miscellany For Deletion/Wiki:fromowner

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

—freak(talk) 12:53, May. 4, 2007 (UTC)

Wiki: Fromowner + subpages

Blatant transgression of Wiki is an encyclopedia, Avoid self-references and arguably Disruptive editing — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy, with its subcomponents (as nominator):

This thing has been around almost silently since last month, and is a largely one-editor effort. It has not been Proposed, nor subject to a WP:RFC or otherwise invited for community discussion, yet is being deployed as if it had consensus (which is why I'm bringing it here instead of RfC.) It is not tagged as an {{Essay}}, and is worded as if it were policy or a guideline — it is being actively mistaken as such as a result. What it is, and is for, aren't instantly apparent:

It's a proposal to fill all empty bio (and other, including structure/building) infobox "|image=" lines with things like Image:Replace this image1.svg (which is a bizarre redirect to a text page, namely Wiki: Fromowner, but works when used as an image, and can be gotten to by bypassing the redirect), illustrated to the right here. This is clearly a blatant transgression of Wiki: Avoid self-references; while we do tolerate some of those in the form of stub tags and dispute/cleanup templates, they are ones have that have been subject to very broad community input (as a class; not on a template-by-template basis) and collectively found to be a good idea. But this particular foray into that territory has absolutely no consensus at all (it can't - it's hasn't been discussed by much of anyone; it's own documentation doesn't even have a talk page (and it's not a /doc thing, it is Wiki: Fromowner documentation, intended to be a stand-alone document).

Despite this lack of consensus, its proponent(s) have been installing this bogus un-image on hundreds of articles. Next, as users Astrokey44 and 32X have pointed out, this pseudo-picture is flagrantly unencyclopedic noise. It would also drive everyone nuts because eventually it would appear on potentially every single article in WP that doesn't have an infobox picture. As such it is clearly disruptive in effect even if not in intent. (The same could possibly be said of the form taken by this page and some of its subpages, which are in monstrously-huge boldfaced "yelling" text.)

Next, it is redundant with {{Reqphoto}} and the "|needs-photo=yes" of {{WPBiography}} and other WikiProject templates. There seems to be a uniform and long-standing consensus that such article improvement doo-dads belong on article talk pages, not articles (Cf. recent CfDs to move Category:Place of birth missing and similar things to talk pages.) As an aside, it is arguably also malnamed, as "Fromowner" doesn't mean much of anything I would bet to anyone but the author. It is uncategorized (other than as an MFD), as if it is the opposite of the One Ring: "It doesn't want to be found".

And, finally, the page has been perm-protected by it's author, a clear conflict of interest, in the absence of anything cognizant under protection policy as even a temp- or semi-protection justification, and with an edit summary that claims that this stuff is part of some new Wikipedia file upload system, which appears to be nonsense, or else is a very big secret, or really means "my one-person idea for a new Wikipedia file upload system".

The files collectively subject to this MfD are (that I know of so far):

Wiki: Fromowner
Wiki: Fromowner documentation
Wiki: Fromownerbuilding - whatever that means (are we in the Deutschewikipedianischweltanschauung now?)
Image:Replace this image1.svg - the offending pseudo-image
Image:Replace this imageb.svg - another weird redirect, to Wiki: Fromownerbuilding; if you bypass the redir, there is an actual image there, similar in wording to the above one, but even uglier.

Some other bits that seem to refer to it:

Template:Multilicensefobuild - may or may not actually be closely associated with this
MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fobuild - may or may not actually be closely associated with this
MediaWiki:Licenses/fobuild - may or may not actually be closely associated with this
Those parts appear to have nothing to do with the problem at issue here (the placeholder images and the instructions that encourage their use all over the place), and may have other functions, so are not part of nomination. They were observed to be possibly related, but I am striking them to be clear that that was a comment, while the nomination consists, and has the entire time, of three pages and two images (identified so far). Updated: 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In closing, I'd be okay with this becoming an RfC or guideline proposal, since either will allow the community to reaffirm that we don't add nonencyclopedic stuff to article after article, provided that the image is removed from the articles and deleted for now so that it can't be mistakenly used again during the RFC/proposal, unless and until there is actual consensus that such an invasive {{Reqphoto}} replacement tactic is appropriate (however, I think the odds of that are very slim.)

