Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Problem editor

User The Shadow-Fighter (talk · contribs) keeps making questionable edits to a variety of mammal articles. Many of these are to inappropriately include hypothetical descriptions of how various animals would fare in a fight against one another (such as was dramatized in Animal Face-Off); other edits are unsourced and unexplained changes of information, such as conservation status, or substitutions of one animal species name for another where one was clearly intended to be identified. I've reverted about all of these, but I'm not a regular editor in this area. Postdlf (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Primate is the new collaboration of the month

Just a heads up to say that Primate is the new mammal collaboration of the month. Hopefully we should be able to get this very important article up to FA status. I've got a pretty good book on primate social systems and primate evolution which should be helpful, once my exams are over I'll be a bit more help. Cheers, Jack (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for attention

Over the past few months, an IP has been suggesting articles on prehistoric animal genera for creation at WP:AFC. It's great that someone is taking an interest in the topic, but the articles are sub-stubs with little context, formatting, categorization, and wikilinking, and no taxoboxes. The mammal and therapsid articles that could use attention are:

Therapsids

Mammals

I had been working on the whole group of articles, but my schedule has changed, I got tired of keeping up with the indefatigable IP, and I don't know much about mammals. I've been heavily reliant on the Paleobiology Database for classifications, locations, and ages. If anyone wants to take a couple when they're bored, I'd greatly appreciate it. J. Spencer (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (updated 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Kindly assist in developing these articles

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration - shall we can it or give it another run?

Well, 4 articles have been collaborations so far - Polar Bear has had a massive amount of work and shouldn't be too far off FAC, Brown Rat had less, Tiger saw little action (I found this one too depressing personally), and Primate has had some involvement. Shall we keep this rolling for a while or can it for a few months? How do folks feel? No biggie either way. 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had any time recently with exams and I'm off on holiday in a few days, but I'm definitely planning on helping out more with the article. Though I can see that there isn't much 'collaboration' going on! I do think it's a great way to drive improvement in articles within this WikiProject, maybe there should be more incentive to help out. Creating work teams, or targets, etc. Someone who is a good motivator maybe should take that role! Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the selections have been taken from a kindergarten animal list. As important as these animals are, they don't draw me in as personal projects. The Brown Rat article was fun because of the quirks of the species and its place in history history as well as natural history. I mean, "primate" is a topic which seems overwhelming. I support the continuation of the collaboration effort, but each WP Mammals member should be notified and personally asked to participate if they would like to do so. I didn't even know if the project was still underway until I went looking, and yes I have this page "watched". What are each member's strong points or areas of expertise? Some organizing must be done before collaboration can really work -- maybe mandatory nominations and votes for every active member within a reasonable time limit? What about reaching out to other projects? The Brown Rat article could have had some good input from a variety of projects, and primate could gain a lot of help from some of the anthropology and psychology projects, etc. Tiger could have been improved with input from political and resource projects related to the various locals of tigers. Whatever the outcome, I'll continue to help when and where I can. TeamZissou (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a Capybara a cavy?

Forget what Wikipedia currently says on this issue. What actually defines a "cavy"? Is "cavy"=Caviidae? Or is "cavy"=Caviidae minus Capybaras? Britannica and Merrian-Webster seems to endorse the former, but our articles are inconsistent on this issue. Most of the scientific sources don't seem to have an opinion on the English common name usage, so what should we go on? I'm not asking this just for fun, BTW. The Cavy categories are a mess and need to be cleaned up, but I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed on this one. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Recent data indicate that a rethinking of the definition of the term cavy is required to include the capybara. --Aranae (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've finished cleaning up Category:Cavies now. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It was needed. --Aranae (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Project template

{{unanswered}} Over at WikiProject Primates should we be using the {{PrimateTalk}} or {{Mammal}} template on the talk pages? If we need to start using the Mammals template then should we merge the assessment/peer review departments? It wouldn't be hard as there has been no primate activity in that area. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits on Human biology

In the past few days, Human biology has received some major edits by new editors I haven't the requisite knowledge to sort out. If someone more edgamackated than I am can check it out, I'd appreciate it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

It might be worthwhile to review Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event; the discussion now centers on the section on mammals in this Featured Article. Ucucha 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology

Hi everyone,

A new WikiProject, Palaeontology has been set up, and aims to be the umbrella project uniting Dinos, pterosaurs and monsters from the deep, alongside all the other palaeo article out there that aren't under a strict wikiproject. It was only set up today, so support, opinions and/or criticism is needed. I have come around to this idea, as there are a large number of articles out there in dire need of work, and this would be an excellent way to bring in some collaborative editing. Cheers guys and dolls, Mark t young (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

How about getting a bot to slap a banner on all mammal articles, including |needs-photo=yes for any that don't have images (we want and image for every extand taxa, don't we)? We need to cut down the number of unassessed articles, and having them all categorized would be a good start. The only problem might be avoiding tagging unrelated articles. Richard001 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, it would help us get everything sorted into "what needs to be done". If you're getting a bot to do it you could also categorise things into stubs, i.e ones with less than X bytes of data. However this wikiproject has had problems with bots in the past; polbot, for example, has caegorised species under the wrong genera, two different genera in two seperate subfamilies and considered a species of rat to belong to a family of flatworms. So I support the idea in theory, but i'm not sure it can be done without any kind of error, and the problem with those is they'd be project-wide errors, and we'd have to go through every mammal article one by one (although if it's tagging for missing images and text we'd have to anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs) 05:22, July 2, 2008 (UTC)

Distribution maps

Is there a "standard" or easy-to-use program available for generating distribution maps?—GRM (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of; editing a blank world map (from here) with GIMPor Photoshop, then saving in PNG or SVG format should do the trick though. CITES population data is the standard I think. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, a prehistoric mammal at Peer Review

Everyone, Leptictidium is at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Leptictidium/archive1. To date there are no prehisotic mammal FAs.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Leptictidium still needs cleanup: contains a number of unsupported (and IMHO unsupportable) statements (i.e. speculation). -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Mammal Proposal

