Talk:Fork in the road

message: I could have sworn that when I uploaded the image and put this page on my watchlist, there was a talk page here.  Now there isn't?  What happened to it? ONUnicorn 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the previous talk page?

message: I don't think Wikitionary would be a good move for this article.  Admittedly at the moment it is stubby, but even now it is more than a dictionary definition.  It could be greatly expanded by someone with the background, time, and inclination to do so.  There are other articles on figures of speech such as Standing on the shoulders of giants, Survival of the fittest, Pay through the nose, etc.  ONUnicorn 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, given the precedent i gues i agree with u. am removing the move tag --HellFire 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionary move

message: I'm here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Illustrations are always nice, but in this case appropriately descriptive text of such an obvious concept renders an illustration unnecessary or redundant. If an image is to be put in this article, I would personally prefer a photograph. -Amatulic 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I don't think this is a Wikipedia topic.  Maybe attached to other subjects, like literary illusions, figures of speech, "Directions - geography".  Also, there was a reference to Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 21:20). ....in biblical times nobody had a fork, forks were not invented until hundred's of years later. MissionCreek 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fork" is a word that pre-dates the eating utensil in use today. The English word originates from Latin furca which was used to describe a yoke. Also, other forks may have existed before the eating fork: tuning fork and digging fork or pitchfork may be examples (I'm not sure). -Amatulic 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th Opinion

message: What's this?  An image was removed for the excuse that it was low quality.  Why can't I ask for a better one to be provided? 198.179.243.51 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's clearly not necessary.  The article is reasonably self-explanatory.  We don't need an image to illustrate such a simple figure of speech.  Chris talk back 20:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether an image would help this article is a matter of opinion.  Obviously, if someone (me) took the time and effort to make an image for this article, they thought that it needed one.  Admittedly the one I made is not the best image in the world and you were within your rights to remove it (though a less insulting edit summary would have been nice).  However, preventing a better image from appearing in the article should one be found is going too far.  I took some time today and located the image at right.  It's a NOAA picture, so is clear of copyright and I loaded it onto Commons.  Are you going to stubbornly object if I put it in the article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because it is unclear, and also patently unnecessary.  Why do we need an image here for what is essentially a very simple figure of speech?  It's not as if there is some crazily complex concept that needs explaining here.  It's no good slapping a requested image tag on if nobody knows why it's being requested.  I would also appreciate it if you would drop the victim card.  Chris talk back 03:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What victim card?  I would appreciate it if you would take your own advice and show a little civility for a change. I do not think that the opening sentence is at all clear.  It does not explain in any way shape or form what is ment by "without either of them clearly being a turn off from the main route".  Moreover, I think it is a rare article indeed that could not be improved by some sort of image.  True, it is also a rare article where an image is entierly necessary, take a look at Encylopedia Brittanica's online edition - no images at all except for their front page (unless you are a member) though they do have them in their print edition.  If you think text alone suffices, then why don't you edit the opening paragraph to explain what is ment by "without either of them clearly being a turn off from the main route"?  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your gripe is with the text, then fix the text.  No reason to needlessly insert images that don't actually improve the article.  As for your attitude, stop taking everything so personally.  Chris talk back 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, I think an image does improve the article.  I think an image improves virtually any article.  And I don't see why you think I'm "taking everything so personally".  As for fixing the text; if I knew how to make it clearer I would, image or no.  The best way I can think of to make it clearer is to demonstrate.  A picture is worth a thousand words, after all. Besides, if you want an article to achieve Good Article or Featured Article status it almost needs an image to pass (not that I'm trying to do that with this article at this time) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested image tag 

message: This is a dispute about whether it is appropriate to include an image in this article.  Note this dispute seems to be about the appropriateness of having any image at all, not about the specific images proposed.
===Summary of dispute===
ONUnicorn believes the article would be enhanced by the presence of an image.  On June 21 she created and added Image 1.  When that was removed, she suggested Image 2.  She believes that an image would serve to clarify such statements as, "A fork in the road is a place where one way divides into two, without either of them clearly being a turn off from the main route" and "A fork in the road is not a T intersection where the minor route one is travelling meets a major route at right angles. It may be a Y intersection. One road could be a high road while the other road is a low road."
Chriscf believes that an image is patently unnecessary.  He feels that this is essentially a very simple figure of speech.  He opposes the addition of any image at all regardless of quality.
A third opinion by Amatulic agreed with Chriscf as regards Image 1, and suggested that if an image is to be used, a photograph would be preferable.
===Outside comments===
*I'm not understanding how the addition of an image reduces the quality or explanatory power of the article in any way.  It may or may not improve it significantly, but I fail to see any reason not to include it.  Image 2, being much less ugly, is certainly preferable to image 1 also. siafu 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the article specifically said that it was not a T intersection?  I did not write the text, mearly tried to clarify it with an image. And apparently it is indeed unclear.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...Apparently, I cannot read? Yes, T-intersection are not a fork in the road. In any case there's nothing wrong with having an image in this article. Either one of the two proposed images is better than nothing, but each of the two images has its own flaws. The first image is not as encyclopedic, and the second one is not as clear. I've found some images; see if you like any of them better: . The last few ones are obviously the best ones. Taxico 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like [6] the best (http://www.blindmensee.com/wg/images/fork.jpg). The last two [8] and [9] give me errors; I can't view them. My favorite would be the original high-road/low-road image posted above, if only it would show some of the preceding road to make it clear that the road splits. It isn't clear that the two roads shown join in the foreground. -Amatulic 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like 6.  Are we sure it's ok from a copyright standpoint? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it's at least fair use? :) Taxico 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  According to WP:COPYRIGHT, all works are considered to be copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. That means we can't use any of these images unless the owners have explicitly released them under a free licence. Fair use is also out of the question, because we already have free alternatives to these copyrighted images. There are probably pictures in Wikimedia Commons that we could use. Here's one example: :Image:Gent - B401 begin.jpg.  Why not have a look around and see what you can come up with anything better. And if nothing seems suitable, try submitting a picture request and see what happens. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did look on Commons and didn't find anything I thought was suitable.  I had also put a picture request tag on the page and Chriscf removed it.  Hence the RFC.  I did not, however see the image you suggested there (I was looking at Category:Roads, and it wasn't in that category).  There may well be other images on Commons that would be suitable.  For some odd reason I find it quite difficult to locate images on Commons.  I think it needs a better category and search system.  Oh well.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image RFC 