Apologies for the length of this MfD nomination, but the case is weird and multifile-complicated.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Amended below. This entire situation makes me very uncomfortable. Essentially, this system appears to be a unilateral effort to move {{Reqphoto}} to article space, despite the community's increasing tendency to keep all such collaboration-boxes on the talk page. Furthermore, it employs the use of placeholder images, which Wikipedia does not otherwise employ. In short, it is a vast cirumvention of community input on a fundamental change to policy in many respects: image use, article-space metatemplating, and the image upload process itself. If that were not sufficient reason for concern, the system has been locked into place by the creating editor's admin priveledges in apparent contravention of page-protection policy. Anything this expansive needs to start at the pump, not with live implementation via uneditable pages. Serpent's Choice 08:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It's too early (I think) to see if it really works, but we need to try something to have people upload free content images instead of non-free images they found on the web somewhere. Garion96 (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a reasonable concept, in this case If there are issues I'd prefer to see them openly discussed and worked through before considering deletion. As to policy, can't say I recall the policy prohibiting place holder images. --pgk 10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification requested: Please note the nomination is "delete or userfy", not "delete", and policy/guideline conflicts have been raised. Are you arguing for keeping as an unlabelled pseudo-guideline in WP-namespace, for keeping labelled as an Essay in WP-namespace, or keeping in Userspace? PS: Please see the previously cited policy/guideline pages, in particular Wiki: Avoid self-references; we tolerate very view instructional/exhortatory types of messages in articles (stub tags, and dispute/cleanup templates, period.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• how exactly were you planning to userfy the mediawiki pages in any meaningful sense?Geni 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: I don't follow the question. Userfy it the same way you userfy a template or any other non-article. Couldn't care less what they are called personally. How about User:Geni/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fobuild. Or [[User:Geni/MW/Uploadtext/fobuild. PS: If they would be required to be where they are for testing purposes (which on further thought seems likely), I wouldn't have any objection to that if the main two Wikipedia:-space pages were userfied and the images removed for the interim, so that the invasion of these things into "live" articles stopped. I really don't care what goes where, I care about these problematic image placeholders showing up in hundreds, and soon thousands, of articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Err you can't call special pages from userspace pages so that wouldn't work.incerdently 4 lines of sig is too long.Geni 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: I don't see what the point is. What do you need to test, since you already know it works? If it came down to it, there could perhaps be a page at Wiki: Fromowner that was an outline of what the proposal is, with the extant material at that page moved to Wikipedia:Fromowner/Draft; then you could use the other bits and not be in userspace. Repeat: I really don't care what goes where, I care about these problematic image placeholders showing up in hundreds, and soon thousands, of articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regarding image placeholders, I read certain aspects of Wiki: Image use policy and the non-policy but often-cited Wiki: Images as discouraging them. From WP:IUP, "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." Similarly, from WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." Additionally, that reference provides a specific course of action when an image would be valuable, but is not available: "If you cannot find a suitable image, you can make a request at Wiki: Requested pictures so that another contributor might find or create a suitable image." There does not appear to have been any discussion at Wiki Talk: Requested pictures to determine consensus for this parallel implementation. There are, admittedly, a number of placeholder images (here, here, and here), but -- except for the non-invasive 1x1 blank PNG -- they are almost unused in article space (and, indeed, replacing the remaining invasive images with the 1x1 blank is probably preferable). Furthermore, virtually all placeholder image use that I sampled was to meet the requirements of templates whose image options are not (or originally were not) optional. Serpent's Choice 11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply comment: Exactly. What was a kluge is being extended against extant consensus to be a new "standard practice"; there are good reasons that it wasn't standard practice to begin with. It's not like this is the first time the idea has ever come up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Applying the image policy and discussions to these images seems nonsense to me, as everything it's the spirit which is important and I doubt very much those pages anticipated this. When a new idea comes along it isn't mandatory to run around and hold a poll or a discussion before moving it forward, consensus can simply be gained by everyone thinking that's a neat idea and carrying it forward. As above if there are issues with the use (and I certainly would hate to see this overused) it seems to me that we should perhaps try discussing and addressing those issues rather than just dumping the whole thing (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) --pgk 13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems like a great idea. However, discretion should be used (i.e. don't use this on the main page, don't use it on articles in which a free image is unlikely to ever be uploaded). --- RockMFR 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification requested, and reply comment: Please note the nomination is "delete or userfy", not "delete", and policy/guideline conflicts have been raised. Are you arguing for keeping as an unlabelled pseudo-guideline in WP-namespace, for keeping labelled as an Essay in WP-namespace, or keeping in Userspace? There's no evidence that discretion is being used; it is clear that the intent (so far) is for this sort of WP self-referential pseudo-image to appear on every photoless bio and building/structure article on the system, and likely more of them later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've changed my mind. --- RockMFR 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This may be a necessary byproduct of The Foundation's strict image policy. If we're going to have a decent on-line encyclopedia we need pictures and need them badly. This will get us at least some more pictures, I would think. Now, the questition of whether this should be deployed *could* be seen as a policy issue, and maybe it is. However, I've had it pounded into my skull that the proper purpose of policy is simply to document actual practice, and policy is created by practice. Whether this is so or not I can't say, but maybe it is. Therefore the policy is being created by this editor being bold. I'm all for it. If other editors want to fight it out in an edit war, though, it will have to go to being a proposed policy. I guess. Herostratus 15:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply comment: As with Wiki: Ignore all rules, the meaning of Wiki: Be bold in editing pages is quite a bit more subtle than "do as thou willt". PS: No one is editwarring. Policies do not go through a consensus-building proposal phase simply because there is editwarring. DOES NOT COMPUTE! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most accepted policies typically have not gone through a proposal phase (consensus building or other) period. :-P Herostratus said nothing about bold being "do as thou wilt", so you are attacking a strawman. To continue your analogy, apparently you are having trouble computing, because you have not installed the appropriate libraries. (AKA, you have not acquired all all the information, guidelines, and processes required to understand what's going on) --Kim Bruning 12:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Also, the length of your sig suggests something along those lines:-P [reply]
