499:
hypothetical situation) then it is suitable for inclusion in the "list" article, and otherwise should be removed. If sufficient amounts of information are removed from the "list" article it may then be appropriate to reintegrate it with the "main" article, but the size of a list does not constitute its notability or warrant its deletion; if moving a "list" subsection to its own article serves to make the "main" article better then that alone is justification for the continued existence of the "list" article irrespective of its size, issues with the information itself notwithstanding.
450:. While this is not always wrong, it is not always right either. Sources for sex-related articles should be evaluated primarily on the origin of their content. If the source is a blog, forum, or other such primarily user-driven content source, then it is highly likely that it is unsuitable for establishing valid information. However, if it is a static publication, author-driven website, work of fiction, even a pornographic film, then the reliability is likely suitable (though perhaps barely) for use in the article.
31:
193:
recommended (if not required) that the "group shot" be used; not only will it cut down on the number of Fair Use images in an article, (good) it will also make the image in question that much more "bulletproof" against removal since it identifies not one but several important (or semi-important) aspects of a larger work. (better)
498:
Notability of the individual pieces of information within the "list" article must also be considered, however. If a piece of information would provide a significant or useful purpose were the list placed inside the "main" article (with no consideration given to issues of article length, etc. in this
291:
There is nothing at all wrong with using it as a source, and in most cases it can be directly inferred that an assertation about plot, characters, or other specifics which bears no overt citation (e.g. <ref> tags) is sourced from the work itself. For groups of fictional work such as television
229:
This is where we get into one of those "well, it depends" situations. Consideration must be given to how important the visual representation of the subject is; if a simple text description can adequately convey how a subject looks or appears then the image is likely unnecessary, but for more complex
192:
Another important consideration is whether or not there is one image which can accomplish the task of many. In many cases important subjects (main characters, etc.) will be shown/drawn/rendered together by the originating work such that they are all (or mostly) identifiable. In such instances it is
188:
If we're talking about minor, one-time, or throw-away charcters/etc. then there's little justification for using a Fair Use image to help describe such a marginal aspect of the larger work. (much less devoting a section to something that trivial) If the section's subject is relatively important or
465:
of an article may be called into question. Usually it is a simple matter of providing sources which properly establish that the subject of an article is noteworthy enough for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG). However, notability assertions for "List of..." articles are not necessarily established in
490:
Though this is specifically about those articles (and list articles) which discuss works of fiction, many "list" articles are created for the same reason: inclusion of the information in the "main" article would make that article far too long, would disrupt the flow of the article, and other such
67:
This is where I put some of my opinions, ideas, viewpoints, and arguments I have made or adopted on (mostly) various
Knowledge (XXG)-related topics. Many of these are my opinions with regards to discussions which seem to crop up frequently, usually in relation to interpretations of policy and
382:
to say that articles are in any way exempt from the requirements of those three documents; rather, the numbers and standards one would apply to an article about, say, a type of car cannot be applied verbatim to an article about a sexual practice. (Or to paraphrase, we're dealing with
477:
Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good
230:
or visually confusing subjects a picture may not only improve the article dramatically, it may be necessary to understanding the text. What determines whether or not a text description is "adequate" is, of course, something that must be evaluated for each use.
270:
In the absence of a secondary source, we use a primary source for uncontroversial claims about the subject. Such primary sources can't establish importance, but they can be used for simple, uncontroversial claims in the absence of any alternative secondary
234:
106:
If the simple fact that an article (or section of an article) uses more than one source to compile a more complete and detailed offering of information makes that section
Original Research, then round about 99% of Knowledge (XXG) falls into that
117:
As per the policy's example text, Original
Research comes into play when an editor takes sources A and B, then uses them to state (or imply) something along the lines of, "because A and B, we get C." Even then, as long as C can be
402:
mainstream sources that it is not notable. In most cases a handful sources from a mainstream source are all one can reasonably expect for a sexual subject, even less as the term or topic becomes more explicit. The BDSM term
366:, to say nothing of less secular or more conservative sources and publications. It is for that reason (and common sense) that sex-related articles should be evaluated with a slightly more forgiving standard with regards to
265:, usually relating to works of fiction. Rather than trying to explain in my own words, let me borrow the words of a fellow editor (and a recurring, usually oppositional participant in many of the arguments I get into):
55:
and may or may not have wide support, but it's easier to just post the link below rather than make the same points over and over again. Feel free to quote this non-essay as needed, but please use my
292:
shows it is still recommended (if not required) that the specific episode be cited in some way; however, statements like, "in episode X, character Y lost their leg," qualify as a form of citation.
