Talk:Theft

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hork. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hork" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Please take this opportunity to convince other editors that your preferred image is an improvement. If you continue to try to reinstate it, in the face of reverts by other users, your account will be blocked from editing. Please set out your arguments below. GirthSummit (blether) 11:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to preserve the image originally uploaded by the user Arkadiynight. What I believe is that actually showing the act of theft, in this case through a progression of images, is more effective than using arguably dated illustrations that are not always clear. Furthermore, the image used at the moment is a duplicate of one found further down the page. Having the same image twice in a single article is redundant and does not improve the reader's insight into what theft really is. Snöknogunen (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for engaging in discussion. I take your point that using the same picture twice in the article is redundant, and so there is a case for changing the image. However, in my view, Arkadiynight's collage is very poor in terms of image quality, and it is also distracting in that the subject is looking straight at the camera, and overall it seems to be aiming to give a comedic rather than an encyclopedic impression. I don't think that this collage would be suitable for use in any article - if you want to preserve it, you could perhaps put it on your own user page. If you want to propose an alternative image for the lead, I'd be open to suggestions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

text: As seen here, I found the collage image hilarious when I saw it. I didn't even remove it. But I take Girth Summit's point about going for an encyclopedic tone. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As a piece of comedy, it is actually quite good, I have to admit. Still, the killjoy in me feels that in article space, humour isn't really the tone we're aiming for. I'd be entirely happy for the collage to be used in user space or in an essay of some sort, but edit warring to keep it in article space isn't a good look. (I note that  has added it to articles in at least one other language version of Wikipedia - my focus is solely on EnWiki, but I'd urge them to consider whether it's really appropriate for any article on any Wiki). GirthSummit (blether) 09:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

text: , , . Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the collage image. In fact, I preemptively wrote a column on the subject in the Signpost to express my thoughts on it! (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Op-Ed) Ganesha811 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with the use of the word 'necro' as a verb - it sounds like it ought to mean 'kill it', but given that it was started over three years ago, and has had no comments for two years, it sounds like what you really want to do is resurrect this discussion. Anyway, I remain of the opinion that the collage image is low-quality in photographic terms and that its humorous tone would distract the reader's attention. I still don't want to be a killjoy, but I think the current image in use is better, and that the 'Fortunes of a Street Waif' image is the best I've seen; I think that using the collage would be worse than having no picture at all. If you really want to put this matter to bed, then you could collate a gallery of all the images that have been used in this article in the last few years, and initiate an RfC (see the intructions at WP:RfC) on the matter, to establish a formal consensus on the image to be used. Girth Summit (blether) 11:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Necro" is often used in forums as a shorthand for thread necromancy, which may be revealing of which generation I belong to. Anyhow, thank you for replying with the suggestion of initiating an RfC. It is probably the best option going forward to engage in consensuscraft. I will be working on it. Snöknogunen (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image choice 

message: I think it's important to state that theft is slightly different from stealing.  Below is the definition of stealing:
Stealing is the act of wrongfully and unlawfully taking possession of another entity's physical and/or intellectual property. 
While the above definition does not need to be included in the article, I think that it should at least mention the difference between the two terms.  Feel free to reply if you have something else to add. Black Stallions (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Some countries' criminal codes also define theft in essentially this way (i.e. my home country's Denmark's criminal code) with no mentioning of intent. The idea that there needs to be "intent" for something to be theft seems common law based and perhaps that needs to be mentioned (a dictionary definition in English will of course reflect the common law tradition).--Batmacumba (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And extending "stealing" to cover intprop is basically accepting propaganda from intprop industries that misuses the word that way; as used by people in everyday English, "stealing" has not actually expanded its definition in that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theft vs Stealing