This is an archive of past discussions about Natalia Poklonskaya. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I disagree with that. Because it was a specific video that she appeared in that made her famous, I think we are allowed to use a still from it for the purpose of illustrating the video, which is discussed in the article. It can also serve a double purpose here for her real-life photo until we get a free one, but even than the fair use still can remain to illustrate the video (and her appearance in it as of a specific time and place) which made her famous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I've added File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg to the article infobox. Instead of choosing a still where she's smiling (as you've suggested above), I've decided to choose one where she maintains a decent amount of eye contact towards the camera (so she's not looking away), I hope you find it satisfactory. If the fair-use rationale needs tweaking, feel free to modify it as you see fit. --benlisquareT•C•E17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi All. I actually don't remember tagging this image, perhaps I had too many image tabs open, so I've removed the deletion tag. Some thoughts on this though. If ALL she is notable for, in terms of having a wikipedia article, is that her appearance prompted some fan art, then we have an article verging on BLP#1E deletion. If, as it appears, she is notable for MORE than this then the insistence that this image is needed rather than the free one that could be taken, seems hard to support. Some of the fan art is rather good - Peripitus(Talk)11:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The way I see the article has dual thrusts for notability, a) she's a Prosecutor of Crimea, b) she gained Internet fame (which happened due to a video of her being the Prosecutor of Crimea). The current fair use picture is very fundamental towards b), and it coincidentally fulfills a) as well, which is pretty awesome. It would be probably impossible for any free-use (or fair-use) photo to accomplish both a) and b). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Coming from NFCR, this image outright fails NFCC#1. I understand this specific news conference is the one that brought her appearance to the world's attention, but that's something that can be captured by a free image of her in uniform from her placement on. Her appearance hasn't changed in that month since. If she were suddenly out of office and no longer able to be seen in that uniform (which I believe one can argue is part of her appearnace fame), that might be something, but she's still in that seat. So this image is outright unallowed. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
To add - any fan art that appears to be directly based on this video is a copyrighted derivative work and as such cannot be used on Commons. There are some that are not in that Commons category (enough extrpolation from it), but a few that are clearly taken from that. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with your statement that these would qualify as derivative works. These images are not based on the exact imagery from the video, but are the artist's own interpretations of the conference itself. The artworks are not traced from the video image or anything else which would suggest derivative work, and each has a unique and different artistic style; hence, there is ample threshold of originality so that the copyright of the image belongs to the author of the artwork.
As an example: Imagine if Barack Obama held a press conference at the Oval Office, and an Associated Press photographer took a picture and published it. An artist can draw Barack Obama at a podium at the Oval Office without the artwork having anything to do with the AP photographer's photograph. You cannot state that an artwork is a derivative work of a commercial image simply because it appears similar to it. If multiple people take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and one of them happened to do so on behalf of a commercial entity, does that mean that everyone's Eiffel Tower photographs are derivative works of the commercial entity? No, of course not. The creator of the video is the copyright holder of the video, and not the copyright holder of the press conference. --benlisquareT•C•E05:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the Obama thing, there's so many times he's been photographed and recorded at a podium that, unless something unique was in the photo that the derivative work included, it would be impossible to track the original shot. On the other hand, there has been only a handful of videos of Natalia, and one that launchered her to fame. As such File:Natalia Poklonskaya by ASLE.jpg or File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Evan Yang.jpg or File:Natalia Poklonskaya by 薫.jpg are clear derivative works from the original video (hairstyle and microphone placement). On the other hand, something like File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Kriss Sison.png is free and clear outside of personality rights issues (not something to worry about in considering if free for WP.) --MASEM (t) 05:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody can "own" the press conference, and Аргументы Недели-Крым (Argumenty Nedeli-Krym) cannot be the exclusive owner of all visual images of the press conference, simply because they were one of many who were present at the conference and took audiovisual imagery (ITAR-TASS was present as well, in addition to other agencies). Notice the camera flashes during the video? There were at least 3 or 4 Russian media outlets there with still photography cameras, the sidestepping you've done in addessing the Obama example isn't entirely convincing. You cannot say that all images with a bunch of microphones placed here and there in front of her are copyrighted by this agency. --benlisquareT•C•E05:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean, look at the placement of the microphones of the images you've linked; they appear in different angles, and some images (not linked) aren't even in the right order or appearance (a squiggle is not the same thing as "Крым"); the copyrighted video only appears from one angle, and the only way you can surely state that an image is a derivative work is if somebody created a highly realistic artwork based on the video - none of these artworks are. Find me a real-life human being with giant "anime" bug eyes. These artworks feature artstyles that are specific to the artist's own, and they are made based on their own imagination. This is in essence a bad attempt at linking copyright to artists who have provided free-license imagery based on their good faith and will.
Look, Masem, I normally support you in many instances of NFCC, for instance the Kim Jong-un article, however I believe that in this case you are going too far in your assumptions of non-free copyright, and I absolutely must disagree with you here. If you believe that File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg does not meet the non-free criteria, and such a view is supported by community discussion, then I will not oppose to its removal. However I do believe that your claims of derivative work for the artworks, both here and at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Natalia Poklonskaya, are unfounded and unnecessary, and threaten the good will of free-license content. I believe that this is becoming silly copyright paranoia. --benlisquareT•C•E05:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The argument that Argumenty Nedeli-Krym owns the copyright to how Natalia Poklonskaya dressed, looked and sat at that particular conference is rather ridiculous IMO, which is exactly what the artists were depicting. The artists weren't depicting the Argumenty Nedeli-Krym's video, with the Russian words at top left, red AH and an.crimea.ua at top right... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Which ever network took that specific footage has copyright on the few but essential creative elements of the footage, such as lighting and angle. It may not seem like much of a copyright, but it is copyrighted nevertheless. And as there has been only one video of her in a conference, we can immediately identify where these derivative works are pulled from, making them clear copyright problems. Yes, there's a fuzzy line such as the one that depicts her from directly in front compared to the off-angle that I can't say for sure would be a copyright problem but would be enough to keep the image off commons. Not all of these fanart bits are derivative, again, only the ones that appear to include more than just her but the elements of the press conference. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You cannot copyright "the arrangement of a few microphones, a hairstyle, and a uniform". You can copyright still images and moving images, however none of these artworks are specifically and implicitly based on an exact and particular copyrighted work so that they become derivative works. These artworks did not originate from any particular copyrighted image, but instead originated from the idea of the conference which took place, which happened to be filmed and photographed by multiple people working for multiple agencies at that particular time. They share a similar idea, however originality did occur in the formation of these works.