• Reply comment: That's not actually a straw man at all; I am commenting on self-evident behavior, not statements. Most accepted policies descend from Jimbo and the Foundation, so I don't see your point. Most accepted guidelines have indeed going through formal or informal proposal processes and a great deal of consensus building. I apologize for using "policy" in the over-broad sense; the name of WP:HCP is unfortunate, since it is at least as much about guideline formation as Policy-per-se formation. I was just using shorthand, but I see that it was too ambiguous to do so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and propose it as a policy proposal, see what consensus decides. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RockMFR. ElinorD (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: RockMFR's "keep" comment was self-rescinded. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per RockMFR and Herostratus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ^∫ φ _γ 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: RockMFR's "keep" comment was self-rescinded. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete. I read this information a few weeks ago, and I was left scratching my head. It just doesn't make any sense to do things this way. And yes, while it will encourage people to upload, we already have an issue with too many non-free images, and the (largely) clueless masses won't make the distinction. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• we've got a few free images through the system Category:Fromownerviewed.Geni 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem of people uploading non-free images as free is certainly a problem. However, the fromowner upload page (which is linked from Wiki: Fromowner) quite clearly states that only images "you have created" should be uploaded. This is even more clear than the regular upload page. We will always have people who upload with an incorrect license, c/p copyrighted text, etc. There's no way to prevent it. --- RockMFR 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Here goes. 1.) It was listed for community discussion at the village pump 2.) it is within policy. ASF doesn't cover it nor does anything else. It is in keeping with the foundation's mission statement ("The Wiki Du học is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content").3) "yelling text" seem special:upload lately? 4.) {{Reqphoto}} only targets quite involved editors. Fromowner is mean to target readers. 5.)The "Fromowner" name was largely acidental and follows the style of Commons:Upload. Given that one of the things needed in order to get it to work was to get the devs to turn on the relivant extention for en preventing it from being found would have been kinda tricky. I was advertyised at the village pump and I kinda assumed people would find it through articles. 6) It is a new style of upload system not previously used on en (because it wouldn't really work without the extention being swtiched on) and the protection would fall under the high traffic interface pages bit. Much like the main page or the mediawiki namespace pages.Geni 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply comment: 1) ^{[citation needed]}. Let's see how well what was proposed matches what has been implemented, how broad and long the community response was, and how positive. 2) All sorts of things could be considered in keeping with the very vague and broad mission statement while still conflicting with policies and well-established guidelines; that's not really an argument at all. Being within the mission statement != being within policy (which in turn != being within community consensus more broadly.) 3) Irrelevant; these pages are not Special:Upload. 4) That's a good thing, because such involved editors actually understand the licensing requirements of WP image far more so than noobs, in the vast majority of cases. 5) OK, I don't really care about the name all that much. It seems counterintuitive and likely to confuse, but is the very least of the concerns raised. 6) I do no at all buy the "high traffic" protection rational. There is no "high traffic" protection rationale at WP:PROT. I think you may be misreading and overextending the rationale for protecting massively-transcluded templates like {{fact}}, under the "system administration" rationale given there. And protection it is not for pre-emptive protection of new pages just because they could be "high-traffic" (or massively transcluded, heavily edit-warred, or some other genuine protection rationale) some day. WP:RFPP would be an insane free-for-all if that were justification enough for protection of any kind, much less permanent, full protection. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I honestly don't and have not seen a reason for these. First off, free images of well-known people are probably the hardest images to get, which actually hurts this since newer users who see this probabyl don't have useful free images lying around. Second, Wikipedia is not IMDb, which isn't part of the policy but maybe it should be. Third, even I admit this vote is partially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote, because I don't. Fourth, I dunno why they distinctly avoid the PD license, but that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Lastly, are we really going to put this infobox on over 100,000 articles?--Wizardman 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are hard to get we need to maximise the number of people who are looking for one. No PD lisence to keep things simple. It isn't an infor box it is an image and putting it on 100K articles would take rather a long time.Geni 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong reply comment: Um, no it wouldn't. A well-written bot could do that in very short order. Let's not be silly. The very strong likelihood of that happening is a large part of why we're here in MfD. Just in the space of two hours doing some stub and flag template cleanup on a rather random part of the article namespace, I ran across this pseudo-image more times than I can count. It's unbelievably annoying, and gives WP the feeling of not an encyclopedia but a 1996-style "UNDER CONSTRUCTION "web page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have you any idea how much of a mess our current infobox templates are? programing a bot to cope with all the varations would be quite a trick. You are aware that the tradtional phrase is 1995-style "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" notices when dealing with the media? so 1996 would be a step forward (placeholders are hardly a 1990s thing). Most wikipedia articles are still under construction so unless you object to truth in presenitation I fail to see a problem.Geni 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: Yes, I am aware, and I'm also countervailingly well aware that the image-related code in infoboxes only takes a few forms; the number of really unusual hold-outs that couldn't be reasonably bot-handled is so small, and their range so obscure, that that final sweep-up could be handled manually. I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me (or whomever) that this wouldn't be a WP pandemic. The clear intent of it is to affect every infobox (at least in the two categorizations defined so far), so arguments that this wouldn't really happen are either a) nonsense or b) militate against the implementation of this, as a self-defining failure before it even begins. Take your pick. Either it won't work, in which case we're done, or it will, in which case the issues raised here have to be addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Postscript: While I could be talking to a temporal peer, I get the sense I'm not. I've been building the web since it existed. 