Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Image & archiving issues

Yep, it's a meme (deserving its [near-to] "Keep" at RfD)!
New Yorker Mitt Romney Cover: Magazine Shows Candidate Driving With Rick Santorum In A Doghouse--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huff Po link appears to be broken. Here is a WSJ link to that New Yorker cover: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/05/new-yorker-cover-santorum-rides-on-romneys-car-roof/ Debbie W. 12:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Debbie; I fixed the link!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh - and here's more on Collins's, um, dogged reporting. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bo photo
..."chilling"?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Image
There's an interesting discussion here: Talk:Checkers_speech--about whether an article about an event involving a pet (Nixon's Chechers Speach) can feature a fair use image of the animal. (I.e., if this article gets moved, can the image of Seamus stay, even w respect to its Fair Use licensure?)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives
Debbie, what exactly are you doing with the archives? If you continue on this path (assuming the page is not deleted) we will have a long list of archive links, some of which are minor. Why not just archive via the standard archive method? Arzel (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzel, It's a topical archive. Wikipedia allows for either a chronological archive, or a topical archive.  Personally, I prefer a topical archive as it makes old discussions easier to find.  How_to_archive_a_page Debbie W. 03:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should also make chronological archives, so that threads appear both chronologically and topically. It'd make reviewing them easier depending on why you want to read old archives. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * conduct vs. content - To be irritating (as may be my habit? heh - people seem to think the poll I set up immediately above is a bit): I think we should tend to question in specific a single fellow editor or group of fellow editors with suspicion about who edited (commented/&c.) what, when, where, how not on the article's talkpage but (if necessary) (1) on each others' talkpages, if we've good enough mutual rapport, or else, especially if not (2) on certain of WP's many applicable bulletin board pages. So, instead of saying, "Arzel! WTF?" or "Debbie, what--in--the--heck?" we would simply say, addressing nobody in particular, "Hey, do you other editors think we should choose ____x option____ or ___y option___?" (Although I may not make a lot of sense. Been up all night.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC) [Strike comment.]--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Titling and organizing an archive by an editor's name "Material removed by Arzel" seems nasty at best. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As requested, I added a chronological archive. Debbie W. 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, can you now delete the links to the "topical" archive.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)