I'm just looking to see if anyone would be interested in a discussion to develop policy to standardise the way links and names are set up. At the moment i'm just looking at how genus pages show species, but if there's interest i'd like to expand it to other things. (...) Right, we've got enough people considering how few appear to be signed up to the WP to establish some kind of consensus if this goes to discussion; as such i've created a proper proposal here and migrated this discussion to said proposals discussion page. Any late-joiners are welcome to contribute anyway.Ironho lds 02:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis added. Trimmed. Go to other discussion. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of new species

Is there any WP consensus regarding new species on when it is acceptable to create a WP article, and when more scientific consensus is needed? In other words, where do we draw the line between reporting what has been clearly accepted in scientific circles, and being a crystal ball? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK all species are notable, "radically" new ones tend to be more so actually. I guess you actually mean splits that are still not consensus opinion. For birds, I find it useful to keep subspecies that have been raised to full species with the original since the only difference is often just the geographic distribution (See allopatry). Shyamal (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I should think that "reliable sources" would be a suitable line (WP:RELIABLE). If a report of a "new species" appears in the "reliable" popular press, IMHO WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, and we can include and cite on that basis. (And we can assume in such a case that readers are going to want to find info in Wikipedia.)
If scientific sources later reject a classification as a "new species", then we can note this in the article, merge as appropriate, or whatever. (We've probably done both of these last a number of times already, and we do have existing articles such as Liger and Sasquatch that are more "popular" rather than scientific classifications.) -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 4750 articles are assigned to this project, of which 484, or 10.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How many Moschiola?

I'm not one of the "regulars" on WikiProject Mammals, so I'll leave this for the judgement of the group. Three separate species articles or only one, with the current Moschiola kathygre being changed to a redirect to the Indian Spotted Chevrotain (for now at least)? Please add any replies to the post on the talk page for Moschiola (not here, on the talk page for WikiProject_Mammals) - or we'd end up with two separated posts dealing with the same matter. • Rabo³ • 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit for the raccoon

People with a heart for masked bandits might want to have a look at the article about the raccoon. I have written most of the article during the last weeks, but I am not a native speaker. So I guess that there are still some strange wording in it and I was often unsure where to use "the" before nouns and where to set commas. Of course, feedback on the content is also welcome, but I think the article is now more or less complete except for some info about the distribution of the raccoon in the Caucasus region and in Japan. In exchange for any help, I can update some articles with proper citation templates or have a look at their external links section. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC for common name of European / Eurasian badger & otter

Hello, FYI there is an RfC regarding common names at Talk:European Badger and Talk:European Otter. Project members are welcome to participate. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What should we do with articles covered by subprojects

Should articles like Common Brown Lemur be marked with the mammals banner when it is already part of the primates subproject? The same applies to any other article and subproject, except perhaps the most important articles like primate, which could come under both banners. I think the lemur example is a case of overcategorization, just as I would an article on a mammal being included as part of the "parent" project WikiProject Animals. Richard001 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked the same sort of question here and haven't got a response. I quite like the mammal template that includes "supported by Wikiproject Primates", as you can see on the Talk:White-fronted Capuchin page. The code is {{MammalTalk|Primates=yes|importance=mid|PrimatesImp=high|class=B}}. This decreases the amount of space used by templates on the talk page but still categorises the article in the Wikiproject (e.g. B-Class Primate articles | High-importance Primate articles | Mammals articles with comments | B-Class mammal articles | Mid-importance mammal articles etc.) This also allows further collaberation between Wikiprojects. Jack (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustrated reconstructions of extinct species

At least one contributor has uploaded numerous self-authored ink drawings purporting to be reconstructions of various extinct prehistoric mammals. (See Image:Hyopsodus.jpg, Image:Megalocnus rodens rodens.JPG, Image:Nothrotheriops shastensis.JPG, or Image:Acratocnus.jpg for examples; and this discussion). Some of the reasons why these should be removed: 1) As the uploader's own reconstructions, they are original research—their own speculation or creative interpretation. No one knows who the uploader is or what their qualifications are, so we can't trust the pictures to have any validity. 2) Without references, to the extent the drawings are not original research (and are not copyright infringements as derivatives of someone else's drawings), we can't know on what basis they determined any of the reconstructions' features—how long the fur should be and where it covers the animal, coloration, mass and shape of the body, social interaction where multiple individuals are depicted in one picture, appropriate background vegetation, etc. 3) Because the sketches are so rough, they don't even give any clear information as to purported musculature and other surface features. I believe these all need to be removed. Postdlf (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar concerns on (Talk:Sivatherium), and would likewise be much more comfortable if the interpretations are indicated with source citations. Shyamal (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: I think such issues should be approached by policy and case by case research and verifying/discussing the sources where needed rather than challenging the author(s) behind it. Shyamal (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The four given images are seriously lacking in anatomy and shouldn't be used to illustrate the articles, independent of the knowledge of the artist. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the pictures being "original research," if you had bothered to read the section concerning original images, it says:

A notable exception to this policy concerns images: Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing publicly available images available for use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.