'The tradtional phrase is 1995-style'? I beg your pardon? What gave you the impression that I was using a so-called "traditional phrase"? If I say that something reminds me of the web ca. 1996 I very well mean 1996, not 1997, and not 1995, all of which are quite distinct in style in my mind from having actually been there and done it. To use your phrasing, you do seem to fail to see the problem. When I raise an issue of presentation - a p.r. problem, to put it into different terms - you can't convert that as if by magic into a Wikipedia fact of life with a handwave. Yes, all WP articles are potentially "under constrution" in a sense, but we also strive to get them to, and keep them at, featured article status, when the global WP community says, after a pretty darned strenous peer review, "you know, this article has really just nailed it." As I think you are well aware, the "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" I'm talking about is a message that "this is broken; try again in 3 months, or, well, really don't bother." It's the message being sent. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether WP ever declares an article "finished" and thus uneditable, which of course it does not. Please do not conflate the two concepts. They do not relate at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm you don't pay much attention to the mailing list do you? No matter the archives are searchable. Also appears you don't deal with olypic atheletes much and have you any idea how many different ways there are to code for image size?Geni 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: As I said, yes I am aware of the variety of infobox image coding, and I know quite well that is limited. It shouldn't take more than a few hours to account for every major variation in the bot, and another afternoon to clean up the stragglers. I've already said this. Check my edit history; you'll see that I spend quite a bit of time futzing about in infoboxes. It seems to me that you simply think it is harder to write a bot than it really is. But all of this is totally beside the point. As already noted, the clear intent of this Fromowner business is to slap these faux images all over the place, and that is what people are objecting to here. Doesn't matter whether it's done by a bot or not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'd prefer that it were a PD license as opposed to the others, so my vote stands.--Wizardman 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD isn't available in all countries. m:Foundation issues says that GFDL is sufficient. MFD is not a majority vote system, so your "vote" does not stand, since you never had one in the first place eh? ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote, sorry :P or my opinion, whichever. okay then, if GFDL is sufficient why have two copyrights?--Wizardman 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two copyrights? Do you mean CC-BY-SA? --Kim Bruning 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Fits in very well with the mission of Wikipedia and the foundation, and quite well done in my view. Mak (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have little to add to the discussion and, while I know that XfD is not a vote, I would like to comment that I agree with the above opinions in favour of keeping this programme. --Iamunknown 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification requested: Please note the nomination is "delete or userfy", not "delete", and policy/guideline conflicts have been raised. Are you arguing for keeping as an unlabelled pseudo-guideline in WP-namespace, for keeping labelled as an Essay in WP-namespace, or keeping in Userspace? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think that it should be kept in its current form. I think that no change is necessary. --Iamunknown 08:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further clarification requested: Really? Without even being tagged {{Essay}} or {{Proposal}}? Despite the fact that I've already demonstrated that it is being mistaken for policy? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does meet several of the criteria for being a {{tl:policy}}, but some of them only weakly. (Else I would have already closed the MFD and marked as such :-P ) --Kim Bruning 01:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• • Further YA RLY response, I don't think it needs to be tagged as an essay, I don't think it needs to be tagged as a proposal, I don't think it needs to be tagged as a guideline, I don't think it needs to be tagged as policy: it is merely a process by which we get free images whichk, while it is not perfect, is no less perfect that Special:Upload. --Iamunknown 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no reason why adding this picture to articles will mean we get more free content uploaded - quite the opposite. It suggests that articles are somehow incomplete without photographs- they are not. Why spoil an otherwise good article by adding a huge "We have no photo of this person" image to it? It is needless self-reference and undermines the quality of our articles. These sorts of comments about our articles belong on the talkpage. By making it seem really important to get images, we probably encourage people to bend the rules- upload dubious fair use, claim copyright images as their own etc. WjBscribe 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• we do get more free content uploaded Category:Fromownerviewed.Geni 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we can't know that these images wouldn't have been uploaded had the "Fromowner" mechanism not existed. WjBscribe 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I also doubt that some of those are really free. Take a look at Image:Sianjamesmain.jpg, note the background. Now have a look at this older photo of her from the Labour Party website. See a similarity? It seems very likely the photo uploaded is a newer official Labour party photo. WjBscribe 23:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes that one has been bothering me but I can't prove it one way or the other. Quite a complex lie if it isn't true (incerdeantly the background is almost certianly not genuine since I suspect it would put the sitter in the middle of the river).Geni 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also concerned about Image:David Miliband 11 April 2007.JPG. Given the image is available on Flickr (see [1]) were steps taken to confirm the identity of the uploader? Also the uploader clearly states "This photo should be used for the Wikipedia profile of David Miliband." which seems to state that only Wikipedia can use it, contradicting the GNU and CC-ShareAlike licenses on the image page. Uploaders cannot make demands as to how their photo is used if it is to be GDFL compatible. WjBscribe 23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • google search to confirm the names mentioned existed and were in the right place. the uploader had the option to select a wikipedia only licsence and didn't do so. The upload system asks people to name the article the image should be in whish I assume was what the person was doing.Geni 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Geni, the account was created only to upload that photo and has never edited again since. Someone could have created it in the name of the Flickr uploader. And I think the condition as to how we use the image is fundamentally incompatible with a free license. WjBscribe 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't read it as a condition given the context of the upload form.Geni 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So go ask! Go on, you know you can. --Kim Bruning 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and admonish nominator. I love this system. We've also got nl.wikimedia working on more mechanisms like this. Also suggest admonishing the nominator for proceduralism over practicality, blatant WP:WOTTA abuse and for being not wiki --Kim Bruning 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) If it's being used, it has consensus. Period! unless it doesn't;-) [reply]

