Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Archive 2

message: Time and time and time and time again there has been debate about the removal of fair use images from "List of characters in..." type articles. EVERYtime it has ended with the images staying removed off of the article. Why? Because the Foundation has taken a very strong stance with regards to the overuse of fair use images. If a character is sufficiently notable that it deserves an image, then it deserve its own article. Such an image should not appear on this "list of" article, but on the article about the character. If the character is not notable enough for its own article, any argument that it 'needs' an image is exceptionally weak. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free content encyclopedia. We don't get to use fair use, copyrighted imagery liberally wherever and however we like to use it, even if there are fair use rationales associated with the image. This article is no different than the literally hundreds of other articles that this policy has affected. The edit warring over this will stop. If those of you who insist on pushing thes images on this article insist on edit warring to have your way, I will recommend blocks to prevent this abuse of Foundation policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but WHERE does it explicitly say that we cannot have images in a "List of characters" article? You keep removing the images under the claim that the Foundation does not allow it, but you have failed to provide where that is stated, and only provided links to pages that do not say anything about this at all or a discussion that does not constitute as a policy. You have mentioned about the overuse of fair use images, which is quite clearly not acceptable on Wikipedia, but this does not mean that the article cannot have any images at all. Until you provide something that states that the foundation does not allow images on this type of article, the images will remain. .:Alex:. 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many images, but doesn't mean to remove every single one there is, they are given fair use so why are you trying to bit it? Maybe the images of minor characters should be removed but not the major and supporting one's.--Flesh-n-Bone 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Then if the policies doesn't have to state this example, where are you getting this from? I've read that signpost article, and it was about Lists of episodes using completely unnecessary images in a table for decorative purposes. In this character list, the images are being used to illustrate main characters that are highly significant to the game, most notably CJ and Frank Tenpenny, who are the protagonist and antagonist respectively. .:Alex:. 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, if there as notable as you say I'm sure they deserve their own article, where an image of that character may appear. In fact, Carl "CJ" Johnson has an article, where an image already appears. Thus, having an image here is utterly redundant and abusive of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Frank Tenpenny? He is certainly very notable within the game and perhaps the series. There just isn't enough information on him to warrant an entire article about him. A few of the characters on the list have been merged in from their own articles because they were too small and would probably not get much bigger, that is no reason why they should not have an image as they are highly significant towards the game and the series. Notability, most particularly on the basis of whether they are notable enough to have their own article should not come into whether they should have an image or not. .:Alex:. 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *If there's so little information that they don't warrant their own article, then there's hardly an argument that they warrant an image. If he's central to the game, then there might be a case for an image of him on the main article, but not on "list of characters" article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is the criteria for creating articles. If Frank Tenpenny is notable enough, then you can create a stub article about him, and include the image there. If the issue is one of notability and depth of coverage, then you're out of luck. SharkD (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Issue resolved, I say.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: An actual consensus of editors who edit the page needs to be made now. This is becoming ridiculous. I repeat, an actual consensus needs to be reached on this matter before doing anything to the pictures.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *If we were to act in such a way that we had to achieve consensus every single time a policy is implemented, NOTHING would ever got done here. The policy is as it is. Minimal fair use must be supported. This is the decree of the Foundation. This practice of removing fair use images from lists like this has been going on for months. We are not going to attempt to argue this to death every single time this policy is going to be implemented anymore than we would argue over the placement of fair use images on userboxes every time one is removed from a userbox. This is policy. Pure and simple. You don't like it. That's fine. That doesn't mean you get to ignore it. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill out. If you'll look a few inches up the screen, you'd have realized I agree with you. But it's still possible warring is going to continue, just like what just happened on the page. If people won't stop, then a consensus will probably be the only way this issue will be resolved. That's what I was suggesting.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, let me step in. I'd pretty much would prefer if the article had pictures on the major characters. Characters from the other GTA games have pictures. It appears, Hammersoft, that you're starting an edit war. Agtaz 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Simply because other articles have such pictures does not make it right. I can cite literally dozens of articles where there are no images of characters. Let's start, shall we? List of characters from The Office (US), List of characters from Sin City, List of characters from Felicity, List of characters from Vanished, Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2, LEGO Rock Raiders, List of Virtual Dungeon monsters, List of characters in Heroes, List of characters in Bucky O'Hare, ...and on and on and on. And I'll state for the bazillionth time, if a character is so 'major' they deserve a picture, then they deserve an article. If you can't make the argument they deserve an article, you can't make an argument they deserve a picture. We are a free content encyclopedia. Show me how copyrighted images are somehow 'free', and show me how the Foundation is blatantly wrong in their position and mission and I'll shut up. Problem is, you can't. I'll guarantee it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hammersoft, you're reminding me of another user who wants to delete all pictures on WikiPedia, User:Abu badali. Now this is becoming a major issue for this article, over your dislikes of the characters' pictures. Agtax 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't like or dislike the images. I am upholding Wikipedia policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *This is getting rediculous! Why did you remove the images only from the GTA:SA characters article, and not the others? Your account appears to be used for vandalism. Agtax 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And now you accuse me of vandalism for upholding Wikipedia policy? Excuse me? As to this article being hit and not others, it's just fate. I went to  and started working my way through. So you can stop your accusations of selective targetting as well (wow). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hey Chief, I'm starting to think you're beginning to create some hostile arguments. These images were here for a long time. Agtax 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So since a policy violation existed for a long time it's acceptable? What if you found year old vandalism...would you not remove the vandalism since it's been around a long time? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thats enough. Agtax 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hammersoft, I don't see how this has become "circular" if you earlier described my argument as "new" and yet responded to it only as far as telling me I'm wrong.  This article bears no resemblance to, say, List of dog breeds or List of scholastic philosophers, which ARE basically just bulleted lists.  My contention is that the guideline was meant to address lists such as these, not articles such as this one.  The stuff will not "remain off" because you say so.  My belief is that, when the page does get unprotected, several images will return.  I see no reason that we can't illustrate Tenpenny, Sweet, Smoke, Ryder, Toreno, Pulsaki, and Woozie, for instance.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If the images are forced back on against policy, I will recommend blocks of editing privileges. Your decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My argument here details a reason that readding images may NOT violate the guidelines.  You have not actually engaged me on this point.  It is my contention that the guideline does not get an article such as this one.  The purpose of having images here is to illustrate the characters and to break up the several thousand lines of prose.  Those, to me, are compelling reasons.  I'd be fine with escalating this conflict.  Your threats don't scare me at all. Croctotheface (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's by no means a threat. It's a voicing of intended action should you act in ways that break policy here. You've been shown policy. You disagree with it. That doesn't give you leave to violate it. If you believe I've violated policy, then please by all means request I be blocked. Do you require assistance to show you how to do so? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a threat, actually, but that's neither here nor there.  My contention is not that the guidelines should be changed, it's that they do not get at this case.  Perhaps this article, as I said, should be called Characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas rather than "list of", to avoid confusion.  I can see why List of dog breeds, as just a bulleted list, may not need pictorial illustration that justifies non-free content.  However, this is a very different article.  My disagreement with you is not over the wisdom of the the guldeline, but whether it should be applied the way you think it should be.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *In the list of articles I linked above, all of them have more than just a bullet and linked article. That's why I specifically cited those articles in response. So yes, I have responded to your claim. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two things: first, because there exist such articles without images does not mean that all like articles should lack images.  Second, were those articles always conceived as lacking images, or did you go through and delete those, too?   Honestly, this article is NOT a list, in any sense of the word.  Nobody would think that List of dog breeds should is anything but a list.  Nobody would confuse it with an ARTICLE ON dog breeds.  If someone saw this article without the title, I don't think anyone would classify it as a list.  It is unquestionably an article on characters.  Croctotheface (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *To my knowledge, I haven't edited the articles I linked to. While I appreciate the point you are trying to make with the dog breeds list, it isn't really relevant to our discussion here. This isn't an article on Grand Theft Auto. It's an article listing all the characters in it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really can't imagine anybody looking at this article and agreeing that it is not an article on the characters.  Perhaps a request for comment is in order?  Croctotheface (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sick of being told over and over again that I "don't believe in WP policy" and blah, blah, blah.  I can't speak to previous cases.  Maybe the consensus reached then was wrong.  I just can't see why an article that is 76kb long can't have a single fair use image.  The part of the relevant guideline that you cite says that non-free images are generally inappropriate in "lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements".  