And tell me again which Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that any artists who want to contribute to Wikipedia must go through a background check before they can attempt to contribute?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Fink, that is not responsive to the concerns raised above. No one claims that user-created images are always original research. Nor can you claim that user-created images are never OR (read the last sentence of the section of WP:OR from which you quote above) or that user-created images are otherwise always appropriate to illustrate articles. So please re-read the comments above. Postdlf (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If those aren't the points, then why are you saying that those pictures can not be used because they are my "original research" and that I can not be trusted because no one knows who I am? If it will put your mind at ease, we can just remove all of the pictures I have posted at Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They are OR because they are reconstructions of animals only known through fossil remains. If you posted a sketch of an extant animal, we don't need to wonder how you knew what they look like, and we can easily compare the drawing to the real thing (or photographs thereof) to gauge its quality and accuracy. But because with extinct animals, there are no living specimens (or typically even any remains beyond fossilized skeletons), reconstructions necessarily entail extrapolation and speculation. How do you decide how thick to make the musculature of a neck or a thigh? How long is the fur, and what color, and what markings? How do you decide to depict the specimens interacting with one another, when no one can observe behavior firsthand? So unless you're a previously published expert, we can't say your drawings represent anything valid. And if they're derivations of published reconstruction illustrations by actual experts, then we need that information to determine what your reconstructions are based on, if not your own imagination. Even with sources, however, you've interpreted another artist's reconstruction, and unless you slavishly copied their painting or drawing (which may bring us into the realm of copyright infringement), you had to make decisions as to what information to present and how. Postdlf (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that WP:Dinosaurs has long used user contributed images and many of the Plesiosaurs, Pterosaurs, Archaeosaurs, etc... have user generated images as the ONLY image for the taxon. I agree with Mr Fink that singleing out the mammal images is very arbitrary and rather detrimental to Wikipedia. --Kevmin (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't intentionally singled these out, they are just the ones of which I was aware. The same issues that apply to these would obviously apply to any user-created illustration of any extinct species. There obviously needs to be a centralized discussion to discuss standards for such images, whereever they may be used. At a minimum, we need to know upon what published authorities these reconstructive illustrations are based. These concerns need to be addressed, and simply observing that many articles used them does not accomplish anything. Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Postdlf is correct: my images are totally useless and can not be trusted because I'm not a verified professional paleoartist, and no one can tell where my Original Research ends and my copyright infringement begins.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am struggling to believe that this argument is happening. Perhaps some of the images in question are not entirely accurate. But the same is probably true of many reconstructions made by professionals – see, for example, the famous case of Hallucigenia. I struggle to understand editors who feel that they are contributing to Wikipedia by going out of their way to remove content from it. Even if the sketch is rough and inaccurate, I have a much better idea of what Hyposodus looks like for seeing the image than if I hadn't. And even if Tribrachidium wasn't bright turquoise, the reconstruction helps me imagine what it may have looked like while it lived. By all means add a rider to the caption of any image stating "colouration is imaginative", and it is certainly helpful to interested parties if any sources used when compiling an image are listed.
Let's take your arguments and apply them to unsourced articles and stubs in Wikipedia.

1) As the authors's own collections of information, they are original research—their own speculation or creative interpretation. No one knows who the author is or what their qualifications are, so we can't trust the text to have any validity.

2) Without references, to the extent the text is not original research (and are not copyright infringements as derivatives of someone else's work), we can't know on what basis they determined any of the statements therein.

3) Because stubs are so rough, they don't even give any clear information as to the subject in question.

By your logic, it would be time well spent just outright deleting every unsourced article, every poorly written stub, and every article with a POV issue. That must be 80% of Wikipedia. NO! The answer is to improve, not to delete. It frankly makes me furious that anyone would single out the good faith contributions of an individual, which have clearly taken many hundreds of hours to construct, and are for many articles the only illustration, and suggest that the contributions are worse than useless. As I say, by all means add statements regarding the limitations of the images, and if you are capable, create better reconstructions yourself. But removing the images entirely where no alternative exists is a simply ridiculous proposition unless there is a strong case that they are demonstrably damaging an article.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Although I don’t usually draw mammals but this concerns me to some degree. I would hate to see many of the artistic images on Wikipedia go. At the end of the day ALL prehistoric reconstructions have OR and speculation, even those drawn by the pros. How would you illustrate prehistory on Wikipedia then? The vast majority of the professional work is copyrighted. Museum mounts are ok but I wouldn’t want to see just museum mounts. (most dinosaur mounts have inaccuracies) If all images with OR and speculation were removed then Wikipedia would be mostly text..... I usually state what reference I use, some of which is from published skeletal reconstructions. I agree that it’s silly to have only one image to represent a taxon. Ideally I would like to see a vast variety of different interpretations for each taxon so the viewer can make up their own mind. The dinosaur project has set up an image review page to help avoid the obvious mistakes and to ensure as much accuracy as possible. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. I suggest that other projects start one. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i'm with the last two commenters. even as we speak, Mr Fink is removing his illustrations. i think that wikipedia will be poorer without 'em. – Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided against leaving Wikipedia, at least until the rest of Wikipedia decides to enforce the rule that only certified professional paleoartists are allowed to post, and only after they've sworn that the reconstructions they've posted are neither original research, nor copyright infringment.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if an animal is reconstructed in a manner which downright contradicts the fossil evidence should it be removed. A minor anatomical error could easily be corrected, so instead of removing an image, notify the author about what should be changed. Any palaeoart is bound to be OR to a large degree. The guess of an expert is as good as mine, as long as there is no actual evidence which contradicts our choices. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we seriously debating the deletion of Apokryltaros' artwork? The inclusion of paleoart in general on Wikipedia? That is by far the worst proposal I've heard so far in my multi-year stay here and I intend on fighting this tooth and nail. Not to mention that all of your objections could be applied to paleoartists in general. There's a lot of guess work involved and most paleoartists are not published professional scientists. There's really very little that could be said in the face of such worthless objections. Mr. Fink has spent hundreds of hours creating that artwork and every single one of his contributions has been damned good.