As an example of what would be undeniably and irrefutably considered a derivative work, this image would be considered a derivative work (pencil sketch based on video footage). This image (warning, NSFW) would be as well (painted artwork based on photographic and video footage), as is this image (a derivative of this meme), and this image (derivative artstyle of the Love Live! television anime series).
I believe that this sort of paranoia hurts free content as a whole. If people are going to have their artworks unfairly labelled as "derivative works", then why would there be any further incentive for people to release works under a Creative Commons license? These artists granted OTRS permission to use such a license based on their good faith and desire to share, only to be shut down as derivatives with unsubstantial evidence. --benlisquareT•C•E14:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually, placement, orientation, and the like of a 3D setting is part of the copyright that can be claimed on a photographic/video image made from it even if everything else is non-copyrightable. This is why we can't use third-party photography of otherwise public domain art work - the choice of composition, lighting, etc. are all copyrighted to the photograph despite the work being out of copyright. So any fan art of her that resembles to a significant degree the conference video is a derivative work. And we have to be careful because our goal is to be presenting free content to our end users and we need to be absolutely sure that works are free to make them free. Any chance of a derivative work should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
But they don't have absolute resemblance. Anyone can tell you that. We're not talking about an ultra-realistic illustration like what we had some time ago with Kim Jong-un images, where you absolutely could not deny a resemblance. Claiming that these images are, without a doubt derived from the ANK video is simply outrageous. You know how we usually tell people to provide evidence to disprove a claim? Logically, the converse also applies. Masem, can you provide concrete evidence that these images are derivative works? If you were the copyright holder of the ANK video, would you have anything within your hands that you can show to a law court to prove what you claim? That these images have little to no artistic originality?
Here's another question: Two people simultaneously take a photograph of a deer with special patterns, never to be seen before. Someone else looks at both photographs, and makes an interpretive cubism painting with some form of limited resemblance. Who owns the copyrights? Photographer A, photographer B, or the cubism artist? I keep repeating time and time again, but you keep ignoring it or brushing it aside: ANK was not the only agency there at the conference, and was not the only agency which created visual imagery at that conference. How can you honestly state that, without a doubt, an image is derived from the ANK imagery, and not from somewhere else?
You keep saying that "the few but essential creative elements of the footage, such as lighting and angle" are copyrightable by ANK's video (this is a direct quote from you). Why, then, do you keep ignoring my point that all of these images have differing lighting and angling to the ANK imagery? ASLE owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, Evan Yang owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, and BonKiru owns the copyright to his angles and lighting. What is with this silly double standard that only ANK's angles and lighting matter, and not the angles and lighting of everybody else? Have you not realised the holes within your reasoning? You can't have your balalaika and play it too. --benlisquareT•C•E15:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In your hypothetical case, the painting would have copyrights of both photographers and the painter, with the photographers having separately but individual control if they consider the downstream painting a violation of their copyright. Of course, this also depends on how close the painting is to the pose the photographs got the deer in. If the deer was standing in a obviously way, and the painting captured that, that would strengthen the derivative work claim. If instead the deer was photographed standing but the artist drew the deer lying down and only used the pattern markings of the photos to paint the deer, that's very unlikely to be derivative. This is part of the f'ed nature of copyrights in the modern age but its the case we have to work by. I'm not saying that only ANK's copyright matters, but the video that started this meme was the ANK one, as the angle most associated with any of the video shots that has gotten widespread coverage is from the angle the ANK camera was at, and there's some of that fan art that clearly is meant to be take from that angle. And again, to be clear, only a handful of the images are in any way possible derivatives. The rest have made sufficient interpretation based on the footage to not be as such. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I will now provide a summary as to why the aforementioned artworks cannot be absolutely, concretely and firmly labelled as derivative work of the video footage by Argumenty Nedeli-Krym, so that without a doubt there is evidence to prove that there was not enough threshold of originality and unique work to justify enough originality for these artworks.
Long-winded and verbose explanations
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya by 薫.jpg does not have "Крым" written on the microphone, it has "мрым" instead. The colouring of the microphones are also wrong, and Natalia has a different hairstyle with longer hair that flows toward the rear and differently shaped bangs on the front and sides. It also depicts her body from a top-down view angle, which means that the artist would have required to use his own imagination to draw it, since the angle from the video is at a flat vertical level with her body angled slightly away from the camera. The colour of her eyes also do not match with any video footage of the conference.
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya by ASLE.jpg depicts Natalia with hair that is too short. ASLE intentionally went for a "tomboy-ish" look for this particular image, which would have been a product of the author's own creativity, and not the imagery of the video footage. Furthermore, the uniform has false colouring which isn't even representative of Ukranian prosecutor uniforms. It also features a staight-on angle, unlike the video which has her body positioned in a different direction. The real-life Natalia also does not have blue eyes (her eyes are hazel).
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Evan Yang.jpg features eyes which are biologically and anatomically impossible, which suggests that her likelihood is a product of the artist's own imagination and creativity, and features a fictional blue-red logo in place of where "Крым" should be. It also features a different angle from the video. Her eyes are also shown as blue in colour. She is also missing a nostril, something that is evidently present in video footage.