That, to me, says that non-free images are unnecessary if the article they're in isn't really an encyclopedia article so much as a list or discography.  My contention remains that a reasonable person would say that this is an article on the characters rather than a list of them.  You haven't explained why this is wrong.  I think that it makes all the difference.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *With all humor intended, I hope you get over your illness soon :) I've never said this article can't have images. What can be on it is a montage image, as noted before. See what User:Scorpion0422 did with this edit. That's perfect. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but I assure you the distinction is inaccurate. I'm sorry I haven't been able to explain it any better than I've been able to, and I'm sorry if you feel I've let you down in this regard. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm prepared to continue making this argument, in larger and larger venues if necessary.  The article you link to IS a list article.  It does not have prose content there, and a reasonable person looking at it would say that it's a list.  This article IS NOT a list article.  No reasonable person would see this as a list of characters; they would see it as an article on them.  I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am "trying to make" a distinction, since I AM making a distinction.  You are not even "trying to" rebut my distinction, you're just telling me, in essence, "You're wrong, so stop talking now." Croctotheface (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please feel free to take this to whatever venue you feel appropriate, so long as discussion remains coherent and not scattered across a wide variety of noticeboards, etc. As to the point you raise, for another piece of evidence to show that you are in the wrong, please see :Category:Articles with improper non-free content. Please observe that almost all of the character 'articles' in that category are 'articles' with substantial content on each character. Yet, someone decided to add Template:Non-free to those articles anyway (which, by the way, wasn't me). Also, please see WP:NFCC and carefully read the rationale behind the policy. We are here to create a free content encyclopedia, strictly limiting fair use. You are arguing from a position of weakness, that fair use show liberally be allowed. That's not why Wikipedia was created. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That "someone" added a tag doesn't establish anything.  It may very well be that those articles have too many fair use images.  In fact, I actually agree that having an image for each character mentioned here, including very minor ones like Maccer and Millie Perkins, goes too far.  My argument here is not that this article could or should have an indeterminately high number of fair use images; it's that it should have somewhere between five and ten to illustrate the major characters.    The idea that we should "limit" fair use doesn't establish anything either.  Your argument here is not that we should eliminate all fair use images from the encyclopedia, though you may believe that as well.  Your argument here is that this article should have no non-free images because it is a list and therefore falls under the language you quoted from WP:NFC.  My repy has been that this is NOT a list, that no reasonable person would think it is a list, and therefore that the quoted language does not apply.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I guess I'm a completely unreasonable person then. Thanks for the compliment. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is yet another response that does not rebut or even meaningfully address the argument that I'm making.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps you'd like to continue without the personal attacks then? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I addressed what you said (or rather what you did not say), not you personally.  At no point in this entire conversation have I made anything personal.  If you're not going to respond to my assertions, which make a strong case for why this article should have some fair use images, then I see no reason that the article should not have them.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You insulted me directly by claiming that no reasonable person would this is a list, while knowing I don't consider it anything but a list. Sorry. Enough rhetoric. You've been good enough to address the points, just remove the rhetoric and we can continue just fine. As to the points you raise, I've rebutted them. I know you disagee. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree that this is/isn't a list. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "reasonable person" reference wasn't meant to imply that you were unreasonable; it was the articulation of a standard, based on actual legal standards for such judgment calls.  I don't see how you've rebutted my contentions at all; your responses have basically been to tell me that I'm wrong.  This article goes into detail about the characters, their backgrounds and relationships, and their relevance to the story.  To say that this is a list of characters despite its length and detail would mean that basically any article on Wikipedia is a list.  This article covers all the characters, it does not merely list them.  If it is appropriate to call this a list, then instead of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, we should call that article List of Significant Elements of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.  What is your response to my argument here?  How is it wrong? Croctotheface (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I've shown you a rather large list of very similar articles on which this policy has been applied. I'm very far from being alone in applying this policy. You insist that this article is different, yet haven't established a case where this article is different than the dizzying array of other articles I've cited which are essentially identical to this one for the intents of fair use over use reduction. You want this to be 'different' somehow, but it isn't. I grant it's different than List of dog breeds. I don't really care that it is. That article isn't relevant. The array of articles I've cited are, and the policy application has been the same as here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This doesn't rebut my argument at all.  My argument is that this article is not a list.  Your reply begs the question; it says that because images were removed from other "list of" articles and the guideline says to remove articles from "list" articles, then all such articles are lists.  Was the argument that I'm making, that detailed articles like this one are NOT lists, raised at the time?  If they were raised and refuted, then I would like a chance to respond to what was said in refutation.  If my "not a list" argument was NOT raised, then what happened at those other articles is totally irrelevant to my argument here and now.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sigh. I know you'll take this as a lack of response. Frankly, I don't care. I'm a total loss as to how to further show you the error you are making. You insist this article is somehow different when I've cited a dizzying array of articles where this policy has been applied. Yet, this article is different different different different different different different different different different different. Fine. It's different. Good grief. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I've explained why I think this article is not a list.  You haven't explained why you think it is; you haven't given a single reason to believe it is.  It's hardly confusing to see why a policy that deals with lists was applied to articles that are titled "List of characters".  People who applied the policy then most likely assumed that the article was in fact a list.  Now, that is not accepted as fact, it is instead in dispute.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're one of the very few on Wikipedia who somehow conclude this isn't a list. You insist I haven't given a single reason to believe it is a list; you're quite wrong. But, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. You win. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Tell you what, I'll make it even better. You go and add a thousand fair use images to this article. I don't care. We're not here to make a free encyclopedia. We have no fair use policies tightly restricting the use of fair use images. The Foundation has absolutely no right to tell us what to do. To heck with them! They're WRONG! So, go on, add say...oh I don't know, how about 20 different images for each character in all the different clothes they like to wear? How about different lighting? The different vehicles they use? The different people they meet up with? Can't have enough. Go on. add Add ADD! Fair use means hey, it's fair just because we say it is and heck nobody in their right minds would ever sue Wikipedia, would they? You wore me down Croctotheface. My hat's off to you. You put up an amazing twisted rationale for how this article is somehow above all our policies and resolutions, somehow unique in its approach to using fair use images. I'm at an utter loss to understand how, so I guess I'll just chalk that up to my utter stupidity while standing well out of the way of your every desire to include fair use images as much as possible. Woooohooooo!!!! You go! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not this article and this article only; any article that is titled "List of" but does so much more than merely list things is not a list.  It is incorrectly titled as a list.  Your argument hinged on language from a guideline that said we should generally avoid using non-free images in lists.  If this article is not a list, then that language in the guideline doesn't get at it.  Note that it does not suddenly become OK to add 20 images because that would run afoul of numerous other elements of that guideline, not to mention make the article look crummy.  A lengthy article such as this one deserves five to ten images illustrating its subject.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why do you care? Please add as much fair use as you can. The guideline doesn't apply, since the guideline, policy and resolution don't say ANYTHING about character articles. Since they don't, you should feel free to add several hundred fair use images. It's perfectly allowable. Your rationale is stunning. I can't find fault with it. Why should you stop at five or ten? Why not 54000? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guideline applies; just not the part about not using a single fair use image in "list" articles.  The rest of the guideline, particularly the part about using images only as far as they're necessary to illustrate what we say in the prose, would most certainly apply.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, you're wrong. The guideline, policy and resolution don't mention anything about character articles. You're in the clear. Please add as much fair use as you can. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're confusing my argument, which says that language tailored in a specific way (in this case, only to list articles) should not be applied to cases that do not meet that specific criteria (in this case, that this is not a list article), with some argument that language that is meant to apply generally (the majority of WP:NFC) should not apply only if it is specific.  They are in no way the same.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I fail to see how. You're not addressing my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your point is flawed because it assumes that a general guideline must be tailored specifically.  The parts of the guideline that are meant to apply to all articles apply to all articles; it is not necessary for the guideline to specifically call out all types of articles if it is meant to apply to all articles.  Parts of the guideline that are meant to apply only to specific classes of articles should not apply to articles that are not part of that class, despite being incorrectly titled so as to suggest that they are.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Um, you're the one saying that since this type of article isn't specifically mentioned, it doesn't apply. Works both ways. You want to ignore policy and guideline, but then want to apply it. Umm, that's not possible. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I never said anything to do with the need to mention this type of article specifically.  The guideline mentions "list" articles.  My contention is that although we call this article a "list", it is in fact not one.  The name is a relic from when the article was first started.  