message: *I'm not understanding how the addition of an image reduces the quality or explanatory power of the article in any way.  It may or may not improve it significantly, but I fail to see any reason not to include it.  Image 2, being much less ugly, is certainly preferable to image 1 also. siafu 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the article specifically said that it was not a T intersection?  I did not write the text, mearly tried to clarify it with an image. And apparently it is indeed unclear.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...Apparently, I cannot read? Yes, T-intersection are not a fork in the road. In any case there's nothing wrong with having an image in this article. Either one of the two proposed images is better than nothing, but each of the two images has its own flaws. The first image is not as encyclopedic, and the second one is not as clear. I've found some images; see if you like any of them better: . The last few ones are obviously the best ones. Taxico 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like [6] the best (http://www.blindmensee.com/wg/images/fork.jpg). The last two [8] and [9] give me errors; I can't view them. My favorite would be the original high-road/low-road image posted above, if only it would show some of the preceding road to make it clear that the road splits. It isn't clear that the two roads shown join in the foreground. -Amatulic 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like 6.  Are we sure it's ok from a copyright standpoint? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it's at least fair use? :) Taxico 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  According to WP:COPYRIGHT, all works are considered to be copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. That means we can't use any of these images unless the owners have explicitly released them under a free licence. Fair use is also out of the question, because we already have free alternatives to these copyrighted images. There are probably pictures in Wikimedia Commons that we could use. Here's one example: :Image:Gent - B401 begin.jpg.  Why not have a look around and see what you can come up with anything better. And if nothing seems suitable, try submitting a picture request and see what happens. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did look on Commons and didn't find anything I thought was suitable.  I had also put a picture request tag on the page and Chriscf removed it.  Hence the RFC.  I did not, however see the image you suggested there (I was looking at Category:Roads, and it wasn't in that category).  There may well be other images on Commons that would be suitable.  For some odd reason I find it quite difficult to locate images on Commons.  I think it needs a better category and search system.  Oh well.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: This article is a good example of what is called original research. While the text is basically correct, clearly the major contributor(s) wrote it out of their heads without consulting any sources. Otherwise they would have not entered into a blunder of "home-brewed" definition: without either of them clearly being a turn off..., which contradicts to some usages, such as "left-hand fork of the road". I trust you can google yourselves and see what it means. `'mikkanarxi 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research problem 

message: The article is about an existing physical object. Metaphorical meaning is secondary. Try to use google and see how often this "non-existent geographical feature" is mentioned in its derect geographical meaning. `'mikkanarxi 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you try using Google?  If you did, you might find not a single reference to the supposed "physical object" (which doesn't exist) in the first 10 pages of results (at that point I stopped - you can go further if you like).  What is there is lots of uses of the figure of speech "fork in the road", and a few titles that refer to this meaning.  The article is clearly about the metaphorical sense of reaching what might variously be called a "crossroads", or a "turning point".  If you can provide some evidence (from reliable sources) suggesting that the term in its geographical sense is anything more than an idiomatic reference to what might variously be called a "T junction" or a "Y junction", it might make a difference.  Chris cheese whine 16:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Click the "what links here" button. `'mikkanarxi 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A google image search  gives results that are about evenly split between an image of an eating utensil sticking out of a road (a joke), and a Y intersection.  Even if the article was strictly focused on the metaphor, it would be important to explain what the road junction is and looks like, otherwise the metaphor is meaningless. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, why are you going around de-linking everything that links here that refers to the road junction?  The metaphor exists because of the road junction.  Without the road junction, there would be no metaphorical meaning to "fork in the road".  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop vandalizing wikipedia. `'mikkanarxi 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Crossroads (culture), which you didn't de-link.  Read the intro to that article.  Like "fork in the road", crossroads is a term for a road junction that is more often used in a metaphorical sense than a literal sense, but the article starts, as it must, by defining it in the literal road junction sense, otherwise the metaphor simply cannot be understood.  A conversation has two sides, now it's your turn to talk. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Mikkalai's comment, I'm bailing out of this discussion, and will not engage in it further.  Chris cheese whine 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The answer to your riddle is "not my problem".  Chris cheese whine 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you are no longer willing to engage in discussion (not that you ever did so without reluctance to begin with) then you essentially leave reasonable people no choice but to see your edits as vandalism.  Such an attitude percipitates revert wars, which are unproductive at best.  I'm sure you mean well and are taking at face value the encouragement to be bold, but it's awfully hard to achieve consensus with a person who ignores all wikietiquette, refuses to leave explanatory edit summaries, only discusses on the talk page with the utmost reluctance, accuses people of personal attacks when such things were never intended or present while being quite rude himself, and "bails out of this discussion" in the middle.  If you are unwilling to discuss issues with us then I trust that you have also lost interest in this article and will no longer be editing it? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content