The fact that you would have them deleted on such spurious accusation, just flabbergasts me, and would be a huge loss for wikipedia. Even if the objections were any bit based in the actual rules, you would still be in violation of Wikipedia policy by gaming the system and acting in the letter rather than the spirit of the rules you cite. I've encountered and heard of a lot of crazy radical deletionism, but this just takes the cake. I stand by every other paleontology article editor and wikipedian paleoartist that has opposed this movement to delete. The only thing keeping me from being absolutely fuming over this is my utmost confidence that no one will buy the flimsy complaints raised against the stellar artwork produced by members of Wikiproject Paleo and other contributors. Do you really not see the absurdity in what you're asking? Abyssal (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations will always be based on artistic interpretation. Wikipedia's OR policy specifically excludes illustrations. WP:DINO has requested an image review to prevent incorrect illustrations (both anatomically incorrect images and anachronistic images) from making their way onto articles. The mammal project could do so as well, without the need for enforcement of a policy which clearly does not apply. I agree with Abyssal that this is radical deletionism, and it's without basis in the policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the palaeo-project should have such a sub-section for extinct animals in general? FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Mr. Fink's drawings should remain and he should be thanked for creating them. Apokryltaros, I recall that I asked one time where you gathered the information you used in creating the images, and you gave me three different books to check out, which clearly had much of the information you were using to create your images. Would it be possible to include the information about these books on the image description page? I think some of the editors above have a good-faith concern that these are coming primarily from your imagination, rather than from your collection of paleontology materials. If you were able to include this information it would also give editors a chance to determine whether or not minor mistakes had been made (which inevitably happens, although I'm not aware of any specific instances with your work) such as accidentally drawing an extra toe or something. I think it would help assuage concerns if editors felt they had a way to verify. Is that possibly a sort of compromise between parties? --JayHenry (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm behind the artists on this one. I've not much to add but artist's impressions are exactly that and are always taken with a grain of salt. Jack (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone above who posted constructive comments that advance the discussion. Please remember that we're here to discuss what will improve articles according to our core principles, which include that all information, whether textual or visual, is verifiable—i.e. attributable to reliable sources.

On original research, the issue isn't whether the uploader is an expert or not, or whether we're dealing with speculation or quantifiable fact, or whether the speculation is being done by a scholar or a Wikipedian. The issue is where that speculation is first published. If it's first published here, it's original research. If it's first published elsewhere in a reliable source, then it can be appropriately incorporated into a Wikipedia article, attributed to the scholarship of whomever created it and wherever it was first published, and to the extent that speculation has been contradicted or disfavored in other reliable sources the article can and should discuss that. So it really doesn't matter whether the uploader is a "certified professional paleoartist" (whatever that may be), because Wikipedia is only a secondary source at best. We can't certify who anyone is, and even if we could we wouldn't take unpublished OR from anyone. So how does a drawing avoid being original research? All images are included in articles only if they provide information about the subject. So to avoid being OR, whatever information that drawing is purportedly presenting needs to have been elsewhere presented first, even if in that original source it was speculative or controversial. What matters is that the speculation or controversy cannot have originated here, on Wikipedia.
I don't think I'm wrong (and no one above has contradicted me) in saying that all illustrations that purport to be reconstructions of species only known from the fossil record involve speculation. So for that image to have any informational value and to be verifiable we need to know where that speculation came from, and ensure that the speculation is not originating on Wikipedia. Whose speculation is it? If a squirrel ancestor is depicted as having a long, shaggy coat, is this part of the published scholarship concerning that animal, or is it the invention of the uploader, never elsewhere seen? If it's the uploader's original fancy, that would be inappropriate to first publish here. If that animal is depicted with a long, narrow body, upon what source are those proportions based? From the uploader's personal observations of the skeleton? These are the issues that need to be addressed for each such image, which may be solved by a few citations or not, but it will involve a case-by-case determination. Perhaps the WP:DINOSAUR image review page has solved these problems, I don't know yet.
So how do we source illustrations created by uploaders? Every image description page should explain the sources upon which that image is based, whether it's other illustrations or textual descriptions (and the images should obviously avoid being mere copies of other copyrighted drawings). And if unsourced illustrations are to remain, how do we identify illustrations that have not yet been sourced? Textual statements within articles can be tagged as lacking citations, or as possible OR, and unsourced speculation is routinely deleted from within articles. How do we identify an illustration as unsourced?
And the final issue, perhaps the most difficult one, is to ensure that the images are simply of a sufficient quality. Where I cited to specific images above, I certainly was not intending to pick on any one uploader, but in those (but not all) images the anatomy is often unclear, the limbs generalized masses with undefined musculature, the backgrounds fanciful...there must be standards, and for scientific illustrations there must be precision so you can separate what's intentional from what's expressive or resulting from the artist's limits at representation. Incoherent or sloppy prose can be copyedited or tagged for cleanup. How do you tag an image for cleanup?

I'd love to have every article illustrated; I just want to make sure it's done properly, in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and principles. The desire to have a picture in an article cannot trump the need for standards. So the standards that apply in this situation are what need to be discussed, clarified, and established. Postdlf (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious, a very similar discussion came up here with regards to an airliner accident.

I think the consensus was that WP:NOR is relaxed but not voided for images: they still have to be based on reliable sources, and they should take care not to invite NPOV problems (a real possibility with partial fossils and "artist reconstructions). SDY (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