At that point, it WAS a list. Because this article is not a list, the parts of the guideline TAILORED SPECIFICALLY to lists should not apply. I never said that the guideline should not apply to all "list of characters" articles; it should apply to List of characters in The Simpsons because that article is clearly a list.  This article is clearly not a list.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *So you do want it both ways. So, the guideline applies and doesn't apply? Could you please discuss how the guideline would apply when this type of article isn't mentioned in particular? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The parts of the guideline that cover all articles apply.  The parts of the guideline that SPECIFICALLY SAY that they apply ONLY to list articles do not apply here because this article is not a list and therefore does not belong to the category that those parts apply to.  Do you seriously not see the difference? Croctotheface (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Ah, ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, you agree that this section of the guideline does apply then? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that applies, and these are software screenshots.  Considering that what we do on Wikipedia is never "critical commentary", which would be deleted as original research, I'd have to think that "critical commentary" here is defined as illustrating the material the article discusses.  Just to be clear, at this point, you are abandoning the idea that this article is a list and therefore should have zero non-free images?  Croctotheface (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Except that you'd be wrong. But, you'll dispute that too. You insist on a narrow interpretation of "list" to suit your needs to void policy on this article, and are now also insisting on an unaccepted interpretation of "critical commentary" to achieve the same end. How many special circumstances would you like to use to get this article out of the realm of policy jurisdiction? And no, I'm not abandoning the idea that this article is a list. You just wore me out, that's all. I couldn't penetrate the granite. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I wouldn't agree that one sentence or two about a character is "considerably more", though I hope we would agree that one or two sentences is considerably less than what's at this article now.  I contend that the first version of the article resembles List of dog breeds much more than it resembles the current article.  I don't see what the commentary being made at the image you cite is.  I continue to maintain that almost any instance of either criticism, commentary, or critical commentary would violate WP:NOR and should not be at this encyclopedia.    To your second bullet point: no, no, and no.  I just said that the section we are now talking about does apply.  I have no idea why you think it is my belief that the guideline does not apply.  Again, please stop misconstruing my position.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, please note that it may be the case that, at the end of this, I come around to agree with you in a more fundamental way than we disagree.  That is, if the screenshots can only be used for critical commentary, and that term is defined in such a way that it encompasses what WP:NOR prohibits, then the result would be to delete all non-free game screenshots from the encyclopedia.  I don't think, for instance, that any of the screen shots at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are used for what I would think of conventionally as critical commentary.  It could be that they all have to go. Croctotheface (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You've stated that the guideline regarding the use of images in lists does not apply because this, according to you, isn't a list. There's one exception to the rule (and I cited a bunch of similar articles where this policy was applied). Now, you want to have another exception because having a monologue about the character counts as critical commentary by your definition, which isn't the accepted definition. So, we're now up to two exceptions such that our fair use guidelines and policies don't apply to this article. Could you please inform me how many special exceptions you'd like to make? You can't just use an image for illustrative purposes and call it critically commented on. That's completely insufficient. Assume for the sake of discussion that :Image:Hindenburg burning.jpg was a fair use image. It's used at LZ_129_Hindenburg#Disaster and the image is directly discussed and is important to the furtherance of the article for the reader to understand what happened. Simply displaying :Image:GTASA Tenpenny.jpg, which has no critical commentary associated with its display in version of this article where it was used, is utterly insufficient, most especially since there's already a substantial article on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; the user doesn't need this image to understand the general concept of the game. For the Hindenburg case, not having the image significantly impairs a reader's ability to understand what happened. I'm at a loss as to how to explain this any better to you. I'm sure you'll have a comeback on this that invalidates, from your perspective, everything I've said and concludes that we should allow the images. Since I have no further time for this dispute today, I'll just have to say that you once again wore me out and yes, this article really is a special case in that it's not a list when so many other articles just like it have been treated like a list under policy and that yes, this article doesn't need the commonly held definition of critical commentary because it's...well, I don't know...special I guess. Sigh. Good night. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What IS the "commonly held definition of critical commentary"?  You don't provide it.  I don't understand how anything that either criticizes something, comments on an issue, or critically comments on an issue does not fail WP:NOR.  It may be that I'm missing something here, but you're not helping me understand it.  The Hindenburg example is an illustration/understanding example.  It's not a case that displaying the image is a case of "critical commentary".  Are we now discussing whether seeing images of characters helps readers understand them?  I just wanted to know what the definition of "critical commentary" that we are using is.  Could you help me by providing it?  Croctotheface (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I've given you two examples already. I'll give you a third, but no more. Each time I've attempted to educate you on these issues, I've run into walls whether due to my poor inability to convey meaning, by intransigence on your part, or a combination thereof. Simply displaying an image of something discussed in an article does not meet critical commentary. Let's say we have an article subject "X". The article goes into great length to discuss "X". Someone adds a fair use picture of "X" to the article. However, the article does not discuss the photograph of "X", only "X". This is not acceptable. This is why there is a restriction on the use of fair use images of living people for the sole purpose of depiction. For example; look at the article on Jane Fonda. The main image of her, use for depiction purposes only, is (the rather poorly titled) :Image:255273574 c1aea8c232 2.jpg. That's acceptable; it's a free license image, so it's fine to use it for depiction purposes only. If you go to Jane_Fonda#.22Hanoi_Jane.22, you will see another poorly titled image, :Image:HJGE.jpg. This image is fair use, depicting Jane Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft battery. The image is acceptable in its use because the article discusses at length Jane's posing for the shot and the controversy it sparked. The image is not being used to depict Jane, but in direct support of critical commentary regarding that pose and its historical relevance. Contrast; :Image:GTASA Tenpenny.jpg was used on this article simply to depict Tenpenny only, not in support of a discussion relative to that particular image's significance in any respect. That's why it's depiction only, without critical commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so, using an image for the purpose of  "critical commentary", in the Fonda example, means "direct support of critical commentary"?  That seems to me to be depiction, just depiction that is related to a criticism made by somebody else.  That's still illustration, just illustration of a criticism made by somebody else.  If this is the case, then I think we need to remove every game screenshot that I've seen used in the encyclopedia.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. One person using foundation mission statements and policies to back their argument does not automatically make it consensus. If there is a disagreement, all the parties involved must attempt productive discussion. If the request for comment fails, I will request mediation. Now lets calm down, and try to talk this through slowly. Stop to read, then THINK about that post before immediately bashing a few keys and hitting "Save Page". .:Alex:. 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just been alerted of prospective deletions towards a shitload of orphaned images I uploaded for this character list and related articles. Just found out the notifications were from August, but it's still a stark reminder of what might happen soon enough. This debate has gone on long enough. The fact that Wikipedia has increasingly opted in purging unfree images that do not comply with an ever changing WP:FU policy speaks for itself. Wikipedia is showing signs that it no longer the place for unfree images deemed unnecessary, seeing it's going free like the German Wikipedia, which has foregone unfree images altogether. I'm prepared to take ALL my screenshots and fair use materials elsewhere if need be. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell is going on? This place speaks for itself. This article is not a list. A list considers full stuff, there are several minor characters that get killed on one mission etc.. that are not mentioned because they doesn't deserve to, since they appeared only in 10 seconds which is not worth a section. The images are to represent the characters face. Not for a bunch of people adding what ever image they want. The images are given fair use. As far as it has it can appear there but I can agree that some are too much. E.g. remove the minor characters images. Old Reece doesn't even deserves to be mentioned. He is only haircutting Carl in a moment which is the only time you must do it. Other than that he is just like someone sitting on his side of the game. So for me keep the images of major and supporters characters images. Really why can't someone coming here has the right to see Ryder, Smoke, Pulaski, Cesar, Tenpenny and Woozie's face? They are pretty notable to warrant an image. --Flesh-n-Bone 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of fair use images from this article 