226:, for starters. The conflict about this part of WP:FUC is centered around the use of the term "significantly;" does identification of a section topic count as a "significant" contribution?
154:
As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in
Knowledge (XXG) as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
261:, but some editors seem to think that WP:V requires some things that, well, it just doesn't. The most common of these is concerning sources and the citation thereof, specifically
160:. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy)."
215:
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
185:. The resolution does "clamp down" on things a bit, but had the Foundation wanted all Fair Use images removed from Knowledge (XXG) they would have said so quite clearly.
446:
that is argued. Many cited sources are disqualified due to their explicit, "underground", or otherwise non-mainstream nature, which supposedly makes them unsuitable via
96:
398:
is possibly the most common reason why sex-related articles are targeted for deletion. The problem arises when editors assume that if one of these articles lacks
223:
423:
must be done on a sliding scale with regards to relative vulgarity and explicitness, though at no level of either is an article exempt from the requirements of
200:"montage" images; just because you've combined several images into one file doesn't mean they aren't still separate images as far as copyrights are concerned.
139:
images in articles, particularly lists of episodes or lists of characters. This comes down to arguments over two of the numbered points in WP:FUC: #3 and #8.
218:
This is one of the more hotly contested sections of WP:FUC, or rather the effect it has is contested. You can find discussions of the matter
72:, or similar, just scroll down the page a bit until you find the section that most closely relates to what you were screaming at me about.
408:
219:
483:
327:. Sometimes the article survives, and sometimes it doesn't. The latter mostly occurs due to failure (preceived or real) to meet
311:
states: "f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it."
319:
I have noticed that articles about sexual terms, sexual practices, and other such articles seem to be increasingly vulnerable to
182:
358:
sources is limited by the subject's very nature. To put it another way, you would not expect to find an article on the term
295:
Regardless of the use of primary sources in articles about works of fiction, every article still requires some form of
42:
495:
is asserted by the "main" article; if the "main" article is notable, then the "list" article is notable.
135:
I'm hardly alone in arguing over this, but there are some issues being raised of the use of multiple
56:
83:
I've heard a number of arguments that, in essence, boil down to the assumption that the mere act of
277:
384:
363:
416:
320:
351:
296:
324:
208:
178:
147:
136:
123:
112:
92:
69:
300:
52:
17:
470:
447:
443:
371:
347:
119:
419:
that I am aware of; both are suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG). Evaluations of
355:
262:
467:
462:
439:
435:
424:
420:
395:
375:
367:
343:
339:
332:
328:
308:
304:
258:
491:
primarily aesthetic considerations. In these cases notability of the "list" article
404:
257:
I'm all for making sure that articles on
Knowledge (XXG) meet the requirements of
167:
68:
guidelines. If I linked to this page in the course of a talk page discussion,
241:
lists (such as an episode "grid") is not okay. Fair Use images are meant to
412:
359:
91:
of information with an implied/explicit conclusion, and thus counts as
30:
183:
March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia
Foundation Licensing policy resolution
315:
171:
justification to delete every Fair Use image on
Knowledge (XXG)
51:
a policy or guideline. It expresses the opinions and ideas of
438:
is less often directly cited; usually it is a combination of
95:. I've already opened up a discussion of the matter on the
104:
A collection of information is what Knowledge (XXG) is.
287:
What some editors forget is that for works of fiction
131:
Fair Use: Images in Lists/Multiple Images in Articles
115:
requires an implied or explicitly stated conclusion.