i was thinking along the same lines... i just don't see how our problem here is very problematic. i'm no wikilawyer, but i'd say that the same policy that allows for original photographs to be used should also allow for the display of original artwork, as long as it comes from a scientifically informed illustrator. and yes, as some artwork/photography is better than others, there should be some reasonable standards. but as to ~~your~~ gripes about features such as number of animals and what that may say about the species, or how the background contributes to same, well, the same might be said of a user-submitted photo of Mammuthus from a natural history museum. context should be provided with the caption on the image's page, and any sources, etc, etc. when in doubt – and if to do otherwise is to damage the project – ignore the rules. – Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a severe case of WP:CREEP. Mr Fink already quoted the relevant passage from WP:OR, and it allows user-created images because "there are relatively few existing publicly available images available for use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role." I suspect Postdlf's problem is that he doesn't trust his fellow editors to use good judgement about images. That's a mistake both in practice and in principle. I've negotiated with an artist to produce a more accurate image of an extinct animal; when he asked me to back up my reasons, I produced some relevant citations; and the result was very satisfactory, a neat compromise that didn't actually push any of the POVs of peer-reviewed papers. Looking at the matter in terms of principle, Wikipedia articles summarise, hopefully in reader-friendly language, some quite complex issues. That means that they select which sources to cite, select which passages to cite from these sources, and then paraphrase. If articles did not consist mainly of paraphrasing, they would be WP:COPYVIO. Sorry, Postdlf, you have no alternative but to trust editors with text, so you might as well trust them with images as well.
PS I edited an article earlier to-day that had a good editor-drawn image, which I'd checked against those in the relevant journal paper. A couple of hours later my Watchlist showed that a bot had removed the image mark-up because the image itself had been deleted. The critter concerned looked like nothing alive to-day, and that image was necessary for readers' understanding. I hope the image was not deleted as a result of Postdlf's "initiative". -- Philcha (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a good solution here that I have been personally thinking about, as a contributor of original illustrations, is that image pages should include citations just as articles should. Maybe each image should include a brief writeup with justification for how the image was done with appropriate footnotes. Sources can include skeletal reconstructions and published literature dealing with measurements, physical appearance, behavior, environment, or whatever else is relevant to the image. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Postdlf (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you then retract your statement that the images be categorically removed? I think editors are willing to work to address the valid concerns you've raised, and to help clarify sourcing, but beginning with requesting the categorical destruction of another editor's tremendous amount of work probably led to this discussion being unnecessarily heated with sides drawn up pretty sharply. For what it's worth, Apokryltaros has helped illustrate several images for featured articles on which I've worked. During the course of this project I asked for the source of the information so I could learn a bit more about these prehistoric species. His images were quite good and inline with these sources and others. Helioseus, a mammalian paleontologist has also made some interesting comments here. I personally vouch for these images as well. The issue is not Original Research or encyclopedic accuracy, it's just a matter of documentation. And I think we can get there, but it's not fair to advocate for removing all his work entirely. I'd be a lot more upset than he is if someone made such a request with my work. --JayHenry (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

i wanted to note that i agreed with Dinoguy preemptively (above). ;) that said, i don't think Postdlf is wrong for offering criticism. maybe we'll get a better image policy out of this, you know? but i think that user-submitted works are much too valuable a resource to simply shrug off. – Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 03:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Postdlf has requested more information regarding WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review process. Often the first step is a request, made on this page. Here's an edit adding Rinconsaurus to the request list. The request often includes a link to a published skeletal diagram. An artist then "claims" the request and posts the resulting illustration at Image review. The WP:DINO community assesses image "removability" on six factors: 1) Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements, 2) Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via bracketing), 3) Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements, 4) Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements, 5) Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion, 6) Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. If, after discussion, the image isn't removable under these factors it may be used in articles and is placed in the Category:Approved dinosaur images. Some images are reworked several times before they are approved (see the image review discussions). The image review process was deemed necessary after images like Image:Dinosauria X – Velociraptor.jpg were added to articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive response. It's clear, from reviewing some of the DINO image review discussions, and from looking at the end result, that you are going a long way toward addressing the concerns I raised above regarding OR and quality. Definitely some great pictures in your approved images category. But ideally we should have full citations on the image pages of all illustrations, as Dinoguy2 explained above; we need to see where the various elements that went into the reconstruction were first documented or conjectured outside of Wikipedia. I understand the paleontology Wikiproject has just started, so perhaps establishing an image review process of a broader scope could be one of its first priorities? Postdlf (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion goes beyond current Wikipedia policy. Your latest proposal to make WikiProject Palaeontology is a good way to strangle a new wikiproject and to deter editors with artistic skills (not me!) from contributing artwork.

Does anyone seriously think that an editor who has spent time researching an article and adding all the citations is going to add a scientifically inaccurate image or let one be added?

I suggest everyone including Postdlf should look at the article I referred to above, Orthrozanclus, and make up his / her own mind which is more important form the point of view of readers, getting an image of that specific critter back into the article or setting up yet another bureaucratic process which just makes it harder to provide the illustrations that readers need in the case of really weird critters? -- Philcha (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

One would think that, and yet Fink's images *do* have features which are either scientifically inaccurate, or contain features which are not documented in the scientific material, or both. – UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In such cases the right course is to negotiate in a friendly and reasonable manner with the artist. It worked for me, and I learned a little in the process.

This debate started as a result of Postdlf's edit comments on 1 Aug 2008 at [1] and [2]. Note the words "amateurish" and "of litte informational value"

Here are Postdlf's remarks at Mr. Fink's Talk page:

There are a number of problems. 1) They're your reconstructions, which makes them original research—your own speculation or creative interpretation. No one knows who you are or what your qualifications are, so we can't trust these to have any validity. 2) Without references, to the extent your drawings are not original research, we can't know on what basis you determined any of the reconstructions' features—how long the fur should be and where it covers the animal, coloration, mass and shape of the body, social interaction where multiple individuals are depicted in one picture, appropriate background vegetation. 3) Because the sketches are so rough, they don't even give any clear information as to purported musculature and other surface features. I'm going to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals for wider comment. Postdlf (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to everyone to decide for themselves whether Postdlf's approach was friendly and reasonable. -- Philcha (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Dinoguy2 is right that such drawings need references in their description. Then they can be used without an approval process like the one mentioned above, which is, in general, a good thing if the artist agrees to it. Stricter standards are necessary for illustrations for GA or FA articles. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess where that idea breaks down. -- Philcha (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the citation idea should be a replacement for image review--I think a peer review of the images is needed whether it's sourced or not. There's a lot of lit out there and it's easy to miss details. In fact, it's probably easier to cite literature on rejected images than on accepted ones. It's easier to point to one or two sources describing why a single anatomical feature is wrong, rather than to the multitude of sources showing why the entire reconstruction is correct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Okay, I've looked through the above discussion and I think the following is a fair summary of the arguments raised.

Unsourced images may be inaccurate and misleading, and it is often difficult to verify how accurate they are
If an image is inaccurate, it is potentially damaging to include it in an article
Images of any quality help readers to engage with and understand an article, and improve the quality of the service Wikipedia provides

The latter two points relate to articles in particular. As such, I think it makes sense to leave decisions to editors of individual articles. Images should not be treated differently to text in this regard; if someone disagrees with them, they should take their concerns to the article's talk page (not the image, because this is unlikely to be on anyone's watch list) and they can be resolved on a case by case basis.