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya by BonKiru.jpg only features one microphone, and also includes a fictional pen which never existed within the video, or any of the still photographs of the conference. The angle is top down, and the uniform is discoloured. Her eyes are also depicted as blue, which does not reflect what is shown in the video.
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade.jpg has microphones which are in a completely different ordering to the depiction in the video and all of the still photographs of the conference, and the microphones only number at 3. Furthermore, the writing on the microphones, and the general appearance of the microphones also differ. Natalia's eyes are also anatomically impossible in this image, which suggests that her likelihood is a product of the artist's own imagination and creativity. She also is shown with blue eyes, and an artificial blush on her cheeks - during the conference, according to video footage, Natalia remained pale white the whole time, and did not shapeshift colours like a charmeleon.
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya by KR0NPR1NZ.jpg features Natalia with plucked eyebrows (in the video on YouTube and the still photographs of the conference, Natalia did not pluck her eyebrows, and they appear natural), anatomically impossible eyes, and makeup (what do you call them, eyelash rollers or something?) which was not present in the video. She also has violet eyes. These are all unique aspects of the author's own artistic creativity that differ from the realism of the video and real-life photographs. Furthermore, the angle of the image depicts Natalia from below, which is impossible to argue for derivative work as this would mean that a camera would have been placed just next to the microphones on the table pointing upwards towards her, and none of the videos or photographs of the conference show that a camera was placed there, which means that the angle cannot be a product of a derived work. Her skull shape is also neotenic, just like many things within the realm of "anime", and thus does not match Natalia's real life skull shape or proportions, which is realistically depicted in video footage and photographic imagery.
The image at File:Natalia Poklonskaya by LoveChui.jpg refers to the press conference (she's holding the white microphone which appeared in the video), however in real life she did not stand up an pull a "kira~~!" sign. File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Haiashi.jpg also represents the conference, hence the same white microphone, but again, she never stood up during the conference to pick up the microphone and strike a cute pose.
I hope my verbosity has not been displeasurable. I am very certain that the claim that these images qualify under the label of "derivative work" is preposterous. --benlisquareT•C•E15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Support use The use of File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg satisfies all 10 criteria of WP:NFCCP. It or an equivalent image from the same video are vital to the reader's understanding of the topic. and it seems important to the dignity of the individual that the authentic image should be used as the lead image rather than some fabrication. Andrew (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Problem with emphasis on Kawaii and unreliable sources for this BLP
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Mainly it over emphasizes pictures of her as cute Japanese (Kawaii) cartoon images and lacks an image of what she looks like in reality, inappropriate for a serious article on a living person. Also some of the citations are to unreliable sources, like an opinion piece in Bloomberg News and to a youtube video in Russian untranslated.
The TOC shows the article's emphasis:
Biography
Internet popularity
References
External links
The gallery of five Natalia Polonskay fanart sample: Sample fanart of Natalia Poklonskaya originating from Pixiv plus the link there to view full gallery here focuses the article on her physical appearance and "cuteness" (Kawaii); there are no images of her real life appearance. The readers eye is drawn immediately to the many, colourful fanart portrayals. The Bloomberg News reference is an opinion piece, a primary source and not a "third-party reliable source" as stated by Benlisquare. Yet it is referenced 6 times in the article - way more than any other source. It's headline is "Cartoonish Crimean Prosecutor" and at the top over the headline is banner saying "If you were a Japanese man who spent too much time with comic books, would this be your fantasy woman? Source: YouTube". Opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources for news organizations:
Also, barely mentioned in the article, and not mentioned in the lead: "On 27 March 2014, she was promoted to the rank of Senior Counsellor of Justice."[1]
Is this a higher position (a promotion) than that of Prosecutor General of the Republic of Crimea? What is the meaning of this promotion and what duties does it entail? The lead doesn't even mention the fanart stuff, yet roughly half of the article (including the many fanart images) focuses on this issue.
The 4 citations to a BBC article[1] are very questionable as a reliable source for a BLP. The article written by "as found by BBC Monitoring" and is sourced to a youtube video in Russian with no translation,[2] and to an article in RocketNews called "Japanese netizens put reality on hold for a moment, fall in love with new attorney general of Crimea" containing attractive pictures of Poklonskaya gathered from personal websites.[3]
In regards to the youtube inline cite, if I recall correctly the person who added it wrote in the edit summary that the purpose of the cite was only to cite the date the video was uploaded, and nothing else.
"Senior Counsellor of Justice" refers to her rank, "Prosecutor" refers to her occupational position. Rank and position are not the same thing, so please don't get them confused. A tank commander can also be a sergeant, but a sergeant is not necessarily a tank commander.
You mention that there are no images of her real life appearance, however this is definitely beyond our control: There have been numerous discussions regarding a non-free fair use image of her in real life, and such an image that was previously uploaded has since been deleted. It's an unfortunate case that there is no free-license photographic imagery of her available, however this is a sad truth that we can't really solve at this stage. Artists who draw cartoons of her are more willing to release their works under free licenses than media photographers working for Russian agencies (apparently on the Russian Wikipedia, people have attempted to contact various media agencies, but these attempts have yet to bear any results), most likely because these photographers rely on such photographs to make money. Good faith donations are more likely to occur when people are creating works voluntarily, as opposed to it being part of their daily employment, and I don't blame them for that. --benlisquareT•C•E12:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Parabolooidal: Would you like to constructively help with improving the referencing of this article? Because I'd prefer it if you would co-operate, there's no other way to improve sourcing if you don't. Surely you would prefer to see the article improved so that it doesn't contain problems? If we keep the talk to sourcing and souring only for now, we might be able to actually solve this problem.
