"neither coalition forces nor Iraqi security forces detained, killed, or raped Abu Ayyub al-Masri. This guy had a similar name."
Raped? Is this some sort of vandalism, intended to insinuate that the Iraqi forces detained, killed and raped this guy?
Anyway, this is the second false alarm in a week or so. The previous one was with a top Baath badguy, the one with the red hair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.40.128.194 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 May 2008
Why? I don't see how it fits in with the archiving policy.File:Abu Ayyub al-Masri 1.jpgFile:Abu Ayyub al-Masri 1.jpg from US Department of State wanted photosFile:Abu Ayyub al-Masri 2.jpgalso from US Department of State wanted photos
Changing an image or adding one is changing or adding content, and hence prohibited under WN:ARCHIVE as a content edit. Where there is a redlink, however, then the content has already been changed and the image removed by another project in circumstances beyond our control. Removing the redlink itself doesn't change content since the content is the image, and is already removed. Therefore, removing redlinks to deleted images is permitted under WN:ARCHIVE. Will be Done in a mo. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I disagree (in general) with that interpretation of WN:ARCHIVE. The spirit of the policy is to change an article as little as possible. As long as the red link exists, the image, or an equivalent one might be restored (at Commons or at Wikinews). Once the redlink has gone, no-one will know there is anything missing (without a cumbersome search of history.) If the image is an important part of the story, the redlink text and caption often give some residual information to the reader.
Isn't this why we don't allow Commons Delinker to run here?
CommonsDelinker ripped things out of templates where they can be replaced. Likewise for articles within the 24-hour rule. We do allow it to run, by the way. We just refuse to let it hide behind the bot flag or have Editor status.
When some random reader comes along, all they see is a formatting mess. It doesn't help them. If you really want to have some kind of indication up, I won't oppose bringing in a boilerplate image that says 'this image has been removed' and adding that in instead. I wouldn't be entirely happy either, but I won't be actively against such a move. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)16:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think a deleted image should remain there, as it provides no real benefit other than saying "Hey, we used to have a cool pic here, but it got deleted", which is not very professional to me. I think it would be nice if a replacement was used, but I don't think it's overly important. —fetch·comms01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I like to regard professionalism for an archivist as more about accuracy than looking tidy. I don't see a formatting mess: I see a frame with red text in it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you're a random reader who doesn't understand what a box with red text is, then that very much is a formatting mess. I've offered an alternative to ouright removal that I'd buy into, so yu can hve your historical accuracy without bamboozling readers. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
That seems good enough. Or we can discuss a change to the archiving policy at the water cooler to see if consensus is that images can be replaced, left, etc. or what. —fetch·comms21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done in a mo. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