The first point, I guess, is the crux of the debate. Again, the rules we have for text seem adequate – ideally, images should be backed up with references, or at least a description of what the artist used when constructing them, so people can judge their accuracy for themselves.

A difficulty arises when minor errors, which could be corrected, emerge. I guess the best way to deal with these is to note them in image captions, and to give a full description of the errors on the image page itself, along perhaps with a plea to the author to fix them!

The question now becomes one of what we should do with images that don't have a source. I think that once again the system we have in place for dealing with text is adequate. Unsourced text is not systematically removed unless it is clearly nonsense – and even then there is usually chance for discussion on the talk page. Instead, "citation needed" tags are added to dubious claims. References are only required when an article progresses to Good Article or Featured Article status.

Now, the difference with images is that they can be permanently deleted. This prevents editors from having input into the decision – it only takes one editor to request deletion and the image is gone for good. This prevents discussion and collaboration, and often images disappear with no-one noticing. While removal from an article is a decision that can be reversed by anyone at any time after discussion, deletion cannot be. Therefore I think it is a bad idea for any images to be deleted unless there is clear consensus, both on the image page, and on all articles that use the image.

So where do we go from here? Well, current policy seems to cover most of the conclusions. Perhaps it would help to find a way of encouraging editors to source their images better. I would suggest discussing that at Wikipedia_talk:Uploading_images. Of course, sometimes sources are unavailable, and a reconstruction must be based simply on a fossil the artist has seen, for example, and again we should encourage uploaders to say where this is the case, but we should not require it, as we should be encouraging all positive contributions, even if they need further editing to bring them up to high standards.

Images aren't going to change overnight, but perhaps the other way that we can improve their referencing would be to add a requirement on the article quality scale for images to meet the same standard as the text. This is a point that should be raised at that talk page, and perhaps at the good article talk page too.

In summary, I think that deleting images is a rash and inappropriate action; even if they fall under the images for deletion criteria, which I don't think really apply to this debate, a note should be left on the talk pages of all article using the image so the image can be improved rather than deleted. If we really need more rules, they should be added to an article grading scheme, rather than creating a new one; this way images will be improved alongside the articles they illustrate.

I hope that sounds a fair and reasonable summary and prevents further antagonism between involved editors.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent summary, I agree with all points raised. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What about simply outcommenting the offending bit (just put the first arrow immediatley behind the | in the taxobox line). And leaving a remark to discuss issues on the talk page.

(For example, I have serious problems with the Longipteryx reconstruction. For all I have seen, it is almost certain that it a) was not blue in any significant amount (though not necessarily not in any inconspicuous amount also), that it did not have a long forked tail (though perhaps a long tail fork). The black pattern is not impossible - it's common enough - but not likely either. But in general style and execution, it is a damn fine image I think.)

The community DOES (hopefully) contain enough people to have read much of the literature on the organisms in question and what else might pertain to a reconstruction. Some great paleoartists can be found to publish on the Dinosauricon, and there are also some on Commons (I remember being very happy to see Pavel uploaded Enantiornis which I had already admired at his site).

So reconstructions can be improved - it has happened with Ichthyornis and I think others - and I think that it is worthwhile enough not to delete anything, at least not for the time being. If neither the original artist nor anyone else should give it a go, and we have scoured for people to do it, and there's nobody there, it can always be safely deleted.

A note must be added to the Commons page, perhaps link to the discussion page on Wikipedia.

(As a final thought, I think NOR should never be used to prevent anyone from pointing out flaws in theories, even if nobody has explicitly noted. The policy originates in the need to accomodate a spectrum of opinions, making citeability the name of the game instead of "true" vs "false". The natural sciences, OTOH, are definitely a realm where there is true "true", or at least "false", often enough. And if a key citation is missing from the source's references... typical publish-or-perish lapsus.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(An afterthought on the images that kicked off the whole thing: they are arguably the only dedicated effort to reproduce the local ecosystem we ever had on any major scale. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Consulting OR policy on images, the answers are less than obvious, but there is no clear proscription on works such as these. The only aspect of the OI policy which could bar these images is the final clause — "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed" — but the example given makes clear that the clause refers to images created to advance original theories or propositions: "such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." This final clause on the OI section of OR policy does not, then, refer to images which merely seek to illustrate existing records and research, as these images do.

