Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Alt Question 10

The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

<- Question 9 | Alt Question 10 | General discussion ->

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alt Question 10: How should an image quota be treated?

The result of this RfC is intended to be binding for three years. During that time, should the result to question 8 be considered as:

(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

an absolutely binding quota for the images it covers

Support We don't want to be doing this again soon! :) I hope there is no quota. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a quota which may be overridden in the case of overwhelming consensus

a rule-of-thumb guide from which there may be deviation if there is consensus and the extent of the deviation is not significant

Supporting this for now, seems reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Aschmidt (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per common sense. If the article changes we must not be hamstrung to an inflexible arbitrary quota as that would inhibit our improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The future active editors of this article would have more educated opinion on the question then the whole community. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is need for more/fewer, then so be it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the most reasonable choice, particularly given the three-year term. Amarand (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion of question 10

The question presupposes that there will be a quota. It should not even exist in this RFC until a consensus about a quota has been established. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might miss the point of the question. Several of the questions are in the alternative. If the particpants come up with a decent "number" reccomendation (although I agree there will and should be no quota) the editors can use that to solve part of the debate and won't have to debate it any further. Because Arbcom has asked that this article be "locked down," so to speak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make this not a bad idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The participants in question 8 are not going to come up with a number of images, nor should they. Questions 9 and 10 are moot. Dcoetzee 04:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]