Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

New version of File:Sayenko suprunyuck.jpg
The purpose of this image is to show what Sayenko and Suprunyuk look like, not to show what a dead cat looks like. This isn't an improvement.  ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Censorship of the image
I recently uploaded a new version of File:Sayenko suprunyuck.jpg (WARNING: GRAPHIC), which was previously censored, but I found and uploaded a new uncensored version because we are not censored.

However, a while after, User:Ianmacm reverted the upload with no explanation.

In my opinion, the file in perfectly in scope and complies with WP:NFCC.

I also recently suggested to move it away from the lead section per WP:SHOCK on talk page.

In my opinion, we should keep the uncensored version Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 19:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said just now at User talk:Ianmacm, the purpose of this image is to show what Sayenko and Suprunyuk look like, not to show what a dead cat looks like. It isn't even the same image with the pixellation removed, it is a completely different image with the uncensored dead cat right in the middle. I am well aware of WP:NOTCENSORED but this has not improved the article at all.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The image is not only supposed to depict them, but their crimes as well. I think it provides more context for the article. And also, just because it's from a slightly different angle doesn't mean I can't upload a new version of it. -- Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 19:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, with @QuickQuokka, and feel @Ianmacm's view is quite valid. We can see the subject of the article (it's the two lads, not the cat) and for the same reason that readers do not expect to be shocked by irrelevant material, the cat can be blurred out without affecting the purpose that the image fulfils. It would be better to have one without any animal in the scene. I believe the arguments laid out in WP:GRATUITOUS apply here. We do not expect to see articles about murderers or rapists with images of their dead or sexually violated victims included - especially when that murdered victim is not the subject of the article.
 * If the subject of the article was Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and their cat, then we might be having a different discussion about rationale and image use. But it isn't. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the non-pixellated image is unnecessary. This is not censorship. Instead, it is good editorial judgment. The article is about people who killed at least 21 people, and the killing of a cat is incidental. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I came up with the optimal solution: Why is the dead cat there in the first place? As User:Ianmacm said, the purpose of the photo is not to show the dead cat, but the criminals. So I cropped it to show just their faces (and a bit of the censored cat on the left). Cheers, -- Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 23:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, this is minimal use (using the least amount of the copyrighted material possible) I think. Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 23:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should replace it with something like uk:File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs in Court 2.jpg, as it also depicts Hanzha and does not depict any dead cats. Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 23:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I would not put Hanzha in the infobox image. He took part in some of the robberies that preceded the murders, but all of the animal cruelty and murders were the work of Sayenko and Suprunyuk. Hanzha was only a fringe figure in these crimes.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)