message: Your argument seems to be that "because a subject doesn't have an article, it doesn't deserve one".  I don't think that really follows.  In several cases, entries here are complete enough to be articles unto themselves.  I have a very difficult time seeing much of the sections here as "entries in a list", so I think that my contention that this does not really resonate as a list remains valid.  The way it is used in the guideline suggests something with trivial coverage.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hammersoft, I don't see how this has become "circular" if you earlier described my argument as "new" and yet responded to it only as far as telling me I'm wrong.  This article bears no resemblance to, say, List of dog breeds or List of scholastic philosophers, which ARE basically just bulleted lists.  My contention is that the guideline was meant to address lists such as these, not articles such as this one.  The stuff will not "remain off" because you say so.  My belief is that, when the page does get unprotected, several images will return.  I see no reason that we can't illustrate Tenpenny, Sweet, Smoke, Ryder, Toreno, Pulsaki, and Woozie, for instance.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If the images are forced back on against policy, I will recommend blocks of editing privileges. Your decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My argument here details a reason that readding images may NOT violate the guidelines.  You have not actually engaged me on this point.  It is my contention that the guideline does not get an article such as this one.  The purpose of having images here is to illustrate the characters and to break up the several thousand lines of prose.  Those, to me, are compelling reasons.  I'd be fine with escalating this conflict.  Your threats don't scare me at all. Croctotheface (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's by no means a threat. It's a voicing of intended action should you act in ways that break policy here. You've been shown policy. You disagree with it. That doesn't give you leave to violate it. If you believe I've violated policy, then please by all means request I be blocked. Do you require assistance to show you how to do so? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a threat, actually, but that's neither here nor there.  My contention is not that the guidelines should be changed, it's that they do not get at this case.  Perhaps this article, as I said, should be called Characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas rather than "list of", to avoid confusion.  I can see why List of dog breeds, as just a bulleted list, may not need pictorial illustration that justifies non-free content.  However, this is a very different article.  My disagreement with you is not over the wisdom of the the guldeline, but whether it should be applied the way you think it should be.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *In the list of articles I linked above, all of them have more than just a bullet and linked article. That's why I specifically cited those articles in response. So yes, I have responded to your claim. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two things: first, because there exist such articles without images does not mean that all like articles should lack images.  Second, were those articles always conceived as lacking images, or did you go through and delete those, too?   Honestly, this article is NOT a list, in any sense of the word.  Nobody would think that List of dog breeds should is anything but a list.  Nobody would confuse it with an ARTICLE ON dog breeds.  If someone saw this article without the title, I don't think anyone would classify it as a list.  It is unquestionably an article on characters.  Croctotheface (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *To my knowledge, I haven't edited the articles I linked to. While I appreciate the point you are trying to make with the dog breeds list, it isn't really relevant to our discussion here. This isn't an article on Grand Theft Auto. It's an article listing all the characters in it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really can't imagine anybody looking at this article and agreeing that it is not an article on the characters.  Perhaps a request for comment is in order?  Croctotheface (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sick of being told over and over again that I "don't believe in WP policy" and blah, blah, blah.  I can't speak to previous cases.  Maybe the consensus reached then was wrong.  I just can't see why an article that is 76kb long can't have a single fair use image.  The part of the relevant guideline that you cite says that non-free images are generally inappropriate in "lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements".  That, to me, says that non-free images are unnecessary if the article they're in isn't really an encyclopedia article so much as a list or discography.  My contention remains that a reasonable person would say that this is an article on the characters rather than a list of them.  You haven't explained why this is wrong.  I think that it makes all the difference.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *With all humor intended, I hope you get over your illness soon :) I've never said this article can't have images. What can be on it is a montage image, as noted before. See what User:Scorpion0422 did with this edit. That's perfect. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but I assure you the distinction is inaccurate. I'm sorry I haven't been able to explain it any better than I've been able to, and I'm sorry if you feel I've let you down in this regard. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm prepared to continue making this argument, in larger and larger venues if necessary.  The article you link to IS a list article.  It does not have prose content there, and a reasonable person looking at it would say that it's a list.  This article IS NOT a list article.  No reasonable person would see this as a list of characters; they would see it as an article on them.  I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am "trying to make" a distinction, since I AM making a distinction.  You are not even "trying to" rebut my distinction, you're just telling me, in essence, "You're wrong, so stop talking now." Croctotheface (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please feel free to take this to whatever venue you feel appropriate, so long as discussion remains coherent and not scattered across a wide variety of noticeboards, etc. As to the point you raise, for another piece of evidence to show that you are in the wrong, please see :Category:Articles with improper non-free content. Please observe that almost all of the character 'articles' in that category are 'articles' with substantial content on each character. Yet, someone decided to add Template:Non-free to those articles anyway (which, by the way, wasn't me). Also, please see WP:NFCC and carefully read the rationale behind the policy. We are here to create a free content encyclopedia, strictly limiting fair use. You are arguing from a position of weakness, that fair use show liberally be allowed. That's not why Wikipedia was created. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That "someone" added a tag doesn't establish anything.  It may very well be that those articles have too many fair use images.  In fact, I actually agree that having an image for each character mentioned here, including very minor ones like Maccer and Millie Perkins, goes too far.  My argument here is not that this article could or should have an indeterminately high number of fair use images; it's that it should have somewhere between five and ten to illustrate the major characters.    The idea that we should "limit" fair use doesn't establish anything either.  Your argument here is not that we should eliminate all fair use images from the encyclopedia, though you may believe that as well.  Your argument here is that this article should have no non-free images because it is a list and therefore falls under the language you quoted from WP:NFC.  My repy has been that this is NOT a list, that no reasonable person would think it is a list, and therefore that the quoted language does not apply.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I guess I'm a completely unreasonable person then. Thanks for the compliment. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is yet another response that does not rebut or even meaningfully address the argument that I'm making.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps you'd like to continue without the personal attacks then? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I addressed what you said (or rather what you did not say), not you personally.  At no point in this entire conversation have I made anything personal.  If you're not going to respond to my assertions, which make a strong case for why this article should have some fair use images, then I see no reason that the article should not have them.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You insulted me directly by claiming that no reasonable person would this is a list, while knowing I don't consider it anything but a list. Sorry. Enough rhetoric. You've been good enough to address the points, just remove the rhetoric and we can continue just fine. As to the points you raise, I've rebutted them. I know you disagee. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree that this is/isn't a list. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "reasonable person" reference wasn't meant to imply that you were unreasonable; it was the articulation of a standard, based on actual legal standards for such judgment calls.  I don't see how you've rebutted my contentions at all; your responses have basically been to tell me that I'm wrong.  This article goes into detail about the characters, their backgrounds and relationships, and their relevance to the story.  To say that this is a list of characters despite its length and detail would mean that basically any article on Wikipedia is a list.  This article covers all the characters, it does not merely list them.  If it is appropriate to call this a list, then instead of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, we should call that article List of Significant Elements of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.  What is your response to my argument here?  How is it wrong? Croctotheface (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I've shown you a rather large list of very similar articles on which this policy has been applied. I'm very far from being alone in applying this policy. You insist that this article is different, yet haven't established a case where this article is different than the dizzying array of other articles I've cited which are essentially identical to this one for the intents of fair use over use reduction. You want this to be 'different' somehow, but it isn't. I grant it's different than List of dog breeds. I don't really care that it is. That article isn't relevant. The array of articles I've cited are, and the policy application has been the same as here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This doesn't rebut my argument at all.  My argument is that this article is not a list.  Your reply begs the question; it says that because images were removed from other "list of" articles and the guideline says to remove articles from "list" articles, then all such articles are lists.  Was the argument that I'm making, that detailed articles like this one are NOT lists, raised at the time?  If they were raised and refuted, then I would like a chance to respond to what was said in refutation.  If my "not a list" argument was NOT raised, then what happened at those other articles is totally irrelevant to my argument here and now.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sigh. I know you'll take this as a lack of response. Frankly, I don't care. I'm a total loss as to how to further show you the error you are making. You insist this article is somehow different when I've cited a dizzying array of articles where this policy has been applied. Yet, this article is different different different different different different different different different different different. Fine. It's different. Good grief. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I've explained why I think this article is not a list.  You haven't explained why you think it is; you haven't given a single reason to believe it is.  It's hardly confusing to see why a policy that deals with lists was applied to articles that are titled "List of characters".  People who applied the policy then most likely assumed that the article was in fact a list.  Now, that is not accepted as fact, it is instead in dispute.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're one of the very few on Wikipedia who somehow conclude this isn't a list. You insist I haven't given a single reason to believe it is a list; you're quite wrong. But, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. You win. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Tell you what, I'll make it even better. You go and add a thousand fair use images to this article. I don't care. We're not here to make a free encyclopedia. We have no fair use policies tightly restricting the use of fair use images. The Foundation has absolutely no right to tell us what to do. To heck with them! They're WRONG! So, go on, add say...oh I don't know, how about 20 different images for each character in all the different clothes they like to wear? How about different lighting? The different vehicles they use? The different people they meet up with? Can't have enough. Go on. add Add ADD! Fair use means hey, it's fair just because we say it is and heck nobody in their right minds would ever sue Wikipedia, would they? You wore me down Croctotheface. My hat's off to you. You put up an amazing twisted rationale for how this article is somehow above all our policies and resolutions, somehow unique in its approach to using fair use images. I'm at an utter loss to understand how, so I guess I'll just chalk that up to my utter stupidity while standing well out of the way of your every desire to include fair use images as much as possible. Woooohooooo!!!! You go! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a list of the characters or an article on the characters? 

