This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
"These should still be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on an actual analysis rather than simply "they're bad"." you do not have a broad consensus, or policy basis, to remove images. please discuss before unilaterally removing reliable sourced content Turktimex3 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turktimex3: I'm not sure why you put "they're bad" in quotes attributed to me since I never wrote those words. I said the cartoons weren't encyclopedic—because they aren't. And people don't need a consensus to remove images that are unencyclopedic. -- Veggies (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you are going to have to elaborate on "unencyclopedic", because Encyclopedia Britannica has far worse images. but then you do not have an image curation guideline, it is because you said so. do not destroy what you cannot create --Turktimex3 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turktimex3 What EnBrittanica does is irrelevant to this discussion. The "image curation guidelines" used on Wikipedia are found here. You should also read up on WP:NOR. What's the proof that the historical person looked like this doodle? It certainly wasn't drawn during their lifetime. And for images of living people, you should read up on WP:BLP. Also, no one is "destroying" anything here. Get a grip. -- Veggies (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EB1911 goes to what is encyclopedic rather than wp:IDONTLIKEIT. links to tl;dr policy pages, does not prove you have a consensus about your aesthetics. NOR does not apply to images, will you now edit war about all the artistic portrait images? BLP does not apply, as the images are not defamatory. you can pound the table about your deletion of images, but it is harming the encyclopedia. why would anyone want to add images to improve the encyclopedia, if they have to suffer the cultural buzzsaw? you like the toxic culture, because you are here to edit war, not build an encyclopedia. --Turktimex3 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turktimex3 EnBrittanica doesn't define what is or isn't encyclopedic. You asked for "image curation guidelines", not "consensus" about "my aesthetics"—which would be irrelevant in any case—and I provided you a link to the MOS for images. Of course NOR applies to images. It applies in every aspect of user-content to Wikipedia. It sounds like this is one more thing you haven't read. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of "edit warring" since I haven't made a single reversion to this article and reverting copyvios is not edit warring. BLP applies in all cases of a living person and you can't decide by fiat that it "does not apply". Feel free to take this case to an admin notice board. The rest of your speech—that's all nothing. Now: don't think I haven't noticed that you didn't even attempt to answer my question from above. What's the proof that the historical person looked like this doodle? -- Veggies (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