Moreover, the central body of policy does seem to allow for these images: "[a] notable exception to this policy concerns images: Wikipedia editors are encouraged...to draw...diagrams and upload them." Every diagram which is drawn for Wikipedia is a visual extrapolation of existing data, just like these drawings. These are a little off the beaten path and somewhat sui generis as relates to policy, but as there is no clear proscription, this is as perfect a case for Ignore All Rules as I have ever seen. The images are clearly improving Wikipedia, and we should make absolutely sure they are not removed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, they do add value. In othercases, there is a definite inclusion of data in the drawing that is not in any of the reference material. Whether the artist intends these "extra features" or is simply unable to make the drawing without them is outside of the question. Thef act remains that he has, in essence, created "a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus" and, as such, these images must be removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet, you're also the same person who insisted that an anatomically inaccurate picture of Procoptodon be used in place of mine solely because you found my version to be offensive to your aesthetic tastes in spite of the fact that the picture you wanted to use lacked virtually all of the features Procoptodon's article described it having, including upright posture, short face, specialized claws, or even its single, hoof-like toes. I mean, you are aware that, if there are noticeable errors in an editor-made picture, it is possible to communicate to the editor in question in a polite, civilized manner in order to correct the aforementioned flaws, right?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm flawed. I'm not consistent. Sue me. But, as for the meat of your arguement, just as with text, it is easy enough to talk first then work it out when it is one bit of text (or picture) or a small handful. But when it's a large scale (dozens of pictures in your case) it is not possible to go through each picture one at a time and tell you what is wrong. Just like when an editor puts erroneous data on dozens of articles, it is proper to take them down and then work out what can be done. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, to save time and trouble in my specific case, you're suggesting that we remove and or delete all of my pictures, and later, find time to go through and point out what was wrong with each of them, if they were fatally flawed to begin with. Please tell me how this squares with the intent of Wikipedia being an open and user-friendly project, and please tell me how this will not prevent me from assuming that there are people who are determined to create a "tyranny of the minority" situation in Wikipedia. It's not that I'm saying you're inconsistent: I'm saying that all of your grievances about my art stem from the fact that you just don't like my art, and not whether or not my art is accurate.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm with Mr. Fink. how is this not Back To Square One where his artwork is concerned?? - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 03:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fink's right: I don't like his art. But it isn't as simple as that. I don't like his style; no hard copy encyclopedia or any scientific journal would ever use that style. I don't like his inaccuracies; they amount to bad copy. I don't like his undocumented features; they amount to original research. What is left to like? The fact that his are the only available image? That's just a load of bologna. There is a fundamental difference between art and text. Any editor can change the text, can tweak wording, can add information, can remove inaccuracies. The same can not be said about images. Images are much more static than text and, as such, need to have a higher level of scrutiny, not a lower one. Fink's work is being allowed to pass because it is the only available images in many cases, despite all of the problems with the images. I can't just change an ear length, or tweak a nose shape, or remove an extra toe, or change the whole style of the art. Yet I can do that with any piece of text (as long as I have references to back up my edits). Or perhaps y'all would prefer that I make some stick figure drawings for any article I come across that doesn't have a representative image, and then argue that it should stay because there isn't yet another image for the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So explain to us again how allowing you to indulge your grudge against my art will benefit everyone at Wikipedia, and demonstrate that Wikipedia is not ruled by tyrants of the minority.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Geez, when I last looked at this discussion we were close to a consensus on how to all work together. Now we're back to having this old battle again? We can't keep doing this every couple months. It appears to me that there's much more support than objection to Apokryltaros' art. So what's the Wiki way? I simply disagree with your assertions that the images are inherently unencyclopedic. In fact, the somewhat fanciful style prevents anyone from interpreting them too authoritatively. But mostly I'm frustrated by the bad blood. Is there no middle ground? The only thing that will get you to stop your somewhat cruel tirades is the removal of all of Apokryltaros' work? Uther, I am really appreciative of all the work you've put into the mammal pages, but I don't believe it gives you the right to assert that because of your personal preferences of style all his art has to go. --JayHenry (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(Damn... lost my initial reply....) So you aren't going to counter my argument that images need a higher level of scrutiny because they are, essentially, uneditable by the majority of editors. You're going to only focus on my dislike of his unprofessional style, and say it is a good thing because then people will take the images less seriously. WHAT? We want people to take Wikipedia less seriously? We should want people to take Wikipedia more seriously, and to do that, we have to have some higher level of standard than "it's the only image available". And while Fink gets singled out, it's because he's got such a large body of work. I'm making these statements more as a general comment on how user-created images should be handled, not just Fink's images. I like that the dinosaur folks have a rather rigorous control mechanism for images. I think all user-created images should have at least that level of scrutiny to allow the images onto the relevant articles. Not just "it's the only image available". As for my repeatedly raising these issues - that is the job of the minority, to keep the issues raised, to keep the majority aware of what they may be doing wrong. This isn't a tyranny; I'm certainly not a force strong enough to block the majority from doing what it wills. But I am vocal enough to keep these issue in your heads while you go about the rest of your work. That's how democracy works. We all get to voice what we feel we must, but when the majority starts going off the deep end ("it's the only image available") the minority must speak up and say "that's not good enough". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I share JayHenry's dismay that this war appears to be breaking out all over again. I also thought we were somewhere near a consensus, but apprently UtherSRG disagrees.

UtherSRG's comment "images need a higher level of scrutiny because they are, essentially, uneditable by the majority of editors" is interesting:

"uneditable by the majority of editors" is questionable. Artistic genius is probably innate, but competence is gained by the usual methods - sustained effort and practice. UtherSRG could contribute images he found satisfactory if he made the effort.
Or he could put some effort into asking permission to use non-free images that he considers better and ar efrom authoritative sources. How about it, UtherSRG?
The idea of reviewing an image is reasonable, provided it's not an exercise in deletionism. I suggest editors who have a history of serious disputes with the artist should be disqualified as reviewers, as one would expect for text. As UtherSRG has stated his "dislike of his (Mr Fink 's) unprofessional style", he should be disqualified from reviewing Mr Fink's images, as should Postdlf.
JayHenry's commment that "somewhat fanciful style prevents anyone from interpreting them too authoritatively" is not the same as UtherSRG's paraphrase "you ... say it is a good thing because then people will take the images less seriously." Images are offered as a best guess at what the animal looked like, and there are cases where readers really do need such help - for example most of the the critters involved in the Cambrian explosion look like nothing alive to-day, so purely text descriptions will generally be offer litte help. But readers should understand that even the images in the scientific journals are someone's best guesses, and are sometimes disputed. Perhaps the captions should always start with the word "reconstruction". -- Philcha (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Where the "guessing" originated is what matters for purposes of WP:OR. If those "best guesses" were first published in a scientific journal, then it isn't original research when that is incorporated into Wikipedia text or images. If those "best guesses" were first published on Wikipedia, then regardless of what the Wikipedian's qualifications are in the real world, it constitutes original research.

And Philcha, please stop characterizing this as a "war." This is a discussion about how to apply policy and principle to a certain kind of content. No one should be afraid of having this discussion because none of us should be too attached to a particular outcome to predetermine where the discussion leads. All of us want to improve Wikipedia. We shouldn't take it personally that we have different understandings of how to make that happen, nor should anyone be offended when their understanding is challenged. Postdlf (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR is less strict re images than text - as has been pointed out at least twice already - see Mr. IP's analysis, posted 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

I used the term "war" because of the intemperate language used in the criticisms of Mr Fink's images, some of it by you.