message: If I win, does that mean we can unprotect the page and put back a handful of fair use images? Croctotheface (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not this article and this article only; any article that is titled "List of" but does so much more than merely list things is not a list.  It is incorrectly titled as a list.  Your argument hinged on language from a guideline that said we should generally avoid using non-free images in lists.  If this article is not a list, then that language in the guideline doesn't get at it.  Note that it does not suddenly become OK to add 20 images because that would run afoul of numerous other elements of that guideline, not to mention make the article look crummy.  A lengthy article such as this one deserves five to ten images illustrating its subject.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why do you care? Please add as much fair use as you can. The guideline doesn't apply, since the guideline, policy and resolution don't say ANYTHING about character articles. Since they don't, you should feel free to add several hundred fair use images. It's perfectly allowable. Your rationale is stunning. I can't find fault with it. Why should you stop at five or ten? Why not 54000? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guideline applies; just not the part about not using a single fair use image in "list" articles.  The rest of the guideline, particularly the part about using images only as far as they're necessary to illustrate what we say in the prose, would most certainly apply.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, you're wrong. The guideline, policy and resolution don't mention anything about character articles. You're in the clear. Please add as much fair use as you can. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're confusing my argument, which says that language tailored in a specific way (in this case, only to list articles) should not be applied to cases that do not meet that specific criteria (in this case, that this is not a list article), with some argument that language that is meant to apply generally (the majority of WP:NFC) should not apply only if it is specific.  They are in no way the same.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I fail to see how. You're not addressing my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your point is flawed because it assumes that a general guideline must be tailored specifically.  The parts of the guideline that are meant to apply to all articles apply to all articles; it is not necessary for the guideline to specifically call out all types of articles if it is meant to apply to all articles.  Parts of the guideline that are meant to apply only to specific classes of articles should not apply to articles that are not part of that class, despite being incorrectly titled so as to suggest that they are.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Um, you're the one saying that since this type of article isn't specifically mentioned, it doesn't apply. Works both ways. You want to ignore policy and guideline, but then want to apply it. Umm, that's not possible. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I never said anything to do with the need to mention this type of article specifically.  The guideline mentions "list" articles.  My contention is that although we call this article a "list", it is in fact not one.  The name is a relic from when the article was first started.  At that point, it WAS a list. Because this article is not a list, the parts of the guideline TAILORED SPECIFICALLY to lists should not apply. I never said that the guideline should not apply to all "list of characters" articles; it should apply to List of characters in The Simpsons because that article is clearly a list.  This article is clearly not a list.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *So you do want it both ways. So, the guideline applies and doesn't apply? Could you please discuss how the guideline would apply when this type of article isn't mentioned in particular? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The parts of the guideline that cover all articles apply.  The parts of the guideline that SPECIFICALLY SAY that they apply ONLY to list articles do not apply here because this article is not a list and therefore does not belong to the category that those parts apply to.  Do you seriously not see the difference? Croctotheface (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Ah, ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, you agree that this section of the guideline does apply then? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that applies, and these are software screenshots.  Considering that what we do on Wikipedia is never "critical commentary", which would be deleted as original research, I'd have to think that "critical commentary" here is defined as illustrating the material the article discusses.  Just to be clear, at this point, you are abandoning the idea that this article is a list and therefore should have zero non-free images?  Croctotheface (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Except that you'd be wrong. But, you'll dispute that too. You insist on a narrow interpretation of "list" to suit your needs to void policy on this article, and are now also insisting on an unaccepted interpretation of "critical commentary" to achieve the same end. How many special circumstances would you like to use to get this article out of the realm of policy jurisdiction? And no, I'm not abandoning the idea that this article is a list. You just wore me out, that's all. I couldn't penetrate the granite. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I wouldn't agree that one sentence or two about a character is "considerably more", though I hope we would agree that one or two sentences is considerably less than what's at this article now.  I contend that the first version of the article resembles List of dog breeds much more than it resembles the current article.  I don't see what the commentary being made at the image you cite is.  I continue to maintain that almost any instance of either criticism, commentary, or critical commentary would violate WP:NOR and should not be at this encyclopedia.    To your second bullet point: no, no, and no.  I just said that the section we are now talking about does apply.  I have no idea why you think it is my belief that the guideline does not apply.  Again, please stop misconstruing my position.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, please note that it may be the case that, at the end of this, I come around to agree with you in a more fundamental way than we disagree.  That is, if the screenshots can only be used for critical commentary, and that term is defined in such a way that it encompasses what WP:NOR prohibits, then the result would be to delete all non-free game screenshots from the encyclopedia.  I don't think, for instance, that any of the screen shots at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are used for what I would think of conventionally as critical commentary.  It could be that they all have to go. Croctotheface (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You've stated that the guideline regarding the use of images in lists does not apply because this, according to you, isn't a list. There's one exception to the rule (and I cited a bunch of similar articles where this policy was applied). Now, you want to have another exception because having a monologue about the character counts as critical commentary by your definition, which isn't the accepted definition. So, we're now up to two exceptions such that our fair use guidelines and policies don't apply to this article. Could you please inform me how many special exceptions you'd like to make? You can't just use an image for illustrative purposes and call it critically commented on. That's completely insufficient. Assume for the sake of discussion that :Image:Hindenburg burning.jpg was a fair use image. It's used at LZ_129_Hindenburg#Disaster and the image is directly discussed and is important to the furtherance of the article for the reader to understand what happened. Simply displaying :Image:GTASA Tenpenny.jpg, which has no critical commentary associated with its display in version of this article where it was used, is utterly insufficient, most especially since there's already a substantial article on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; the user doesn't need this image to understand the general concept of the game. For the Hindenburg case, not having the image significantly impairs a reader's ability to understand what happened. I'm at a loss as to how to explain this any better to you. I'm sure you'll have a comeback on this that invalidates, from your perspective, everything I've said and concludes that we should allow the images. Since I have no further time for this dispute today, I'll just have to say that you once again wore me out and yes, this article really is a special case in that it's not a list when so many other articles just like it have been treated like a list under policy and that yes, this article doesn't need the commonly held definition of critical commentary because it's...well, I don't know...special I guess. Sigh. Good night. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What IS the "commonly held definition of critical commentary"?  You don't provide it.  I don't understand how anything that either criticizes something, comments on an issue, or critically comments on an issue does not fail WP:NOR.  It may be that I'm missing something here, but you're not helping me understand it.  The Hindenburg example is an illustration/understanding example.  It's not a case that displaying the image is a case of "critical commentary".  Are we now discussing whether seeing images of characters helps readers understand them?  I just wanted to know what the definition of "critical commentary" that we are using is.  Could you help me by providing it?  