87:information from multiple sources is the same as
475:
267:
196:It should be noted that the above specifically
233:It's also worth pointing out that it has been
8:
79:Original Research: Collection of Information
457:Notability: Lists and Other "Sub-Articles"
99:, but let me just reiterate a few points:
25:
362:(or even an article using that term) in
253:Verifiability: Citing the Primary Source
466:the same fashion. To quote a relevant
307:of the subject overall. After all, as
411:and other shows, but (again) the term
407:has been used in numerous episodes of
289:the work itself is the primary source.
409:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
338:The issue with sex-related articles,
7:
484:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
189:recurs then we're on firmer ground.
431:Verifiability and Reliable Sources
24:
325:Articles for Deletion nominations
29:
370:and also, to a lesser extent,
1:
374:when relating to issues of
111:A "synthesis" violation of
513:
177:of recent changes made to
59:to propose major changes.
400:multiple, easily citeable
303:source to establish the
235:farily well established
488:
461:From time to time the
415:has only been used in
391:Notability of Articles
346:is that the number of
285:
237:that using images for
245:article content, not
158:Minimal extent of use
209:From the policy text
163:First and foremost,
148:From the policy text
468:notability criteria
385:apples and oranges
364:The New York Times
442:and issues about
350:and easy to find
321:proposed deletion
93:Original Research
65:
64:
504:
486:
444:reliable sources
283:
120:properly sourced
97:WP:NOR talk page
33:
26:
512:
511:
507:
506:
505:
503:
502:
501:
487:
482:
459:
453:
433:
393:
317:
284:
276:
263:primary sources
255:
206:
155:
145:
133:
81:
75:
57:discussion page
22:
21:
20:
18:User:Yukichigai
12:
11:
5:
510:
508:
480:
458:
455:
432:
429:
392:
389:
335:requirements.
316:
313:
274:
254:
251:
205:
202:
165:this is not a
152:Minimal usage.
144:
141:
132:
129:
128:
127:
108:
80:
77:
63:
62:
60:
53:one Wikipedian
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
509:
500:
496:
494:
485:
479:
474:
472:
469:
464:
456:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:Verifiability
430:
428:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
401:
397:
390:
388:
387:here, folks)
386:
381:
377:
376:verifiability
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
336:
334:
330:
329:verifiability
326:
322:
314:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
290:
282:
281:
273:
272:
266:
264:
260:
259:verifiability
252:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
227:
225:
221:
216:
214:
213:Significance.
210:
203:
201:
199:
194:
190:
186:
184:
180:
176:
172:
170:
169:
168:carte blanche
161:
159:
153:
149:
142:
140:
138:
130:
125:
121:
116:
114:
109:
105:
102:
101:
100:
98:
94:
90:
86:
78:
76:
73:
71:
61:
58:
54:
50:
46:
44:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
497:
492:
489:
476:
460:
452:
434:
399:
394:
379:
337:
318:
294:
288:
286:
279:
269:
268:
256:
246:
242:
238:
232:
228:
217:
212:
207:
197:
195:
191:
187:
174:
166:
164:
162:
157:
151:
146:
134:
110:
103:
88:
84:
82:
74:
66:
48:
38:
36:
378:. This is
181:due to the
47:It is also
463:notability
396:Notability
333:notability
305:notability
175:regardless
85:collecting
478:practice.
471:guideline
354:and even
352:secondary
297:secondary
278:A Man In
239:unadorned
204:WP:FUC #8
143:WP:FUC #3
122:it meets
107:category.
89:synthesis
481:—
417:one show
413:felching
360:felching
348:reliable
301:tertiary
275:—
198:excludes
137:Fair Use
37:This is
493:overall
356:primary
271:source.
247:replace
243:support
150:: "(a)
405:bottom
342:, and
179:WP:FUC
124:WP:NOR
113:WP:NOR
448:WP:RS
372:WP:RS
280:Bl♟ck
43:essay
16:<
440:WP:V
425:WP:N
421:WP:N
368:WP:N
344:WP:V
340:WP:N
331:and
323:and
309:WP:V
249:it.
224:here
222:and
220:here
156:(b)
380:not
299:or
211:: "
70:AfD
49:not
41:an
39:not
473::
427:.
173:,
126:.
45:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