I have removed all BloombergView citations from the biography section, however I have kept them within the internet section, and removed their tags. The BloombergView cite is an editorial piece, and therefore should not be used to cite biographical information, however this article isn't purely biographical, and such sources can be used to cite information regarding internet phenomena. Wikipedia covers internet phenomena in significant detail (see List of internet phenomena for examples), and Natalia's internet following is one example of an internet phenomenon which is widely covered in mainstream media sources in Russia, China, Taiwan, Japan and elsewhere. Regarding your remark regarding "Source: YouTube", that is only used within that article to show the source for the image, as the author at Bloomberg needs to provide image attribution.
You have added a {{rs}} tag to the Rosbalt.RU citation, however you have not explained why it is not a reliable source in your edit summary or on this talk page. Hence, I have removed your tag. Please clarify the reasoning for tagging this citation.
Regarding the BBC cite, this should not be an issue, since BBC found the topic notable enough to report on the internet phenomenon, and refers to RocketNews24 for information. BBC made the decision for whether it was worth reporting on, and not us; we are just following BBC's lead. Furthermore, RocketNews24's linking of personal websites isn't an issue either; these internet creations were obviously created by, surprise surprise, people. Would you find it unexpected that they wouldn't provide proper attribution for the original creators? Companies aren't creating these artworks, people are, people on the internet. If you look at the articles listed at List of internet phenomena and the citations used, all of the citations third-handedly refer to personal sources for attribution; this is nothing new. Our article on Rickrolling contains third-party reliable sources from CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post and the like, which third-handedly link to Youtube posts and blogs for proper attribution. Again, what is being cited is not biographical information (e.g. "In December 1987, John was arrested for drink driving"), but information regarding an internet event (e.g. "In March 2006, the viral video became popular in Israel"). It is standard for citations relating to internet content to have this form. Regarding the author, if you want to know more about BBC Monitoring, you can read their description here. Sometimes articles write the author as "Associated Press" or "AFP" and not a specific individual if multiple people were responsible for the article, and this article was collectively authored by BBC Monitoring.
Finally, please keep discussion not related to the DYK nom on this article talk page, and not in the DYK nom; article discussion belongs here, and should not clutter the DYK page. I am talking about your comments relating to commonscats over there. Per the Wikipedia discussion page guidelines, I am obligated to delete your comments over there if you do it again. I won't do it this time, because I'll assume that you weren't aware of this. --benlisquareT•C•E11:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Things left unmentioned, and should remain unmentioned
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There have been multiple additional recent occurrences which have been covered here and there, however I've made the suggestion to both Moscow Connection and a few others that it would probably be a better idea to leave them out of the article and not mention it. As I see it, the article works well enough as it currently stands, in regards to the prose balance between each section. These kinds of things are often disagreeable by various editors, and for the sake of the DYK and the overall integrity of the article, we shouldn't let that section grow too big so that WP:UNDUE or WP:CRUFT concerns get brought up again. Whilst explaining how she first rose to becoming famous on the internet is probably significant and important, we can probably afford to leave out things that came afterwards. Examples of things that have been mentioned earlier to me include:
Things that she said during interviews (e.g. "няш-мяш", "Я не покемон!") have become internet memes/online catchphrases in Russia
Videos such as the one by Enjoykin with millions of views (the Russian Wikipedia mentions this)
My suggestion is that it isn't necessary to cover these (some are borderline trivial, whilst with others, the article does fine without them), and would like to implore that others consider not writing about these. --benlisquareT•C•E17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Images removed
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I just removed the 'fan art' images from this article - they are completely unencyclopaedic. Does any other biography on Wikipedia contain amateur fan art of its subject? It seems particularly insulting (and nonsensical) to include cartoon pictures of the subject while having no actual photograph of her in the article - if the cartoons have any value at all, it can only be together with a photograph. Stuff like this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I see I've been reverted, no surprise there. Judging from the comments above, there's a lot of support for keeping this stuff in the article. Apparently Wikipedia editors think that this article - about a government official in a position of significant power, with a major role in a serious political crisis - should focus on how cute a bunch of Japanese and Chinese internet users think she is. Jesus wept.
Would you people treat a major American law enforcement figure in this way? Or is it only Ukrainians who deserve such mockery? Robofish (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Quote: "Would you people treat a major American law enforcement figure in this way?" - Ask Japanese/Taiwanese artists to draw you pictures of the Attorney General of the United States, not us. Ask the New York Times and Reuters to cover it, not us. As Wikipedia editors, or primary job is to write about what reliable sources write about. If people do draw the US Attorney General, and media outlets do report on it, then so will we. This is hardly something that's strange. Quote: "Or is it only Ukrainians who deserve such mockery?" Here, you display your cultural and personal bias. I'm quite certain that the artists involved do not consider this as mocking the individual in question. In addition, since the Russian media is quite involved in a significant portion of the reports, why would Russians "mock" Russian citizens? Despite rhetoric from Ukraine and the Western powers, the territory is under de facto Russian control, and Natalia has mentioned in multiple interviews that she sees herself as a lawperson of the Russian Federation, and not Ukraine. --benlisquareT•C•E04:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of being upset?
Disclaimer: This addendum does not specifically address a single editor, but is a statement towards different people in general. It is written to second-person pronouns for the sake of convenience.
An additional note: Even though I disagree with such allegations, I've seen cases of people claiming that this page is either "sexist" or "demeaning". If Wikipedia editors are genuinely concerned about sexism in the world, deleting reports of related content from Wikipedia and pretending that the sexism doesn't exist does not fix the sexism, nor does it make the sexism disappear. If content on Wikipedia personally abhors you, do something about it in the real world that will actually make a difference, instead of making Wikipedia a personal box or walled garden. This is the thing I don't understand about social justice on the internet - censoring the content isn't going to make the alleged problem disappear, it's just throwing a blanket over it. American independence was born via bloodshed. Women's suffrage was born via civil disobedience. Democracy in Taiwan was the result of resistance against forced abductions and state murders. If people truly seek a change, the last thing they should be doing is deleting things on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet their world view.