Croctotheface (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I've given you two examples already. I'll give you a third, but no more. Each time I've attempted to educate you on these issues, I've run into walls whether due to my poor inability to convey meaning, by intransigence on your part, or a combination thereof. Simply displaying an image of something discussed in an article does not meet critical commentary. Let's say we have an article subject "X". The article goes into great length to discuss "X". Someone adds a fair use picture of "X" to the article. However, the article does not discuss the photograph of "X", only "X". This is not acceptable. This is why there is a restriction on the use of fair use images of living people for the sole purpose of depiction. For example; look at the article on Jane Fonda. The main image of her, use for depiction purposes only, is (the rather poorly titled) :Image:255273574 c1aea8c232 2.jpg. That's acceptable; it's a free license image, so it's fine to use it for depiction purposes only. If you go to Jane_Fonda#.22Hanoi_Jane.22, you will see another poorly titled image, :Image:HJGE.jpg. This image is fair use, depicting Jane Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft battery. The image is acceptable in its use because the article discusses at length Jane's posing for the shot and the controversy it sparked. The image is not being used to depict Jane, but in direct support of critical commentary regarding that pose and its historical relevance. Contrast; :Image:GTASA Tenpenny.jpg was used on this article simply to depict Tenpenny only, not in support of a discussion relative to that particular image's significance in any respect. That's why it's depiction only, without critical commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so, using an image for the purpose of  "critical commentary", in the Fonda example, means "direct support of critical commentary"?  That seems to me to be depiction, just depiction that is related to a criticism made by somebody else.  That's still illustration, just illustration of a criticism made by somebody else.  If this is the case, then I think we need to remove every game screenshot that I've seen used in the encyclopedia.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. One person using foundation mission statements and policies to back their argument does not automatically make it consensus. If there is a disagreement, all the parties involved must attempt productive discussion. If the request for comment fails, I will request mediation. Now lets calm down, and try to talk this through slowly. Stop to read, then THINK about that post before immediately bashing a few keys and hitting "Save Page". .:Alex:. 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just been alerted of prospective deletions towards a shitload of orphaned images I uploaded for this character list and related articles. Just found out the notifications were from August, but it's still a stark reminder of what might happen soon enough. This debate has gone on long enough. The fact that Wikipedia has increasingly opted in purging unfree images that do not comply with an ever changing WP:FU policy speaks for itself. Wikipedia is showing signs that it no longer the place for unfree images deemed unnecessary, seeing it's going free like the German Wikipedia, which has foregone unfree images altogether. I'm prepared to take ALL my screenshots and fair use materials elsewhere if need be. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell is going on? This place speaks for itself. This article is not a list. A list considers full stuff, there are several minor characters that get killed on one mission etc.. that are not mentioned because they doesn't deserve to, since they appeared only in 10 seconds which is not worth a section. The images are to represent the characters face. Not for a bunch of people adding what ever image they want. The images are given fair use. As far as it has it can appear there but I can agree that some are too much. E.g. remove the minor characters images. Old Reece doesn't even deserves to be mentioned. He is only haircutting Carl in a moment which is the only time you must do it. Other than that he is just like someone sitting on his side of the game. So for me keep the images of major and supporters characters images. Really why can't someone coming here has the right to see Ryder, Smoke, Pulaski, Cesar, Tenpenny and Woozie's face? They are pretty notable to warrant an image. --Flesh-n-Bone 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I win? 

message: *An RFC isn't necessary. As I noted above, you guys are absolutely correct. Since the guideline, policy and resolution don't say ANYTHING about character articles, you should be able to add thousands of fair use images here. No need to stop. Please, add away. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't this getting just a little bit disruptive?  The argument that you're making is nothing like mine.  My argument deals with a case where you want to apply certain language, and I have contended that the language does not apply to this article.  Your "character article" argument does not parallel mine: the guideline is meant to govern all articles.  This is certainly an article; therefore the parts about restricting fair use images to what is necessary to illustrate the article's text most certainly applies.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not at all. I'm *encouraging* you to do what you wanted to do. How am I disrupting you? Please, go add as much fair use as you can. Policy doesn't forbid it. Also, Empty out the majority of :Category:Articles with improper non-free content while you're at it, removing Template:Non-free since the people who put that template on the articles are obviously wrong. Also, put that template up for the deletion. It's misguided. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite the fact that you've said several times that I don't believe we should restrict the number of fair use images here, I do not believe that.  I have never argued that WP:NFC should be abolished.  You have attributed that position to me without any reason to.  It is my belief that because this is a full article, not a list article, the part of the guideline that talks about list articles does not apply here, or to any other article improperly titled as a list.  If I turn out to be correct on that point, it would have next to no effect on WP:NFC as a whole.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *How do you conclude that WP:NFC applies here? Articles like this aren't mentioned on that guideline. You're not answering my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of that guideline is meant to apply to all articles, so it applies here.  The parts of that guideline that are meant to apply only to a specific class of article, a class to which this article does not belong, do not apply.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Right, and since this type of article isn't specifically mentioned, you should be in the clear. I don't understand what the confusion is here. By the Foundation resolution, fair use is allowed if it's within certain limits. You've done a wonderful job of demonstrating how this article is a perfectly acceptable location for fair use images, so I don't understand what the confusion is? Why can't you include a few hundred images here? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because hundreds of images are more than is necessary to illustrate the concept.  My argument has never been that principles meant to apply to all articles should not apply here.  My argument has been that principles meant to apply to "list" articles should not apply here because this article, despite its title, is not a list.  I would appreciate if you could stop misconstruing my argument.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Problem is, you can't use the images simply for illustration. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In an effort to get a consensus started, I'll vote on the matter: I say the photos should be removed for the reason that some companies and other similar entities have complained about the use of pictures in plenty of instances and I feel we should prevent that any way possible in this situation. Crap, that's why we can only use free images on the front page.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My opinion, which should be abundantly clear at this point, is that we should restore five to ten photos of the most important characters.  Klptyzm's logic would extend far beyond this page; if our goal is to prevent confrontations about fair use images in any way possible, then we should remove all non-free images that exist anywhere on the encyclopedia.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said "in this particular situation," which consists of extreme circumstances.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I don't see why your logic would just confine you to this situation, or even why this circumstance is so extreme.  It seems more or less like every other circumstance.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because this particular issue is taking forever to be solved due to lack of consensus and the excessive warring. I also stated that I voted mainly to help get a consensus started; it didn't seem like anyone else was gonna do it.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess that's fair.  I don't think Hammersoft will ever change his position.  I may change mine, but only if facts or logic end up proving me wrong.  For instance, if it turns out that we can only use screenshots for some use other than how they would be used here, then OK.  However, I really DON'T get how "critical commentary" is defined here, since including critical commentary in the voice of the article would be OR, and I don't understand why it's OK to illustrate critical commentary sourced to someone else with a screenshot, but it's not OK to illustrate anything that is not critical commentary sourced to someone else.  And that just seems like "illustration" of something from the article anyway, not using the image for the purpose of critical commentary.  Anyway, I'm still confused.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is VERY crufty; in all honestly, articles like this one should probably be deleted.  However, so long as the article exists, the idea that we can't use a single fair use image to illustrate an article that's 76kb long is flat out ridiculous.  The "play it safe" rule basically asserts nothing at all.  We could play it safe and remove each and every fair use image from the encyclopedia, too.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Croctotheface, I'm not arguing for removal of all the photos, simply those for more or less ancillary characters for which descriptions (and any mention at all) are only necessary when a Wikipedia reader seeks a little more "behind the scenes" knowledge of the game itself.  The only time I think it's necessary to keep photos on a list such as this one is when a character is central to not only the game's plot, but also to establishing the link to the real world via the user, i.e. the playable protagonists.  Interaction with all other characters exists only in-universe, and their influence on the real world is by definition secondary (i.e. only via the protagonist).  I think if we use this definition, we avoid over-estimation of the gravity that the game universe possesses with respect to reality, which is one of the underpinnings of fancruft. EganioTalk 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of deleting every single image on this page, maybe only images which do not comply with Wikipedia policies should be deleted. --JayJ47 (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's the general idea.  