interpretation. In the FfD discussion in question, there was disagreement over whether the criterion was met – whether the image "significantly increased readers' understanding of the topic" – and nothing resembling a consensus formed between the participants in the discussion. In taking this to DRV, TreasuryTag is essentially asking us to discard the opinion that NFCC#8 is met in this case, when in fact that opinion is no less valid than his own opinion that NFCC#8 is not met. Whether text can "adequately describe" the subject of the screenshot is really up to interpretation; this is not a clear-cut case where one side's arguments were clearly of a higher quality or correct. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure per A Stop at Willoughby. NFCC#8 calls for an editing judgment and so is not subject to authoritarian declarations of what objectively constitutes policy compliance. Particularly in a case such as here, where we're undoubtedly on safe legal ground (a single screenshot from a TV episode in an article about that episode) and there's no replaceability issue (the subject of the article is a copyrighted audiovisual work). So there's no compelling reason to be more strict than consensus supports. That said, there are probably better screenshots to use from this episode; I'd prefer one that more clearly and prominently illustrates the Idris character. But again, that's an editing judgment. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Personally, I'm inclined to think here is a good FUR, and an article about an episode, etc. not only may but should have a screen shot if possible: visual media cannot be properly understood in words. But at the discussion there clearly was not consensus, and when that's the case, the only thing to do is to admit it. I don't think there is presentely general consensus on the acceptability this type of image , so it isn't surprising that a discussion of an particular one would reach that result. I agree with Postdifl, though, that we might find a better image for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as the NFCC make the burden for providing the rationale that the image meets the requirements is with the person requiring to keep the image and as noted by many above this resulted in no-consensus, it appears that burden hasn't been met, therefore this should have been deleted. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Going off of what 82.7.44.178 said, please note that the top paragraph of FFD says "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised." (emphasis mine). NW (Talk) 16:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a bit of a running debate. The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. is from WP:DEL in a section that applies to FfD as well as AfD and MfD. Let's just say consensus isn't hugely clear here. An RfC to clarify might be a good choice... Hobit (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, it says "eligible" but not required. Given this isn't the first NFC image to close kept as "no consensus" from its FFD, there's really nothing technically wrong with the admin closure here in terms of NFC and timelines. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Masem about "eligible". Given that the use of such screenshots is so widespread, we're talking about a community practice that may be supported by a broader consensus than is evidenced by the FFD debates. We need a broader community debate on the principles involved. When the principle is clearly supported (eg, no nonfree images of living persons as general illustrations in BLP), it's more appropriate to require consensus to keep in the face of a reasonable challenge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, that line that you've quoted in bold was added to the FFD header unilaterally by JMilburn (talk · contribs) on 18 August 2009 [2], in the middle of a period when the question was being intensively considered at WT:FFD (See Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_deletion/Archive_6#No_consensus), apparently the most extensive discussion there has so far been on the question. One admin subsequently gave the following assessment of the discussion: "Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete." Given that it still appears to be the practise that "no consensus" -> keep (as also found in eg this DRV, 25 June 2010), perhaps JMilburn's change to the FFD page header should be reverted. Jheald (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be interest in this discussion, no real consensus to make a change doesn't appear to be an issue, it seems the view is that once it's there and remained unchallenged, that's it, it's for those who want to change it back again who need to gain consensus. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking again that's quite a long discussion, a way down the question of common practice is bought and the circumstances about the original change to policy made, with response like "multiple discussions have failed to repudiate the 2007 change." i.e. based on that discussion the onus would be on those who don't like that text to repudiate it. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Where text has successfully stayed in place for two years, it certainly should be given consideration. But where the text was added without consensus and conflicts with the practice guideline and does not represent practice and has been repudiated, then it should probably go. Jheald (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were the conditions in the example I gave, the text was added without consensus and against practice. The concept there of repudiation was, someone has to gain consensus to undo it, I don't see why a different standard would be applied here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree with the parallel. Looking at the CSD discussion, I agree with what you wrote at the time about the text in question there: "I don't actually believe the 2007 change is illegitimate in that it reflects the practice adoped, i.e. it has consensus by virtue of what we do." If an article has survived AfD then in general it should not be CSD'd, another process should be used -- that seems to be generally sound advice, and in line with what we do. I'm not surprised it hadn't been repudiated. But any such wording has to be interpreted with common sense. Jclemens seems to have be in a band of one, trying to stretch it to an edge case where it plainly shouldn't apply. That compares to here, where the rubric at the top of WP:FFD does not accord with practice, and has been repudiated at DRV. I raised the issue of removal here, rather than just going in and doing it; but it seems to me it is confusing, it doesn't reflect current practice, and so it should go. Jheald (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't supposed to be an exact parallel. The issue there was that a clause was added which was worded loosely, in that situation that loose wording led to some editors insisting on a very literal reading, which was against the way DRV normally reads it, against the way many admins adminster it (and in my view against the spirit of the problem it was addressing). Did we say this is nonsense, that's been repudiated here and every time an admin deletes such an item? No there was an insistance that as it was standing "policy" that a broader community discussion was needed to change it. My comments about not being illegitimate were about the general principal not the very literal reading. In this case we have a standing "policy", we have some admins not administering it that way, we have perhaps some disagreement here about it. So surely the resolution should follow the same lines? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- as a note I don't agree that it's as simple as being made out. FFD covers all sorts of media to be deleted, NFC is a specific case and the text as written is in line with the NFC policy, which was my original comment. NFC requires those wanting to keep it to gain consensus to keep it. Media outside NFC perhaps there is a good case for keeping the process inline with the normal keep the status-quo aspect of no-consensus. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No: see Legal burden of proof. What WP:NFC places on those wishing to keep content is perhaps more accurately the burden of making a case. If no substantive case is made to keep the image, it is enough simply to say the image should be deleted without having to make a specific case. However, if a substantive case is made to keep an image, those who would delete it must then establish why that case is false. Both in law howver, and in guidance and practice here, the question of who has the burden to make the case is separate from the question of how to assess the final verdict -- which eg in a court would still require a majority of ten jurors out of twelve to find an accused guilty. Similarly, here, the closing admin must take account of the arguments presented, weighed according to their conformance with policy, and the burdens laid on each side; but having done so, it then falls for them to assess whether there is a consensus to delete. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your parallels to law are irrelevant, wikipedia isn't a system of law, so jury standards and legal burden of proof are irrelevant. "It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" - that is the standard. Your "those who would delete it must then establish why that case is false." again the actual standard is "those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". If we don't have consensus that the rationale is valid, the burden still remains with those wishing to retain the image.No consensus means there isn't a consensus of the validity, hence that burden hasn't been met. In cases where NFCC#8 come in to play your apparent expectation is that delete comments will "prove" a negative. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden is to provide a rational, not that every editor has to agree with it, and then it falls back on the system used for everything; which is no-consusnus = keep. The burden is thus creating consensus that the rational is not valid. If there's no consensus it indicates a substantial group believes it does not violate the NFCC; you say no consensus means there isn't a consensus of the validity, but the opposite is just as correct; taking that the NFCC is much more restrictive than the actual law, there should be zero legal problems if the image is kept. But anyway this really isn't the place to discuss this. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden is to provide a valid rationale. No one has said everyone has to agree with it, but there has to be a consensus that it's valid - in this case it isn't. I'm not sure how you reach "The burden is thus creating consensus that the rational is not valid" when the policy is quite clear that it isn't the case. If you want to take the legal analogies and apply it here, say I'm accused of a crime, the side the burden is on has to prove the case to the relevant standard for me to be convicted. Here the side the burden is on has to prove the case to the relevant standard, they haven't met that burden so they don't "win" the case. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The people trying to delete the image are the ones claiming that the rational is not valid (accusation of committing a crime) contradicting the uploader's given rational (that they did nothing wrong), they are the ones that have prove the case that it is not valid (conviction). Acting without consensus is against the very nature of consensus. No-consensus means and always has meant keep in the past across the whole of Wikipedia. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- accusation of committing a crime – folks, snap out of it. Crime? Seriously? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You never cease to amaze with your dumbfounded and oblivious remarks TreasuryTag. It's called an analogy. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. An example of a good image, which does add to reader understanding over and above the text, showing how various important elements of the story were realised; and which also does provide an image very distinctively of this episode that will usefully jog the minds of those that have seen it, so also adding to the degree of understanding of the subject that our article will leave them with. Arguments made for keeping in the original FfD were more developed, more convincing, and more supported than the blank undeveloped denials if its opponents. On that basis, the judgement of the closer to close as "no consensus to delete" seems entirely justifiable. Jheald (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close though I think keep would have been a more accurate reading of the discussion. That the console itself was part of a contest -and- that how it looks was claimed (and generally agreed) to be relevant to the article is enough to overcome the generic appeal to NFCC#8 that I'd say the stronger arguments were on the keep side by a fair margin. But NC was well within admin discretion, so I'll not be suggesting that this close be overturned to keep. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close "no consensus" seems a valid closure in this case. Note - I personally think it should be deleted, but that is entirely beside the point, because DRV is not XfD round-2. Unfortunately, the FfD did not get consensus to delete the image. Chzz ► 00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, weakly, and similar to Chzz above: I voted delete in the FFD, and still think del would have been the better outcome, but since there was at least some tangible claim to a policy-conformant justification in this case (though, in my view, a very weak one), and assessing it was something of a judgment call, I can't blame the closing admin for making the formally correct nc closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close: its all been said by SilverSeren et al. DRV should have never been started.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV should have never been started. I guess that's why there are more than four people who've argued for an overturn then. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 07:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all of which (besides the Overturn to Keep) are using AfD style comments, which is not appropriate for DRV. SilverserenC 08:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