As I pointed out earlier, the sensible course is to raise issues about specific images with the artists concerned in a friendly and reasonable manner, describing in neutral language the points that are causing concern. It's worked for me, and I recommend that you try it. -- Philcha (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Less strict" but not irrelevant. The information the image presents (i.e., the "best guess" as to what the animal looked like) cannot have been the uploader's original speculation. What we are chiefly trying to discuss here is how to ensure that these reconstruction images are not OR and before that has been verified for a given image what to do about it.

Content is fair game to criticize, and I don't believe it's out of bounds to judge a drawing "amateurish" as I have done or "unprofessional" as UtherSRG has done above. As I said above, I don't believe all of that contributor's illustrations are of insufficient quality (this one looks nice), but some really are). I've elaborated above on my issues with certain of the drawings and why I think the scribbly style and/or quality of the depictions makes them inappropriate (which is, of course, a separate issue from whether they constitute OR). I do understand that it's particularly hard for a contributor to take criticism of their images, as there's more of a tendency to feel ownership over such things, but no one criticizing the images has intended that as a personal attack on the contributor, who is obviously quite devoted to expanding Wikipedia content. Everyone needs to just take a deep breath, set aside the hyperbole, and discuss the valid concerns that have been raised here (and I'm sorry that, for whatever reason, you do not like my user page). Postdlf (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In the exchange between you & Mr Fink at your user Talk page, Mr Fink told you the sources he used for the images in question, but you still responded by complaining that the images were WP:OR.

You say, "no one criticizing the images has intended that as a personal attack on the contributor". The words you used on your user Talk page fall short of a personal attack, but they fall even further short of friendly and constructive. -- Philcha (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm sorry to cause dismay. It's not my intent. I wasn't following along from the start, and couldn't come back to the discussion until now.

Oh I can certainly load an image in "Paint" and take the eraser tool to a portion of it and reupload it. But you know that's not what I mean. It takes not just a few days of working with the tools, but years honing one's ability to make anything other that scribbles. In this way, images are generally uneditable by the majority, while text is fully editable by nearly everyone. Yes, I can make stick figure drawings. I'm sure you don't want me to do so.
Can't ask for permission to use images that don't exist. Or are you saying I should put aside the editing I do and spend time delving deeply into various books (while I'm at sea in the middle of the Pacific Ocean) to find the few existing images? I'll do the tasks I'm good at, thank you, or that I enjoy, or that I feel compelled to do.
<sarcasm>Oh sure, stack a review board with folks who like the images. That's a sure way of giving enough scrutiny.</sarcasm> A review board needs a variety of people. Those who can review and give honest constructive criticism. But no, I don't want to sit on such a board anyway. I don't have the temperment for it. ;)
Yes, I in fact do think that my paraphrase is reasonable. And while the style may be highly appropriate for those tiny critters which, in even the best of styles, look imaginary and fanciful, it is not such a good match for larger critters, when a more professional style can better show the more complex details.

- UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first two points amount to an admission that you're unwilling to put in the time required to be come a competent artist. I'm equally unwilling - but on the rare occasions when I have serious concerns about an image, my approach is a lot friendlier than yours, and seems to work without causing 2 screenfuls of fuss.

Re "stack a review board with folks who like the images", you've cast doubt on your own objectivity by stating your "dislike of his (Mr Fink 's) unprofessional style". Your complaint is strange since you say, "I don't want to sit on such a board anyway. I don't have the temperament for it." In fact that comment devalues all your remarks - you're happy to criticise someone else's work in broadbrush negative terms, but unwilling to do the serious work of getting specific images improved. -- Philcha (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh you have got to be kidding. You think that I can develop the skills to become an illustration artist? That, sir, is truely laughable. I know my limitations, and artistic talent of the physical sort is most certainly beyond me. It's not about (un)willingness to learn. Some things can't be learned, no matter how much willingness there is. So let's not throw down red herrings, m'kay? As for the appropach, I have worked with individuals. that works well when there's only one image/article or a small handful of them. But when we're talking about the dozens that we're talking about in Fink's portfolio, we need a more formal process of scrutiny. None of us individually should be tasked with reviewing all of Fink's work (or any other artist's). that should be a job for a well rounded review board. And I disagree with your last statements. I can certainly know something needs to be done and at the same time know I'm not the guy to do it. Do we need a fire department? Yes. Should I be a fireman? No. Do we need accountants? Yes. Should I be an accountant? No. Do we need an image review board? Yes. Should I serve on it? No. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

i though we'd already established that a some kind of review process was indeed necessary. are we starting back at the beginning now?

i didn't think this was about what we like/dislike. i thought it was suppposed to be about what was for wikipedia. i myself "like" some of Fink's work; some, i "dislike". but ALL of it that wikipedia needs, and that he wants to volunteer, should be appropriately reviewed, just as for any other contributing artist. does that mean that we need to take EVREYTHING down RIGHT NOW until we get around to reviewing it? seems pretty damned inefficient to me, seeing as how we've barely agreed on having a review process. will it scar folks to have up some pics of extinct beasties that some editors might not think appropriate? no more, i think, than all of the really TERRIBLE wikipedia entries out there, right now, that deserve attention to make them legible and/or reasonably accurate. what, my friends, should we do about THEM? maybe, completely delink them until someone gets around to fixing them? i kinda don't think so.

Uther i have a history with, Postdlf, not so much: nothing personal here, guys, but imo the two of you need to work harder at hiding your scorn/contempt when stating your opinions. we all do. none of us are native to this faceless medium, and i myself am still trying to be patient and civil with people i disagree with, whether they deserve it or not -- which is much harder here than f2f. how would we talk if we could look each other in the eye, i wonder?

anyway, yeah. review, very necessary. and to prevent the possible loss to wikipedia from fallout (such as this here increasingly rancorous discussion), any art out there now that is already displayed should be granted amnesty, at least until review. my 5c. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)