From my understanding of the lengthy and heated debate above, it seems that to keep within Wikipedia policy, only photos for those characters important enough to possess their own dedicated articles should be maintained on this list.  Anything else should be removed forthwith. EganioTalk 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Group shots from the game are a generally a good idea, in practice. But from my experience in screencaps of GTA games, such shots are much less effective in flexibly covering characters (since you need most or all pictured characters to face the right direction for good shots of their face) and, with restrictions on image resolutions, will compromise details of images anyway. Depicting multiple characters will also risk giving away locations from the background and leaking possible plot developments in the game (unless WP:PLOT disregards this). I know a few group shots that literary reveal specific key events in the storyline. You have to be lucky to find proper group shots. If you fellows want to go ahead with this proposal though, at least two characters are preferable in each image. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All of them?  No, I do not agree.  The photo of Carl should be restored.  The rest can stay gone. EganioTalk 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way some of these votes are going, e.g., some of you are voting for specific images, an admin may need to arbitrate this matter. We might need to look in on that.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah, whatever.  I can't believe this has caused so much uproar. EganioTalk 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I know. But it's not like I haven't seen this before. I've seen this on too many occasions. TOOOO many. Still, if people still wish for some of the images to stay like their votes suggest, an admin may have to look into this, unfortunately.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, god.  I really don't give much of a shit altogether.  CJ's ugly-ass screen shot can stay off for all I care. EganioTalk 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can work on a suitable replacement, if I have the time. This CJ shot were taken a long time ago when standards weren't too high. Then again, CJ has always looked ugly in game, so I have no idea how I can rectify this problem. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I was wondering. If images from this "List of characters" (which is a Grand theft auto related article), do not comply with policies then why aren't all the other character pages for the other GTA games undergoing the same drastic process of deleting images/keeping them to comply with policices?--JayJ47 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what the creators of those pages were hoping someone wouldn't say!!! EganioTalk 06:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on. :( I for one don't really care whether the images stay or not, since I have both the master copies of the images (and a revision of the article back in April). So long as I have another wiki to go, I'm pretty much OK with any final decision. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm open to proper courses of action to take IMAGE BY IMAGE rather than indiscriminately dealing with images here in bulks. We are probably talking about a double digit number (probably within 100) of images in here and in other character lists; any removal or changes will be a delicate affair. In the interest of not pissing off anyone and fueling discord, a compromise is required. Not too many characters to be illustrated, but not too few either.And if I recall, WP:FU allows unfree image under the condition that it provides critical commentary that will aid in the reading experience of articles, and isn't used merely as a means to depict the character in question. This will go well with the "noteworthiness" argument in that the merit of the character's depiction can be justified in the image's caption, although it clearly shouldn't necessarily apply to characters that have nothing special. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but this will prove a laborious and controversial process.  First, who decides what constitutes noteworthiness?  The administrators?  Is that OK with editors of these lists?  I wouldn't be OK with it.  Consensus would have to be reached, which could take eons, considering the sheer number of characters we're talking about.  Second, I think it is just better in general to leave the images off lists such as this and only use them when the character's importance justifies their own article.  I really have to stress the tenuousness of the relevance lists such as this have to an encyclopedic resource.  Making them as streamlined, concise, and non-crufty as possible is key to preventing their outright PROD, IMO. EganioTalk 10:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess we'll have to haggle if necessary. Funny thing though. I used to argue strongly against creating articles for individual characters except those who are protagonists, mostly because: A) GTA's storyline isn't exactly as noteworthy or newsworthy as the series' gameplay, B) articles on non-player characters may end up merged into character lists anyway like other computer/video game series character articles due to the perceived cruftness, C) articles on GTA protagonist stand a better, but slim chance of being retained, D) maintenance may be easier, and E) lists serve as a compacted refuge of sorts for at least the more noteworthy non-player characters.So it doesn't make sense to pick characters based on whether or not they have an article, since only the player characters do (in here), which excludes pretty much everyone except those whom the player is able to control in any one of the GTA games. This is why there has to be a bit of discussion on the subject of the main storyline instead to determine which character contributes a lot to the said storyline and which isn't, and I might participate. I'm brewing up a few ideas on how to deal with the current mess of pictures. Group shots, while difficult, may work; compacting minor or major characters in one picture may be a bit disorganized, but it condenses the number of pictures in the articles. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: You have a point about the bloated nature of the article. Having been expanded for so long, reading the whole thing is now a painful affair. It's about time we started work on trimming down all these writing into simpler plot summaries and character descriptions. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think basing character relevance on their importance to plot and their establishment of the link between the game's universe and the real world are the best criteria we can use.  Because this list and anything else associated with the GTA canon is only indirectly relevant to the real world, i.e. through the protagonist/player interaction, I argue that this information should be very brief and merely supportive of the main GTA articles.  The effort to establish relevance within a list such as this by including images, lengthy details of storyline impact, etc. defines fancruft, IMO.  Let's break this down: the only reason a Wikipedia reader would even approach this page without any preconceived interest in this particular game (i.e. a casual reader) would be to gain a little more insight into the game's storyline, not a detailed synopsis.  And because Wikipedia is not a resource for recapitulating fictional storylines, rather simply a means to provide information on a given topic, I think an image-heavy, detailed description of all the characters belongs in an in-universe, fan-based site, not here.  Frankly, as many of us have said, this stuff is teetering on the brink of outright removal from Wikipedia simply because its relevance outside of the GTA universe is highly questionable.  In short, the contested images will not make this list more relevant.  Quite the contrary, I think the more people try to add to this list, the less relevant it becomes.  That having been said, I stand my ground: only characters with their own dedicated pages justify an image on this list.  Because the playable character is the game's link between the GTA universe and the real world, his image is the only one with relevance to a naïve audience.  Including images of other characters will not assist a reader's understanding of the fictional storyline, unless they are seeking to actually play the game, in which case Wikipedia becomes (rightfully so) too general, which should prompt a visit to a dedicated game site. EganioTalk 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, but who constitutes a "major" character?  I still contend that the only one on the list who fits that bill is CJ.  All others are merely supportive of CJ's progress through the storyline, and frankly of very little relevance to an encyclopedia.  Why then do we need their images?  Frankly, the only purpose this list serves seems to be a re-telling of the storyline from myriad different perspectives, when the only perspective that matters is CJ's, as this is the perspective defining storyline and gameplay.  We have to keep in mind that we are not here to rehash the GTA:SA plot and all its intricacies...that should be left to the fansites.  Rather, we are here simply to provide an unbiased informational perspective. EganioTalk 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the main antagonists are certainly major characters.  They certainly do more than to impede his progress. Are you really contending that it would be the same plot without Tenpenny or Smoke?    I mean, we classify characters right here on this page as major, supporting, and minor.   It's certainly possible to do this.  The point of this page is to explain each character's relevance to the plot and provide other relevant details about them.   I submit that knowing what major characters look like would indeed enhance a reader's understanding of the game and its storyline. Your argument is more of a deletion argument than an image argument.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you make a good point: I am arguing more for the deletion of this list than anything else.  So I will stick to the topic...no, I'm not saying the plot would be the same without Frank Tenpenny or Big Smoke.  However, by the same token, it wouldn't be the same without Millie Perkins or The Truth, either.  See, this is the sticking point as far as I'm concerned: where do we stop, and who's to decide what character (and respective image) enhances a reader's understanding of plot?  We can wrangle for millennia over who's more important to the plot, which is why I say leave it simple: CJ is the only one who really matters.  Everyone else is just a detail. EganioTalk 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, no, you could have essentially the same story without Millie Perkins, but not without Tenpenny.  