The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Jeffrey Dahmer was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022, when it received 54,931,777 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report12 times. The weeks in which this happened:
@Kieronoldham: In response to your question here: different images have different proportions and as a result will appear to be different sizes; that is normal, and remains the case even with your changes. However, setting a fixed pixel size, and particularly setting a very small fixed pixel sizes, negatively impacts those who have chosen to set a larger default image size, for example due to vision limitations. On the other hand, if you personally prefer smaller images, you can adjust your own settings to suit that preference. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your initial concerns. All images should be roughly of the same size resultingly regardless of original numerical upload img. size. What is seen to the naked eye, as is the case on most other articles including GA ones, is what matters. I do not think default anchoring or tweaking templates, as evident here, produces desired results. Looking at the results of removing "120px" from file templates can be seen to the naked eye.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you can see a difference made by that edit (although what that is will depend on your settings). But both before and after, it simply isn't the case that all images are the same size. Nor is that a particularly desirable outcome - we don't want to be limited by the smallest-size image. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham, regarding your comment here, you'd certainly be welcome to pursue uploading new image versions if you feel that would be beneficial, but having a uniform size is neither necessary nor desirable, particularly when it involves deliberately making images postage-sized regardless of user preferences. Your alternative would be to set your own preferences so that all images display at a small size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Nikkimaria. I hope you don't think I am being awkward. I assure you this observation is nothing to do with myself personally but if you look at both the scale and image quality of the two below images as per removing "120px" from the template (and within two images populating the same section at that) as you left the article, not only the size disparity but also the image quality speak volumes. I just think having a "generally uniform" size of image (regardless of the source) is ideal for everyone - whomever they may be - whether they are Wiki. users or are reading the article for the first time on their Android phone or laptop. I had nothing to do with the uploading of these images, but surely uniform consistency in size should be appropriate.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image quality is not great, but that doesn't change with the sizing. They are exactly the same in that respect whether fixed px or default.
Uniform image sizing is not ideal at all. Some people find images distracting so set their default image size small. Others have difficulty seeing detail so prefer to set them large. Defining a pixel size serves both of these user types poorly. Additionally attempting to enforce a uniform size limits images to the size of the smallest.
You can scale image sizing using |upright= to allow user preferences to be respected. But a single setting will not be appropriate for every single image. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Kieronoldham here. Without adjustment, Tony Hughes' picture looks huge and blurry. It looks neat with adjustment, giving an orderly and professional look to the article. CJC-DI (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that many readers will have no idea how to set image size preferences. In fact, I suspect that many editors of nearly 18 years standing might not know... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'prison whirlpool' common parlance? The cited newspaper says infirmary whirlpool instead, but that is equally meaningless to me. A google search of 'infirmary whirlpool' returns results of therapeutic bathtubs that seems unlikely to exist in a prison. Can someone interpret what is meant by 'infirmary whirlpool' and update the term in the article to something more understandable? Crash365 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crash365. You might want to have a look at Roy Ratcliff. The source over there says: "Still, Ratcliff baptized him in a steel-silver whirlpool meant to treat inmates with physical injuries. “Welcome to the family of God,” Ratcliff said to Dahmer when he emerged." Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