This article reports on things that are reported in third-party sources, and that is all there is to it. If you feel that this is a societal injustice, there are many things you can choose to do, ranging from calling up Russian media outlets to complain, street protests, or political murder. Having a gripe at this article, and the contributors who worked towards building this article, is not constructive towards your personal cause, nor is it fair to the people who put effort into creating this article. In my eyes, it's a silly and bigoted injustice against these Wikipedia editors. Censoring this article because of your personal opinions on the objectification of women simply does not make any logical sense. --benlisquareT•C•E04:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Would the parties involved who wish to discuss the inclusion of the images be willing to partake in a DRN? at the dispute noticeboard? (That's if this talk page discussion doesn't work out.) Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why not, if discussion here and at BLPN doesn't work. The discussion hasn't gone very far yet, though, so we can wait it out and let things progress as they are; there's no need for DRN just yet. Once there's signs that the issue has to be taken to DRN, we can go there. --benlisquareT•C•E18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As someone who discovered this today, I don't think it has gone so far that it's needed. Regarding the images, I think it would be better to have a bunch of them to illustrate the subject while avoiding undue weight to one single graphic artist. This Japanese/Chinese phenomenon is notable enough for its inclusion, and we should avoid cultural bias in situations like this. The images' current arrangement is also small and far down enough to avoid taking too much attention from the rest of the article. - Anonimski (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The gallery stays out until this matter is concluded
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
This article is about a living individual and this article is governed by BLP rules and procedures. Until there is clear consensus amongst editors here and on the BLP noticeboard that a gallery is appropriate and not a violation of those rules, the gallery should stay out of the article. It seems pretty clear that a large gallery is a violation of BLP, UNDUE, COATRACK, etc., and I will lock this article if I have to. Those eager to see the gallery in the article must make their case before it stays in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to lock this article, yes. I don't see it as an involved action as I don't see myself as an involved editor. You are welcome to disagree at the appropriate noticeboard and if other administrators feel I'm somehow INVOLVED in an article I just heard of for the first time today, then I will unlock. I don't care what the end result is, picture, no picture, section, no section, whatever. But until there's consensus among editors here and the noticeboard that this is appropriate, then BLP trumps all other rules. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
But you haven't even been willing to engage in adequate discussion within the relevant threads... Have you addressed the points that I have made regarding WP:GALLERY yet in the above subsection? --benlisquareT•C•E19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
How is this relevant? Why is it imperative that the gallery stay in the article while discussion is ongoing? Make your case, achieve consensus, then you can include it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright then, are you willing to drop it here and address the above section? I'd rather if you didn't put all your focus here, since we can then actually work towards a solution. As long as we get stuck with this meaningless discussion about the recent edit war, you and others become even more detached from the actual issues being discussed. --benlisquareT•C•E19:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Because of the recent edit-warring over the inclusion of the images, I have fully protected the article for 5 days. If a consensus on the matter is reached prior the the automatic expiry of the protection, please request unprotection either at my talk page or at WP:RFUP. If a consensus does not develop, I would recommend a Request for Comment to resolve the dispute. Wikipedia:Help desk can assist with this and the other dispute resolution mechanisms if any user wishes to start an RFC but is unsure how to do so.
Why did you protect it with the images out? It may look like you sided with those who started edit warring yesterday. (And I wonder why now. The images have been in the article for over 6 weeks.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That was the version it was on when I got home from work and checked the history to see if the edit-warring had continued from this morning. CIreland (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Which images to choose?
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Since a point brought up at the WP:BLPN discussion and with this edit summary was the claim that the images chosen seemed arbitrary and without a defined selection criteria, I guess we can have a discussion here on forming a criteria for inclusion. Hopefully @Dr.K.: wouldn't mind taking part as well.
My thought is that we should choose images that are proven to be of significance. Two or three images should be enough images to demonstrate variety without being too much; obviously including a giant, limitless gallery of many images is overkill, however only using one image might also be rather unsuitable, as it doesn't adequately demonstrate that there were multiple artists involved, which is something that is cited within article prose. By having at least two images, one image isn't given the whole entire spotlight.
Below is a summary of media coverage and other remarks on each image. Note that only images available on Commons are included; there are various other artworks that also have media coverage, however many artists declined to give permission for the images to be used on Commons via a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license due to various reasons. For example, I was rejected by this Chinese artist because he already had plans in mind.
Proposed selection of images, based on reasons below
Author: Itachi Kanade
Author: phanc002
Author: As109
Would a carefully crafted selection criteria meet WP:GALLERY?
The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
Two or three images are able to adequately explain to the reader what is being written in the prose. Too many and it becomes inappropriate, any less and it doesn't do the job as effectively.
Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject
Captions can be included to explain why the carefully selected images are of relevance. Reasons may include "this image was covered by X, Y and Z media outlets", or "this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days".
and to the theme of the gallery,
The gallery itself is self-explanatory, and a heading would make it even clearer.
and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article).
This is easily done.
Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.
The point being made would be that there are differing artworks with varying styles that exist, because by default the reader would not know this kind of information. We're talking about a new reader who is just discovered this topic, and doesn't know anything else about it. If they only saw one image, he would not fully understand the topic of the section. The careful selection of images would be non-arbitary and non-random, and be chosen via WP:CONSENSUS based on reasoning including media coverage and so forth. Images selected will have significant visual difference between each other - in other words, we don't need a selection of images all featuring microphones, or from one pose, or from one author. If all the images were too visually similar to one another, this would negate the purpose of having different images.
This is just a quick browse, there is more coverage that I haven't included. Other users may feel free to make any additions as they like below. --benlisquareT•C•E07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what questions needed to be asked of me. Itachi Kanade is Vietnamese, I believe. >_> To me the Itachi Kanade and the As109 are locks due to their popularity on news sites and Pixiv respectively. Also proposing... starship.paint"YES!"08:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe the main criteria for inclusion should be whether the image has been used to illustrate the Poklonskaya fan art in reliable sources. See how they did it in the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:ナタリア・ポクロンスカヤ#ネット上のブーム (for every image, there is a link to some reliable source that uses the image). --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that a gallery is nessicary, the section talking about the drawings is a paragraph, one image certanly illustrates what the section is talking about. I weakly disagree with the need for an image at all, it is unencyclopedic fancruft.CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It would only qualify as fancruft if only fans cared about it, per the definition of fancruft. Clearly if media outlets cared about it, then it wouldn't be the case. --benlisquareT•C•E20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, this section would have been much longer than a paragraph if it weren't for people complaining about how long it originally was; that section was actively cut down. If the new point of the day is how short the section is and how it's only one paragraph, then damn, it's hard satisfying everyone now, isn't it? --benlisquareT•C•E21:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My intripritation of wikipdia standards still says a gallery is un-nessicary unless the section grows enough to warrant a seperate article (a concept I might be convinced to support), that said if there are seperate critiques or discussions of different images in WP:THIRDPARTY sources, those images could be included, but as far as I can see only one exemplar image is nessicary. I would like to hear from other editors on this subject, but my reading of the current status of the talk page is that most agree with me. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Note that I don't see a policy link. The WikiProject is just a group of editors who have similar editors so they can collaborate on certain issues/articles and make them better. The other link is an essay. I'm not seeing a policy link. (Though I'm not saying your points are invalid, but people are inclined to follow policy, not what another user thinks is true.) Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm thinking: If a gallery is what's getting people so upset, then why can't we make it like this?
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
consectetur adipisicing elit
sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
This way there's no gallery - one of the points brought up earlier at BLPN was that galleries give extra attention to readers due to the amount of space they take up. --benlisquareT•C•E22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm much happier with that, but still not convinced we need two images, unless there is enough text to sprinkle them into (A WP:WEIGHT issue I have not considered). CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@CombatWombat42: There was more text in the article previously. It was cut down because some users thought that the entire Internet popularity section was "inappropriate" for a BLP, despite the reliable source coverage. We really cannot satisfy everyone. starship.paint"YES!"03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Having only one image would give undue weight to a single artist. In this situation, there is no "the" cartoon that represents the whole phenomenon. - Anonimski (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
To justify different pics by different artists and different perspectives: try (here) decent image captions, naming an artist, where it appeared etc. I think of three, not images for image sake but in context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually saw a report about Maxim Smolev, who drew this picture (on the right), on some Russian TV channel (an interview in connection with his Poklonskaya fan art). And I've found these articles about him probably being one of the first people to draw Poklonskaya: [4], [5] (and [6], [7]). --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
He is among the first: according to Pixiv, he uploaded that one on 21 March 2014. Though, I initially had concerns about this image, because the people who keep mentioning sexism on all these talk pages may have disagreements with this image, due to her pose. I'm guessing that we're likely to have more people complaining if we use this image. This entire fiasco has given me headaches. --benlisquareT•C•E23:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree on that it's an improper image for a biographical article, despite that it's one of the first. - Anonimski (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. I simply wanted to show that there were some images that had been discussed in reliable sources. By the way, I have now read the article, and Maxim Smolev claims that he was the first to draw Poklonskaya, and it seems that he means that this drawing was the first one. He says that he and some Japanese person, independently of each other, uploaded their drawings on March 15, and he claims to be the first one to do it. He says the "Japanese colleague" uploaded his own image "immediately after" he uploaded his to the Russian Internet. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the above drawing (not the cat one) could be captioned as "It was reported that Maxim Smolev was one of the first artists to draw Poklonskaya." starship.paint"YES!"01:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Look: [8]. The comment from March 17, 19:55 says "Сейчас начнётся форс, уже 2-й арт с ней :D А может и нет." (Something like "This is already a second art piece of her. Now, people will attempt to make this a meme. Or maybe not." [Or "People are now going to start forcing this meme. Or maybe not."]) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If we limit ourselves to just two images, the portrait-style ones would be better because they aren't so zoomed-out. - Anonimski (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't even know if two images is even going to work; the climate I'm feeling over at WP:BLPN is that everyone's unsure about having more than one image, so we can't assume anything just yet. --benlisquareT•C•E08:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for my pessimism, the climate I am feeling is that as this is a BLP necessitating a positive consensus to include controversial material, the objectors can effectively block our additions by simply continuing to object. Is this not what is happening in some form at the DYK? starship.paint"YES!"12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The DYK is resting (at least for me) until the article is stable. I believe that en-WP should have a article on her if other languages have it. Perhaps you can create a userspace article for sandbox-like trying how it could look like, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: It's just happened so that the article was locked with the images out. As soon as the lock expires, we have the full right to put the gallery back. Because the stable/consensual version had the gallery. The people who are against including the images will either have to achieve a consensus for removing or prove that the images violate some rules of Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The main point being made by the objectors to the gallery is that the images are sexist/demeaning/degrading/insulting. Clearly such a viewpoint (whether valid or not) is subjective and culturally informed, and not everyone shares it. The only opinion that really counts is the subject's own. As it happens, we do have a record of Poklonskaya's reactions to being shown some of the images in this report from rt.com, citing an interview with an NTV channel reporter. “Oh, my god! I didn’t know about that,” she laughed. “No, I want to be perceived as a prosecutor. And I’ll achieve this through my work." Unfortunately, that's not really conclusive either way: she's clearly amused rather than offended; but she'd rather be taken seriously as a prosecutor than known as the inspiration for anime cartoons. Is anyone with appropriate language skills able to access the original NTV report, which might be more informative on one side of the debate or the other? GrindtXX (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The RT quotation sums is it up. She is amused, but she doesn't want it to interfere with how people see her at work (as a person in a very serious position). By way, a month ago or so she said in an interview that her daughter, who is 9, likes the pictures. (As far as I remember, she said that her daughter kept track of the new ones and showed them to her in the evening after work.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Reverted edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I reverted the edit that removed "since the creation of the post on 11 March 2014." I think this sentence is needed in the lead. Also, the infobox doesn't say the post was created on 11 March 2014. It only says Natalia Poklonskaya "assumed office 11 March 2014". It's important that the office is a very recent creation (has existed for less than a month as of now), and that Poklonskava was the first person in the office. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Real-life photograph, Act II verse 1