That's quite harsh languags for someone who didn't violate WP:WOTTA in the slightest, no?--Wizardman 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O:-) --Kim Bruning 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Either that or I have a quirky sense of humor ;-)[reply]
Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now. This seems like a bad idea to me, but I don't think it would hurt to give it a try. That should prove the matter one way or the other and save us guessing about it. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification requested, and reply comment: Please note the nomination is "delete or userfy", not "delete", and policy/guideline conflicts have been raised. Are you arguing for keeping as an unlabelled pseudo-guideline in WP-namespace, for keeping labelled as an Essay in WP-namespace, or keeping in Userspace? Also, we should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (or to experiment just for the heck of it.) We warn 1000 noobs a day with {{uw-test1}} and related to not do so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in WP space as an option that can be used, for 3 months, call it what you will. Then revisit the issue and see if it's working, or not. Despite my concerns with the proposal, I don't think this an experiment just for the heck of it. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification request: So who's going to clean up 10,000 articles when this proves to be a dreadful idea? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Orphanbot could do it. Dito CommonsDelinker in theory.Geni 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've re-evaluated my opinion somewhat. I still have the same concerns: that this is instruction creep, an unattractive alternative to the 1x1 blank, implies the necessity of images, does nothing to guarantee the accuracy of the "free" determination (as noted above), conflicts with established policies and processes, lacks guidelines as to how pervasive its implementation is intended to be, and falls short of many of the guidelines for policy implementation. In short, I feel it is a solution in search of a problem, but it is clear that there are many editors here who do not agree with me. That's fine, too, its how wiki works. To that end, I'm no longer advocating deletion, which would foreclose on this system's chances and circumvent process itself. Instead, I think this is the wrong forum to discuss the issue at all, and suggest we redirect discussion to WP:RFC/POLICIES where it probably belonged. Serpent's Choice 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The nomination was for "delete or userfy", not just "delete"; it's not a binary choice. :-) That said, I have no problem with this being closed early and re-addressed in the venue you suggest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The method definitely violates our style guide WP:ASR. If you look at the print version of a page with the image, it becomes completely useless. Stub tags are wrapped in the correct CSS so they don't appear in print versions. Can the image be wrapped in a selfref or other noprint CSS wherever it is used? Kusma (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An excellent idea that should be discussed and modified through consensus rather than deleted. --Tom (talk - email) 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its not a very good idea. It should of been discussed before it was implemented. It implies that the only images that can be used on wikipedia are free images, while fair-use images are completely legal, with policy, and helpful. Yaanch^Speak! 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• um fair use images of living people are pretty widely accepted as a no no except in rather extream cases. If you select fair use of living person in upload menu it automaticaly lists the resulting image for deletion.Geni 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it's a brilliant idea, maybe it could be edited to include fair use images. But I don't think it does any harm, just about anyone can find an image that could be used as fair use.Wolfmankurd 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the proposal, it does violate Wikipedia's style guide, and generally doesn't seem appropriate, especially since there's already the {{reqphoto}} talkpage mechanism for requesting images for articles. The proposal was also not discussed (at least, not enough) before implementation, and is clearly controversial - just look at this MfD. If this can be justified and supported through a Village Pump proposal, however, I would support the decision. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Wait, you're advocating the removal of a system to get free images, because it doesn't comply to the style guide? . Hmmm, could we perhaps edit the style guide instead? :-) --Kim Bruning 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply comment: I don't know if you're just exercising your sense of humor again, but will assume not. Have you tried modifying the MoS? It is actually quite difficult to get consensus on MoS modifications, because even the slightest change can have cascading effects on tens of thousands of articles. MoS is pretty solidly consensus-built and slowly, carefully evolving, unlike this new idea which, while it has its "this is cool!" supporters, also has well-reasoned opposition, whose points have not been addressed here at all. Lots of "keep it, me too" !votes that fail to answer the opposition's policy- and established-guideline-couched concerns do not make an actual "keep" consensus. PS: This quasi-proposal is not "a system", it's a draft system that has not been properly proposed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So basically you mean that people commenting here shouldn't look if they think it's a good idea but vote no because it's not properly adressed and goes against a guideline???? Garion96 (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: Look by all means. The entire point of running things through a proposal process is for people to look and comment, and for discussion to ensue and for a consensus to be built. That's not happened here. Instead, its simply been implemented and deployed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? There have been few actionable objections until now and they mostly consist of claims of unencyclopedic-ness and ugly print versions; the latter I am (and it appears others) are prepared to deal with and the former can be fixed technically. --Iamunknown 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: How on earth can you "fix technically" that this is is unencyclopedic WP:SELF "noise" in an encyclopedia article?! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t care that it is unencyclopedic  :-) that’s how. Its something I’m prepared to deal with in order to try to maintain a free encyclopedia. --Iamunknown 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Except, you're not dealing with it. "It" is already happening or we wouldn't be here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• • • I think we can confidently say that Wikipedia is not going to implement a proposals-only system for the gratification of SMcCandlish. --Kim Bruning 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: I have no idea what you mean here. Did you not notice what happened to WP:ATT? Have you observed that wacky one-person ideas generally end up with a {{Rejected}} on them? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I did, and I wonder why you ask if I did. I have observed that, but I don’t think that this is a wacky or a one-person (or, it is not now a one-person) idea. ATT was, although arguably an improvement, superfluous to NOR, V and RS; there is nothing for which Fromowner supercedes. --Iamunknown 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS is a guideline and WP:MOS#Images has nothing to say about this. no policy covers this because no one knew that it could be done (It is no more a violation of WP:ASR than the edit tab although I generaly compare it to stubs). Now we can play the who is a better rule lawyer game if you like but aparently that kind of thing is frowned upon by those higher up the chain.Geni 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Interjected comment, following your self-edit above: MoS is indeed a guideline, one of the most solid we have. But it's not what I'm relying on. MOS#Images doesn't address this, because no one thought it needed to (and is cleary doesn't), given WP:ENC, WP:SELF and arguably WP:DE, as I said in the nomination. "No one knew that it could be done?" Please. This is a web site. Do you really think you were the first person to come up with the idea of a placeholder image? Or using what would normally be a graphical presentation to deliver a textual message? I mean, come on, this very idea, of (mis)using infobox imagespace as a "please upload pics" WP self-ref exhortation has already been tried before, as cited above (see comments by User:Serpent's Choice), and notably is no longer in use in those instances. Your edit-tab comparison doesn't compute. The edit tab is part of the interface. Infobox images are not. The comparison to stub tags isn' even very solid, since those appear unobtrusively at the end of the article. The Fromowner stuff is more comparable to dispute/cleanup tags, but (note carefully) the only surviving members of that class of template are for severe article problems - neutrality, factuality, lack of references or questionable reference reliablity, warnings that the article is about a current and ongoing event and so may be out of date or change radically at a moment's notice, and so on. They are messages that either alert editors that there is (allegedly) a very serious problem with the article, and/or (more importantly) alert readers that the article may not be dependable. "Please upload a free image" doesn't fall into either camp. It is part of article improvement driving, and that, by overwhelming consensus, belongs on the article's talk page. That is why article assessments, needs-infobox tagging, {{Reqphoto}}, and now even Category:Place of birth missing and its ilk (see WP:CFD over the last week or so) all go on the talk page, not the article page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• not the first placeholder but the functionality behind it is new.Geni 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: Um, so? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• so comments with regards to pure placeholdes are irrelivant. It is a bit more complex than that.Geni 03:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: What?!? This entire discussion is about such placeholder images! The fact that you also have some code in the background doing more complicated things, which is undisputedly the case, is what is irrelevant. The fact that previous attempts at spreading the use of such things have failed is strong evidence that the community does not want WP to look like MySpace\Tribe.net, and for good reasons. You seem to be missing the whole point raised here, and in effect falling back on the failed argument of the WP:ATT proponents: "But, but, we've put a lot of work into this!" By way of analogy, if I write a complicated automated system for insulting people, the fact that there is a lot of code behind it doesn't make it any less a transgression of WP:NPA. Nothing about this debate has anything at all to do with code, but with effect. I've already said this one way or another about half-a-dozen times. I'm not sure anything further need be said. A lot of people have raised serious, logical concerns at the MfD, while the supporters' arguments largely consist of "I like it" and "me too", "it doesn't actually violate policy" and "I think it's a good idea so normal process doesn't apply". I think that says something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The code is part of the system and it appears to be the entire system is up for deletion. Placeholder images have not spead widely (ok that isn't true other than the one the album people use they haven't spread widely). Fromowner appears to have done so.Geni 04:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification requested: ^{[citation needed]}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The documentation bit was brought up on Wiki: Village pump (policy).Geni 01:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: Ah, so the entire plan hasn't been subject to such discussion at all. I thought as much. If VP had actually seen the image detritus being proposed... Well, let's just see. I have my own opinion that this is invasive, nonencyclopedic, and just kind of beggarly, as well as certain to result in a 10-fold or worse increase in uploads of unusuable images that image-patrolling admins are going to have to deal with, but let's see what the community says as a whole, in whatever venue. The results here already aren't all that encouraging. The "keep" !votes are generally non-substantive, or at least fail to address the concerns being raised, and in their "per whomever" nature have undermined themselves as comments are being struck and reversed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Umm I had to get clearence from the devs so zero disscussion would be tricky. I kicked it around in various places but no one seemed too interested in talking about it.Geni 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: And that is a very strong sign that this isn't a good idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• nope couldn't get people interested in csd#g12 either. Doesn't appear to have caused any problems so far. Foundation constantly has problems with geting people interested in various policy stuff before they do it.Geni 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: Unless I've missed something, you don't represent the foundation. If WP:OFFICE gets involved it is usually because of a tricky legal issue that the community isn't largely aware of; this is not the case here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• um g12 is copyvio deletion. Nothing to do with office.Geni 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: Yes, but you appeared to be making two points, one about CSD and another about the Foundation; I was responding to what I perceived of as the second: other than Jimbo occassionally acting in his official Wiki Foundation role (as at WP:ATT), generally WP:OFFICE deals with the Foundation's needs when it comes to policy formulation. Anyway, I think we're talking past each other here. I've never claimed that g12 did harm or that everything that becomes a policy or guideline in an unusual way does harm. What I'm saying is that deploying these instructional placeholder images does harm, and as this becomes subject to broader community input, even more people will be saying so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Developer clearance? I thought you might have gotten that. Can you link to that, or have someone like Brion attest? (There's an exception clause on Wiki: Consensus which applies) --Kim Bruning 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply comment: And satisfying the dev people that you aren't going to break something in a technical way doesn't mean that what you're planning to do will be useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to pull off this hack I had to go endure a healthy stabbing from Brion since the license selector wasn't localized on enwiki. Because the concerns raised here are related to project policy and not anything technical there is nothing for the developers to say on this matter as developers, except that a future version of our upload page will hopefully be more dynamic and flexible. If you ask they might wish to respond as Wikimedians, however. --Gmaxwell 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Isolate better. Good idea for a Wikipedia that does not have mirrors or DVD or print editions of its articles, bad idea for ours. We will soon have thousands of articles that use this image, which makes absolutely zero sense in a printed version or on a DVD. It is unfortunate that metadata/asking people to contribute works a lot better if done on the article page than on the talk page, but it must be done in a way that does not look idiotic for reusers. If the image is just used instead of a normal image, it will be hard to wrap it in selfref CSS, so perhaps the image should be replaced by a notice just like the stub tag. Metadata in article space is only acceptable if it is trivial to filter out. Kusma (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• given that both would likely have to rip out "fair use" images and stub notices I doubt removeing the image would be a major effort.Geni 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The stub notices are already tagged for removal, while the image is not. Check out Johanngeorgenstadt vs, Johanngeorgenstadt (printable version). The printable version has no stub tag. I would like to see the same happen with Claire Forlani and Claire Forlani (printable version): any information that only makes sense to people who can edit the wiki should be removed by ?printable=yes. Kusma (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, and something that should be looked into. This would also remove most people's objections here, I think. --Kim Bruning 12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should be doing this for non-free images. There is a feature request in bugzill that when implimented would probably change the CSS class on images based on a directive on the image page[2]. It could also be used for this purpose. Feel free to code it. :) --Gmaxwell 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete A steady flow of free images come by without this, this will encourage people to upload copyrighted images obliviously, the author seems to enjoy defending it to the death instead of listening to people, and everything the nominator said. 81.77.73.180 16:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Haveing an upload tag appears to encourage people to upload copyvios and questionable fair use stuff (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:AutoReplaceable_fair_use_people). On the other hand the fromowner system got things like this Image:GemmaWard1.jpg.Geni 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  "System"? That's a bit rich - it's two pages, one of which abuses the language system. 81.77.73.180 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Semantics. Any actionable objections in response to Geni's reponse? --Iamunknown 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  two of the pages utilise the language system not one. While it isn't what the language system is designed for commons did it first and the devs could have stoped it if they wanted to.Geni 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — This is the best shot we have at getting new free content for our freely redistributable encyclopedia. Category:Fromownerviewed is proof that it works. --Cyde Weys 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Refactor as policy proposal This could be useful, it's at least worth having a discussion about. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  No way. Policy proposal==dead. --Kim Bruning 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a guideline proposal. People overuse the word "policy" without usually meaning to. And if, with work and compromise, it can't survive the guideline proposal process, it does not deserve to and shouldn't be implemented. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same difference. The whole "proposed Foo" meme needs to Die Die Die. :-P --Kim Bruning 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elimination of the "proposed Foo" meme could always be proposed... (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it.) Serpent's Choice 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification comment: I case I've not been clear enough on this, my concern is with the imagecruft, not the underlying technology; as said elsewhere I don't really care where that lives; it appeared in the nomination, marginally, as apparently connected, but I gather that it has functionality of interest to Mediawiki and Commons people; great. Don't userfy (or delete) that part. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be rude.. but you've edited this page28 times so far, can some of the rest of us have a chance to talk? Wiki might not be paper, but people don't have the time or patience to read a mile of one mans position. --Gmaxwell 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is no more a violation of ASR than stub tags. It's a sign that says "we don't have an image, you can help!" just like stub tags say "this article could use expansion, you can help!" I have some quibbles with the way it's structured (wording could be better, would prefer to allow choice of free licenses like cc-by instead of forcing by-sa) but the concept of it is pretty nifty and an excellent solution to complaints about illustration of living people. "what you can't use a promo photo?" "no we need a free photo, anyone can add one!" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I can't say that it should be deleted based on any particular policy, but I think that it does make pages look ugly. It's basically saying 'this page isn't done yet' and could appear on tens of thousands of biography pages; I appreciate the aim, but personally I'd rather that Wikipedia looks like a completed work at any particular point in time whenever possible. Of course, it is not in the slightest 'completed' and never can be, but there's a difference between putting up 'under construction, please help' signs until some point is reached, and making every revision a completed work in its own right. It's just a stylistic thing though, I know, and so I wouldn't want to specifically stand in this idea's way. -- Mithent 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears this needs to be a proposal and get some discussion before being fully implemented. Until this has been amply discussed, we might as well leave it open to see if it has any positive effects. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SELF and for general uglification of pages. If this was changed into a policy proposal, I'd be against that too. It's very distracting to see this image within the body of an article. There are already links to edit the page and upload a file on every Wikipedia page. The fact that it’s a nifty bit of code and that people use it to upload useful images don’t outweigh these arguments. Jaksmata 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