You need the antagonist just like you need the protagonist.  I think that our current configuration of major/supporting/minor is good.  Yes, we could arguably shift one or two characters up or down a level, but if we agree that there should be no more than, say, five images, those five are good ones to have.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if we're going to debate importance to plotline, then I agree with you: Tenpenny far outweighs anyone else.  But my point is this: if CJ is important enough to the plot to justify his own article, then by your argument, so is Frank Tenpenny.  That being said, if Frank Tenpenny should suddenly possess his own article, then yes, I agree his image should be included on this list.  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  I still believe CJ is the only character whose importance to an encyclopedia is high enough to justify inclusion of an image whose usage is regulated by established policy. EganioTalk 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your position, then, is not really about what we have been discussing, it's about the notion that fictional characters who lack individual articles should not get fair use images.  That's a very different discussion from the one we I thought we were having.  My feeling about the current status of WP:NFC is that the reference made to not using fair use in lists really should not apply to this article.  If there is meant to be an exception for "critical commentary", then based on the definition of commentary that I think I've elicited over at WT:NFC, this article has plenty of it.  My contention is that the restriction on using fair use images in lists was not meant to address lists that are composed, essentially, of small articles.  If it is, it's a barely coherent policy that I would advocate changing.  A better standard might hinge on, rather than whether the character has his own article, the depth of the coverage and the character's importance relative to the article, not the encyclopedia.  Honestly, I don't think CJ has any real importance relative to the whole encyclopedia either, and the same would go for hundreds of articles that have fair use images on them.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While you folks debate to no end, I'll be sending ALL GTA character screenshots I uploaded away to IFD later in the day, from which we can start from scratch. Perhaps it will be beneficial if there is nothing to defend or offend in the first place so we can clear our heads on what solution to shoot for. Some of them are due to be deleted this Saturday anyway, and most of them, GTA:SA's in particular, look like crap. Contact me if you need them again. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 07:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, god, don't get me wrong, Croctotheface.  If you want to discuss policy, I'd be more than happy to comiserate with you on the wishy-washy and ill-conceived nature of Wikipedia's fair use policy.  I'm just arguing against inclusion of more or less "non-essential" images if their use is sparking issues with fair use policy in some editors' minds.  I just think it's better to strive toward avoidance of edit wars over something as frankly inconsequential as this article.  Personally, I thought the article looked a lot better with the images, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that this list extends into "critical commentary" territory.  But because of the length of this discussion page, and the ambiguity of Wikipedia policy opening the door to numerous separate interpretations, until we have a new policy, I still argue in favor of leaving the images out in the interest of saving a lot of wasted time and effort on the parts of many. EganioTalk 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly when are we all ever going to come up with a compromise? This discussion is becoming extremely lengthy and pointless. As I had mentioned before. I wonder why only this character page and its images are undergoing such a drastic process, to decide whether or not to delete/keep its images. There are plenty of other character pages on wikipedia with images and yet they aren't undergoing through the same process. We all need to come up with a decision (keep/don't keep) certain images and get this over and done with as soon as possible. --JayJ47 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not really sure what this post adds.  I don't expect that Hammersoft, for one, will not "compromise" about this.  He believes that WP:NFC is clear that none of the images are allowable per that guideline.   Others of us have described our different approaches, which don't generally seem to be similar enough that we could say that there is any kind of consensus.  If people don't agree about much of anything, then it's kind of hard to find common ground and reach a solution that works for everyone. Croctotheface (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, instead of just talking about it, let's get a consensus going then.  How should we go about this?  Should we parse the list accdording to character "weight" (as the list is already organized) in order to determine individual relevance of any included images?  I think that might be the best way.  Let's just go through the list and decide who's important enough to justify an image.  I think it will depend on 1) their impact on story, 2) how detailed their synopsis is on this list, and 3) the origin and use of whatever image we seek to include for that character.  Shall we?  If Hammersoft, MASEM, and SharkD want to throw in their two cents', that's just peachy, but the idea here will be achieving a consensus, to which we all must adhere.  EganioTalk 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Eganio. We need to include images based on those three elements of a character. I think images should be put for CJ (Protagonist), Tenpenny (Antagonist), Big Smoke (More like a secondary antagonist), Sweet, Cesar and Woozie who are all Major characters. JayJ47 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So only the major characters deserve images...sounds good to me.  I think we can get most people to agree to this, judging from past discussions. EganioTalk 00:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree to it, if it ends this discussion.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, amen! EganioTalk 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. .:Alex:. 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think Eganio's solution (which, I have to say, is basically what I've been saying) is the best way to do it. Croctotheface (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree to this also. So have we finally come up with a decision, or is this discussion still on going? --JayJ47 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Croctotheface, didn't mean to usurp your authority.  I guess I just had to be convinced, is all.  You were right the whole time.  So yeah, let's just go ahead and do it.  We've already got five people agreeing to it, so I think we can call it a consensus. EganioTalk 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I'm going ahead backing up and removing all images of GTA characters I uploaded anyway because I'm no longer in the interest of allowing hours of work be scrutinized and risked deletion due to limitations from copyright. The fact that I was unable to retrieve the vast majority of images from this page, simply because another deletion dateline that I only found out today passed only a few hours ago, was the last straw. You guys will have to find appropriate images on your own as soon as I'm done; it's not very difficult anyway. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems. I understand your frustration, the same thing has happened to me and it made me briefly leave Wikipedia for a time. This whole images business is so very very poor. It seems no one can make their mind up on what is acceptable and what is not, it also ends up changing every week. Although I think your images outside the lists will be safe though. .:Alex:. 08:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure why you should have the absolute authority to delete all the images, which seems to be what you're suggesting.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. I just want to avoid the bombardment of bot messages. - ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  ╫ 09:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about writing fair use rationales to combat all those bot messages?  If we do so, we have ammunition against the nay-sayers.  I mean, isn't that the general idea in the first place, i.e. to justify the use of images?  It seems weeks of arguments over image use within this article have driven people into two camps: "leave some" vs. "remove them all".  All the effort and emotion being poured into blindly challenging or supporting amorphous and ambiguous Wikipedia policy has resulted in the obvious "middle ground" of formulating clear and concise rationalizations for the use of each image to be all but completely ignored.  IMO, it's a lot harder to challenge the use of an image if there is written justification to back it up.  Otherwise, they are easy targets for removal. EganioTalk 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just include images for the major characters (which do comply with policies, and include fair use tags for them) and get this discussion over and done with. This discussion has been on going for several weeks now, and its becoming quite useless, as we are getting no where. Instead of trying to make an effort to include some images in this article or to improve the quality of this article by including images, people are ragging on about policies etc, etc. Please, can we all just agree on something and end this discussion. JayJ47 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Round and round the mulberry bush.... Someone is gonna have to arbitrate this man....  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really understand why you guys are suggesting that there is not consensus here.  It seems to me that just about everyone agreed that the best way to go for the article is to readd images for the characters in the "major" section.  As to why nobody has done it, I don't know, but it's not for lack of discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, I don't know why either.... Someone wanna go ahead and do that then?  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i'm sorry. I didn't know that we had already reached a concensus. My bad. JayJ47 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, all of this discussion over a couple of images in a low-priority, B-class video game article is getting pretty ludicrous, I agree.  Let's just go ahead and do it.  I will work on it as time permits. EganioTalk 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment