Talk:We Care

Fair use rationale for Image:Whale-We Care.jpg

Image:Whale-We Care.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

Not all list sections are trivia sections 'In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.'

...and one item does not a list make. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your notice is also unreferenced and adds nothing to the article. So what if she has braces? who cares? She also licks someone's armpit. so what? I'm removing also as it's an uncited statement and trivia sections in general make articles ugly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added an importance tag to this section. If you can give me some notability of why this part of the article is important. we'll have it included. Otherwise. it should be removed. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrzej, the mention of the braces is relevant (I also think it's quite interesting) simply because it is/was quite unusual to have a dental aid pushed to such prominence in the medium of music video. The notability was established by a lengthy essay in New Musical Express at the time which I have somewhere in my attic in a box. When I have time in the near future I'll look it out and cite the ref.

It's not a 'trivia section' either way, it's one item of miscellania and I don't agree a single line is unaesthetic to the (already very trim) article.

NME thought it worthy of note, and I think that establshes notability. On that basis, give me a little time and I'll cite the article. Thanks for your patience. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

She also has boots and a lollipop. Should we mentioned that? No. It's not relevant that she has braces, unless you are a brace fetishist or feel bad about your braces. Make a list of famous persons with braces or something then. It's not relevant here. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's notable and will be so cited imminently. There's also no need to be so obtuse. Manners cost nothing. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not obtuse and it's not notable. I don't see how citations will change that, it's a piece of uninteresting irrelevant trivia, that is not more notable than that she has shoes on. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your tone needs a little calming down I think. It is notable, otherwise an article in an RS would not have been written specifically about the braces. Like I say, I will cite this. It wasn;'t about her shoes, that wouldn;t be notable. Keep deleting if you must but when I get the citation then we'll need to go to arbitration if you won't curb your militancy! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So cite it then. Stop claiming you *will* cite it. I still don't believe it will be notable, but maybe the cite can change my mind. Until you cite it and prove your point: Stop vandalizing the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap. What you and I believe isn't at all important. An article from an RS about the specific subject - that is important. I'll get round to it (soon) but I have a lot on at the moment: life, work, Wimbledon, World Cup... Seeking to retain non-BLP, non-contentious material that is merely needing a cite is not vandalism - you know it, I know it. To accuse me of the same is not AGF and doesn't do you any favours in the long run. Calm down FFS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.253 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop spending time claiming you will add sources, and add the source. What you are doing now is nothing but vandalism. It will get you blocked if you don't stop. (Oh, I see now that in fact, it did get you blocked). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a cite for this. So you can all stop squablling now. --78.101.209.245 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section completely. I have no intention or willpower to get into this discussion all over again with the IP editor but my opinion on this matter was stated on Talk:Cia Berg where the discussion can be read by everyone. The IP editor has failed to get anyone to agree with him on either of the two articles that this information is somehow encyclopedic so I'll put forward my conclusion that the consensus is against including it, regardless of the editor's insitence to the contrary. The consensus being what it is now, the burden on proof is on the IP editor to seek to change the consensus before adding the paragraph back. Otherwise, I will consider re-adding of the section to be disruptive and will seek admin intervention. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference, as I see it, is that the information is notable and was cited as per. NME is an RS, the braces issue was discussed in an article therein. Fair enough to take it out (as is shown to have happened) without a cite showing notability, but now there is one. Take it to arbitration by all means. Currently it's notable if NME says it is. --78.101.210.73 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus here appears to be one man saying 'this should go in' and another saying 'not until you cite it'. Now it's cited, there's no burden of proof to do anything, except prove that a 2-page article in the NME does not make the subject of the braces notable. Which might be tricky, but it's doable I suppose! FWIW, I agree with the IP editor that this is worthy of inclusion. Just. --78.101.210.73 (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I really still don't think it's notable, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Now at least there is a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that it's not notable, the same as it was at Cia Berg. Sourced ≠ notable. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The RS says it is notable, the consensus isn't really an issue. I see it as 2-2 anyhow, hardly a ringin endorsement for deletionism. Seek admin intervention as per your 17/8 message? --78.101.141.187 (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't an issue? Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia" (my emphasis). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But I don't think you've established a consensus, have you? two for, two against? Seek an admin. Someone sought a cite, I exhaustively provided one. --78.101.141.187 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only see one for. Possibly the several anon-IP's could be different persons, but since they behave the same I doubt it. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

...and, even though consensus is not a head count, I count three editors (myself included) opposed to the inclusion of material in question. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see two for, the guy in the UK, and me. 3 to 2. A majority, so fair's fair. But 'unanimous consensus'? Quite simply, that's a lie! --78.101.141.187 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And I still think you two are the same guy, based on your behavior, in particular a refusal to listen and a tendency to edit-warring. So I suggest you drop the stick, get yourself an account, and the explain why you are so obsessed with Cia Bergs braces, and discuss the issue in a more reasonable manner, maybe bring in outside views to discuss if it really is encyclopedic or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I again suggest against the addition of this information other than you found someone saying something about it. I'm sure the article had information about the group, the music, and other information as well which you have not added. That kind of information helps someone who's reading get information about the article's topic in question. Just adding trivial information like this does not. If these "other people" would give reasoning other than "it exists", we'd consider your opinion more. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)