First, to address the opposition:

1. "What about Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference? Or isolating it in the print version?" See Kusma's comment above. Minor implementation issues should not bar a good idea. The technical issues you are concerned about can be worked out; bring those up and someone will fix them.
2. "But people will just be confused and upload non-free images!" Well, sure, some people will. This happens with the standard upload screen, too. (Should we get rid of that, too?) And the fromowner screen gives a lot clearer and more helpful explanation than a lot of other places on Wikipedia than no, we only want the images that are really yours here. One advantage of this system is that it places all the images uploaded under it in a particular category to make it easier to evaluate the images. Which is how we know it's gotten a steady stream of free ones, too.
3. This gives the impression that everything needs a picture! If you see somewhere this was applied that it shouldn't be, where there shouldn't be a picture, take it off, same as with a misapplied stub tag.
4. This is an abuse of the language system! Sure, it's kind of an ugly hack. But it works. If this is your objection, suggest a replacement that is better and accomplishes the same purpose.
5. But it looks ugly! No it doesn't.

So, what is our goal here? What are we doing here? It is part of our mission to encourage the development and contribution of more free-content encyclopedic works. We already have many similar appeals to the reader to help us out—see the plethora of "citation needed" tags for an example. That this one happens to be shaped like a silhouette does not make it different in nature. It's asking to reader to improve the article by contributing information, visual information rather than a reference.