Latest comment: 10 years ago34 comments8 people in discussion
Is someone able to email the press representative of Prosecutor herself at pressarkproc.ru and request for a free-license photograph? If you tell them the benefits, I'm sure they have good reason to oblige. I'm asking here, because I don't have the Russian language competency to do it. --benlisquareT•C•E04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, if someone is willing to translate for me, I'll do it. I've done Commons:OTRS requests multiple times before, so I'm quite familiar as to what to do; I just can't communicate in Russian. Since we're addressing a Prosecutor here, the request letter would probably need to be written in fancy legalese and formal/polite addressing as well. --benlisquareT•C•E04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I can do it. Please allow me one day to finish something else, and then I'll get to it. But I will probably need your help to do it correctly. I will ask here. (I think it will be very useful for me to understand how it's done, cause I will be able to attempt the same thing for all the articles on Japanese girl groups I usually edit. I think the chances are slim, and in Poklonskaya's case are probably rather slim too, but it's a good thing to try.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"Since we're addressing a Prosecutor here, the request letter would probably need to be written in fancy legalese and formal/polite addressing as well." ..soooo.. "Hey Baby, can we use your sexy image on wikipedia so that we can all relish in your hotness" won't suffice? ..--Stemoc (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
TRPOD, don't refactor my talk page comments, make amendment suggestions with a comment below, and adjustments will be made where necessary. If you believe that I am unfairly giving you an injustice, you can also create your own fork version at a separate location. Since I have signed underneath, modifications made by you can still be misinterpreted and attributed to me. This is not mainspace, and tables I add here are still part of my own talk page comments. I have had incidents in the past where words not by me have been incorrectly attributed to me, I'd rather not see anything like that ever again. --benlisquareT•C•E01:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The moment you contribute to Wikipedia, you act on behalf of Wikipedia, as a member of the community. Not the Wikimedia Foundation, but Wikipedia. If you view Wikipedia as an account-master relationship like Facebook or Twitter rather than a joint collaborative project, that's your viewpoint and not mine. At least, wait for community consensus on how it should be worded, I'm not going to take the word of one person. Wording it in the inclusive first person also translates more fluidly into Russian, just like how double negatives translate better into Russian.
Finally, your idea of "intrusion" is highly misguided - much of what you see today on Wikipedia is the result of so-called "intrusion", and without it, biographical articles would be nothing like they are today. There have been many productive cases of obtaining personal photographs via OTRS in cases where it would have been difficult to personally travel there to take a photograph. It's a normal aspect of contributing to Commons, and if you don't like it, complain to the overall community. --benlisquareT•C•E01:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The drafts and the whole inane plan are completely unacceptable. You cannot misrepresent your personal intrusion into a an individuals personal and professional life misrepresenting it as from Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, you've convinced me. I'll work through this myself along with Moscow Connection, without community assistance. Thanks for the brilliant idea. --benlisquareT•C•E01:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to get a photograph because we don't need one for an article that shouldn't exist. Any email should really apologise for the unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of her privacy and advise her of how she can make a request via ORTS that the article be deleted, because apparently Wikipedia editors are incapable of implementing their own WP:BLP1E policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Any existing article deserves a photo. Stop whining, we've already told you to bring the article to AfD. Pity it meets WP:GNG eh? starship.paint"YES!"02:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Photo for English Wikipedia versus photo for Commons
Why would we ask for a photo for "English Wikipedia"? Why would we not ask for a photo for Commons that can then be used for Wikipedia in all languages? (Including, relevant here, languages of countries that are not actively engaged in sending warplanes etc to defend against actions made by her office's country - might help a bit yes?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
cause people usually get confused by the use of the words "commons" or "wikimedia", everyone knows the English wikipedia.....if the image is released on a free licence then it will be uploaded to commons anyways by the OTRS agent. Honestly, if its not released on a "fully" free licence, lets not even bother using it as wikipedia's non-free content rules won't allow its use...here's hoping she delivers a "new" (never seen previously) image and not just takes a random image of her from the internet....--Stemoc (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I can assure you that 99% of the world has never heard of Wikimedia Commons. If you want someone to understand you much easier, it's an easier job if you use a more recognisable name. It's the same reason why liquor stores sell alcohol, and not "assortments of ethanol solution with agricultural impurities". --benlisquareT•C•E01:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It was an analogy. Wikimedia is practically synonymous with Wikipedia. Content on Wikimedia Commons is largely used on Wikipedia projects. Sometimes you have to think outside of the "black-and white definitions" world, and realise that you have to simplify things when talking with everyday people. It's officework 101. That said, anything that's worth uploading to Commons would be free license, and if the image we obtain isn't free license, we wouldn't use it anyway, let alone worry about whether it's for Commons or enwiki. --benlisquareT•C•E02:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I am being open. It's for the English Wikipedia. How is that incorrect? Anything to do with Commons is purely secondary. --benlisquareT•C•E02:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I will include a URL to Commons in Russian if her office requires additional information, but it won't be the highlighting point. --benlisquareT•C•E02:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Demiurge1000 has a point. How about requesting "for the English Wikipedia and other language Wikipedias like Russian through Wikimedia Commons". starship.paint"YES!"03:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Mentioning multiple Wikipedia language projects would be straight to the point, so it should be alright. Everyone knows what Wikipedia is. A brief mention of Commons can be done, but it will only be very brief. You don't want to overload someone with a mountain of information so that they lose interest, and so it will just be enough so a grasp of the situation is easily understood. --benlisquareT•C•E04:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's what I mean:
Placing emphasis on "Wikipedia": Everyone has pretty much heard of Wikipedia at some point, and you reinforce its significance with statistics to grab attention. Bam, within the span of a few sentences, you've caught your reader's interest.
