File talk:Cathay Pacific Entertainment Clamshells.jpg

"Not quite as good for leg room as I had hoped, though."

How is this educational? How is this describing the file? Since nobody knows what the standards the person speaking expected, this explains nothing. Commons:Ownership of pages and files is clear that policy does not grant uploaders the right to dictate what the upload description states, and that is why I'm not dropping it. The Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view states that "neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible"; this description isn't trying to be neutral, let alone actually neutral, and is therefore in violation of this policy. CT Cooper · talk 10:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly stated as a personal opinion, as clearly expressed by words like "I had hoped". I do not own the page (or own the file anymore, I donated it), but I am of the opinion that Commons should not "clean up" descriptions on the basis that people might be offended or influenced by an opinion that is clearly not an attack or a slur. I also note the policy part - right at the start - that says that Commons "do[es] not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view". No part of my description could be considered to "constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation" - at most, it comes across as "well, he didn't like their seats very much", and we don't have a responsibility to Cathay Pacific's PR department. I am happy to edit the description somewhat, explaining the context - mainly that I have extremely long legs, and that one of the key selling points of the clamshell seat advertising was their extended legroom. Which wasn't really available to any degree that helped. Ingolfson (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In short, I feel that you are using a policy intended to prevent Commons from being used for serious disruption or actions like personal or ethnic attacks to support a deletion on a minor point about which reasonable people can disagree. I wouldn't even care so much about the bloody sentence you are wanting to delete, except that I think Commons should remain flexible enough to allow those minor variations, and that it is not good practice to "enforce the rules" (as one perceives them) on such minor elements when they conflict with the opinions of other users - sweating the very small stuff in that way in my opinion fosters a culture of ever-stricter norms and rules which is not conducive to the project. If you still believe strongly in the matter, you are free to take this to a wider discussion, and if any sort of consensus comes out of that, I will of course accept that. Ingolfson (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was an attack or a slur as that is obviously an exaggeration in this case - at worse it is a criticism of the airline, but my point is that it is not neutral, it is not describing what the file shows which is what the description is supposed to do, and does not tell the reader anything helpful. The argument that its trivial applies as much to those insisting it should remain as much as those trying to remove it - I myself, was not expecting to be reverted. A great deal of flexibility is given in file uploads and descriptions, but even if this appears trivial on its own, allowing personal opinions in file descriptions crosses a distinct line of moving outside the purpose of Commons and may therefore set a problematic precedent.

Although I think the policy could be clearer, I don't accept the above interpretations of policy as I think they are misreading it. The bit right at the start is talking about files themselves, not text associated with them, and so is irrelevant. However, putting that observation aside, what it is saying in short is that files don't have to be neutral (e.g. government propaganda is acceptable) and that settling disputes on what flag, maps is correct e.t.c. is outside the scope of this project.

The part of the policy related to text states that it may not be possible to always be neutral - which is clearly not an issue here, as I achieved it. It then states that neutrality should be aimed at, which is what my change was based on. The clause following this does not undermine that justification because it does not state that language has to "constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation" to be in violation - it just clarifies that this is particularly unacceptable.

One suggestion I can make is that if a comment over the legroom is desired, it can be done as simple factual statement which would be neutral and helpful to the reader at the same time e.g. how the seats recline, and what the seat pitch is. Since this image is about the seats that is within the scope of a file description, and clearly a great deal of flexibility is still given.

As for raising the issue elsewhere, there may be a case for more clearly clarifying what is and isn't acceptable in file descriptions. For this particular case, I might ask for a third opinion if necessary. CT Cooper · talk 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded and extended the description in an attempt to "neutralise" it. Ingolfson (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The new wording is a lot better. CT Cooper · talk 08:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)