And it's worked so far. Category:Fromownerviewed contains a selection of vetted free images uploaded through the process (24 of them, at the time of posting), while Category:Fromowner has the images still waiting to be looked over by an experienced user.

Wiki is not a finished product; it shouldn't look like one. (If anything, I'd like to give the reader more visual cues that we are a freely-editable work-in-progress.) And it clearly doesn't look like one in many areas. Why then shouldn't we use that to our advantage and ask our readers for help in the specific areas we need it, especially as most of the readers of the site are not generally editors and wouldn't think to do so themselves? Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: Simply asserting that it doesn't look ugly doesn't make it so. It's a subjective issue, and clearly multiple parties here do think it looks ugly. This is beside the point, however. The objections raised are largely substantive, dealing not with the looks of it, but the message it sends, the fact that it is a WP:SELF transgression that (unlike stub tags) does not have WP community consensus as a good exception, the fact that it will appear again and again and again and thus almost certainly irritate readers, etc. These concerns remain unaddressed. Asserting that it is a "good idea" doesn't make it so. Numerous parties here have given reasons that it is not a good idea, and all the "me too" !votes in the world do not address those concerns. "It's worked so far"? Well of course there will be some valid results from this; let's not be silly. A paltry 24 images after 2 months is clear evidence that this is not working, and given the costs of doing things this way (all the problems already noted), a very strong case can be made that it certainly not worth it at all. I could go on, but most of what you write here has already been addressed several times elsewhere in the debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're damn right that it's a subjective issue, so how in the world is your lonely opinion that it's "ugly" a valid reason to delete?! You've just conceded your own point, apparently without realizing it. --Cyde Weys 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read. I just said that "ugly"/"beautiful" is not substantively among the points being raised. So, um, Huh? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well the silhouette is based on an image NASA sent into space so it is unlikely to be that bad.Geni 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fromowner is mostly full of stuff in the various deletion lines (mostly no source) Other than that there is stuff I'm really uncertian about. Category:Fromownerviewed isn't that heavily vetted and should not be viewed as a garentee that something is not a copyvio.Geni 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Highly valuable and encourages free content. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment: How is it highly valuable? To date it has produced only two dozen potentially usable images! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, am I missing something? It has only produced two dozen potentially usable images....it has produced two dozen potentially usable images! Yahoo! That's great! Why don't we let it run longer and see how many more we get!  :-D --Iamunknown 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per highly relevant comments by Kat Walsh. And a rotten tomato for the nominator for offering alphabet soup as a deletion reason. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for clarification: I'm not sure what you mean. While I kept the nomination LINE itself short, every single one of those shortcuts was used in long form in the rationale. Maybe try reading more fully before reacting. Did you have anything actually substantive to add, or just this "me too" and a personal attack? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another very strong keep: Let people know we are looking--be obvious about what our goals are. Make it known that we are a work in progress. That is, after all, the essence of Wikipedia--we are building a repository of free knowledge and there is plenty more work to be done. Let's invite people to join us by sharing their images, and not only their words. Danny 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another strong keep - per Kelly Martin, lol. For all the given reasons above: useful to help people find the photo. It also encourages people to upload free content about themselves, perhaps. Even more, I've been able to use the page in the past to find important photos that were lacking, and to go upload them from flickr. 64.178.96.168 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Reply comment: In case you had not noticed, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and its subcategories already serve this purpose quite well.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I stumbled across this and thought, "wow, this is a great idea!". -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Clarification request: By what rationale? "Me too" XfD arguments are meaningless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Wow, are you seriously going to nitpick at every single person who disagrees with you? Have you stopped hating what Wikipedia stands for yet? --Cyde Weys 02:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed not. Please note that I did not respond at all to several recent !votes that actually provided logically defensible rationales. Pretty good food for thought some of them were, and please note that I've been arguing for userspacing and proposal process not actual deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  So I can shut down this MFD right now as "nominator withdrawal", correct? You only bring things to MFD if you want to delete them. If you want to reform them, you need to have the discussion somewhere else. Since you, as the nominator, don't actually want the Fromowner system deleted, this MFD is invalid. --Cyde Weys 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Actually,no. All of the XfDs are interpreted to mean "discussion" not "deletion" despite some of their extant Wikipedia:-space names for now. AfD, for example, regularly entertains merge and userspacing discussions, not just deletions. The entire thrust of this MfD has been userspacing, though this seems somehow to have been lost on a lot of commentators. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's great to see someone experimenting with a new idea to get us more free content. If it doesn't work out we can always remove it later, but it seems very knee jerk to automatically jump on the idea before it's had a real chance to prove itself. I love that it's really visible and a clear invitation to readers to get involved and start contributing. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anything that raises awareness of the Free Image cause is worth the while. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Jaksmata. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how this damages the project. I do see several ways in which this could benefit the project, encouraging users with free content to submit it and helping them to get involved. The self-references issue is (in my eyes) probably the most valid concern at hand, but we regularly do host self-references, including links to sister projects, and especially invitations to expand, fix, or check articles, a category I'd say this seems to fall under. Technical concerns regarding the page's implementation and issues with protection seem entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The "it's never been discussed" argument seems to be moot, as well -- we're discussing it right now, at the very least. If it helps the project and attracts productive contributors, I don't see a cause to delete it. Particular problems and questions as to exact use and placement can pretty safely be taken care of elsewhere, I think. As far as this lengthy discussion goes, I see Herostratus and Mindspillage have both brought up some good points. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, this has to be the most misguided proposal ever made on a free project. No, don't delete them, reform them, or anything else. They state the "free" part of our mission very effectively and that's pretty much why we're here: to make a free encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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