Placing emphasis on "Wikimedia Commons": You have to explain what this little-heard-of thing is, why it's significant, how it links to Wikipedia, and then why Wikipedia is a significant thing. You then rationalise that in reality it is Wikipedia that needs the photo, and that Commons is the medium of hosting it. All the while, you're sounding really unconvincing and sketchy since you're trying to sell a nobody-has-ever-heard-of-this website to this person, and saying all these words that puts a yawn to everyone's mouths.
From a PR point of view, it makes more sense to put the highlight on Wikipedia, and then briefly touching on Commons, than making Commons the highlight. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the real world, and in the real world, the difference between success and failure in wooing someone's attention depends on how you promote your idea, and not the idea itself (how good the idea actually is). Even if you have a really good idea, no one pays attention to badly-presented ideas. --benlisquareT•C•E04:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I get what you mean, Benlisquare, and I agree. I just want Commons (and thus, other language Wikipedias) mentioned, even if in passing. starship.paint"YES!"07:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Other language Wikipedias as well? That's the whole point of Commons. Like I mentioned above, one other example is enough ("like Russian Wikipedia") I don't wish for queries like "only approved for English, how come other language Wikipedias also have the pictures", as unlikely as they may come. starship.paint"YES!"07:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
MC says that he's sent an email, and intends on doing it independently of the above. Since it's holiday season in Russia (Victory Day and whatnot), expect delays. --benlisquareT•C•E04:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion
Ohconfucius have tried to remove the whole Internet popularity section and now is trying to remove images from it. Including the one used for the DYK nomination.
Also, I have reasons to believe that he removed the section and one of the images in an attempt to make it impossible to use the current DYK fact (cause the DYK fact must be mentioned in the article and the picture must be used in the article). Because he did the same very thing on my other DYK nomination, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota. (He repeatedly tried to remove the sentence that mentioned the DYK fact from the Kanako Momota article.)
I strongly suspect paranoia has taken hold over sound judgement. As I already said on Moscow's talk page, there is little encyclopaedic benefit in putting in more pretty pictures than is necessary to make the case. One image is quite enough, and five is simply overkill, even if the images are free. There is already a link to the commons gallery, so insisting on having them all in the article is much like placing trivia in the article.-- Ohc ¡digame!16:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I genuinely think they ought to be here, For car related articles for instance you have different images for one car .... and like Natalia Poklonskaya you have different drawings for her.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"an onslaught of anime-style moe fanart" is well shown by multiple (four) images instead of just one, I'd say. There are 22 pictures in the gallery and we are not insisting in showing all of them. starship.paint"YES!"01:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with last two comments. This is a clear case of a (small) gallery of multiple thumbnail images making the point more forcefully than a single large token image. GrindtXX (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, gallery is a really bad idea and shd not be there. 1 image is better. Natalia is sooooo hot and u can see that better in one big image than in lots of little ones. I think u shd use this one: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.41.9.87 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Although that image is representitive of a subset of the images of Natalia, I don't think it is the majority of the images, and that image adds wp:WEIGHT to somthing that may not deserve it. As for her "hot"ness, you are going to need to provide a WP:RSCombatWombat42 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Lead
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I feel like there should be more information about her in the lead. I haven't researched this person and do not know what aspects make her most notable, but there needs to be something more, imo, aside from simply her job title. Important aspects of her career, and I even think the part where people are making cartoons or whatever of her should be in the lead if it's a significant meme. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There appears to be people who want to remove this it clearly has third party reliable sources and is notable, what is the justification for removing it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Merged because it was discussed right above in the previous section. Perhaps CombatWombat42 you would like to reply to Johnuniq and Dr.K. as well? starship.paint"YES!"00:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
CombatWombat42, I did not edit your comment at all. I merely merged it with the appropriate section above. The above discussion is exactly what you are attempting to discuss, on the video game character, in fact, we're on the same side supporting its inclusion. Seems weird that you called for me not to edit your comment but you proceed to delete my comment. starship.paint"YES!"03:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
On articles for Attorneys General of regional subdivisions
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This was one of the themes of the latest AfD, so I may as well put this out there for future cases. Starship.paint touched on this, since it was one of the claims that the nominator, Launchballer, made, but I thought I'd elaborate a bit for clarity's sake. An Attorney General of a region/national subdivision is notable, we have articles for each Attorney General of California, and articles for each Attorney General of New South Wales. There are articles numbering well into the thousands of such lawmakers of states and provinces from the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand. It's natural that we would follow suit for Attorneys General of Crimea under the same principle; the reason why we don't have many articles on Crimean (or Ukrainian or Russian ones, for that matter) Attorneys General (known as "Prosecutors" within the Slavic world) is simply because people haven't been writing about them yet (surprise surprise, on an Encyclopedia project dominated by western contributors). Again, this is systemic bias in play, something that we should avoid here on this project. --benlisquareT•C•E03:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Like I said, all you have to do is take a look at Category:State attorneys general in the United States. I dare say that the average number of state attorney articles is easily above 10 for one state, since there are 13 states under 10 articles and at least 13 states over 24 articles (some have even more than 40+ attorney articles for one state). assuming 10 x 50 states = 500. And how many of these attorney generals have been involved in an international crisis like Poklonskaya? That said, this current AfD should be the last. How can her notability decrease...? starship.paint"YES!"08:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Author: Itachi Kanade
Author: phanc002
Author: As109
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
consectetur adipisicing elitsed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut.png)
.png)
rkproc.ru and request for a free-license photograph? If you tell them the benefits, I'm sure they have good reason to oblige. I'm asking here, because I don't have the Russian language competency to do it. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
..--Stemoc (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
