File talk:Autistic-sweetiepie-boy-with-ducksinarow.jpg

Title

The title of this image is inappropriate and is not encyclopedic. "Sweetypie" has no place in the title and should be removed with immediate effect. Brendan Heron (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the title and I guarantee no admin will move it. Besides, no one will see the name of the image unless they deliberately come to this page, someone just viewing an article with it will not see the name. Also, see WP:NOTCENSORED. 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The image does a fine job illustrating the behaviour outlined in the article. Oh and the kid seems quite a sweetiepie anyway....Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I approve of this image, and this kid without a doubt a sweetipie :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.157.160.13 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The file name is an NPOV violation. "no one will see the name of the image unless they deliberately come to this page" - then, by your own admission, users will see it. I have seen it and refuse to simply led a huge NPOV vio slide. Dbrodbeck then states that "the kid seems quite a sweetiepie" - this is exactly why the title should be changed. People are not being neutral with regards to the image, and that's why the file was given such a name in the first place. I am surely not the only one who is appalled by this matter. Brendan Heron (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the sweetiepie remark was a joke, one that I apparently did alousy job of expressing. The idea that the image name is an NPOV violation is a bit of a stretch to me. The image itself is fine. If others are "appalled" they will comment here I imagine.Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an NPOV violation in the file name. The name fairly and without bias presents all significant views that have been published about the image in question. Let's move on to more-important issues. Eubulides (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a file name. It's certainly better than Image_132KDL4.jpg or something equally nonsensical. The file name does nothing but help the page contain the image, it does not appear to the reader at all. You may be appalled, but your horror has no relevance as file names are not bound by any policies or guidelines I know of to be NPOV. If you've got any objections based on policies, please raise them with an admin when making the case to move the image. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Resurrecting discussion: I was certainly appalled. I call "citation needed" on the title. --99.242.193.81 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As the file is on Commons discussion about its name here is irrelevant. Please take it up on Commons. Eubulides (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with stated concerns. Sweetness is subjective and no citations are given anywhere to support the claim. Personally, I am beginning to wonder if the person who named this file had an agenda. This is beginning to look like Brian Peppers all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.111.167 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

it's a file name, it's really not important ..and what's wrong with you people..? 22:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I would like to point out that the originator of this talk page thread was banned back in July as a sockpuppet of a user named The abominable Wiki troll. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To the people that have issues with the word "Sweetypie" –— as long it's not negative, that word is fine...  :]