Talk:British Rail D0260

We don't have a photograph of this locomotive - what to do?
The solution proffered so far seems to be to include a photograph of an model which, allowing for scale, is notably narrow gauge. This is not a good solution.

This photograph is NOT OF THE SUBJECT. It should therefore be disqualified as the main image.

A bad photograph is often worse than no photograph. It's not absolutely necessary. Most readers have Google images and can find their own if they need to. Tony May (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So upload a photo of the original first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy, can you address the point made rather than making a facetious comment? How is a photo not of the subject better than no photo at all?  Tony May (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How is no photograph at all possibly better than a photograph, albeit of an accurate model? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for actually responding. A photograph of an accurate model would be good, if we had one.  Unfortunately this one is OO narrow gauge.  The fundamental point otherwise is that no photograph is fundamentally honest.  Having a photo not of the subject is fundamentally dishonest.  The model photograph can go in the article under the model section, fine.  We wouldn't illustrate (say) Helen M. Laird with a photograph of a woman who looks a bit like her.  So why is this being attempted here?  The main photo needs to be of the subject.  If we don't have one then that's hard cheese, and we will have to wait until one is available.  That might be 2 years, it might be 20 years, who knows? Tony May (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for actually responding."  Knock off the patronising crap, Tony, you had a reply in two hours and we've been waiting days while you ignore the ANI thread as to whether you should be editing here at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Has anybody considered looking through contemporary railway press - such as The Railway Magazine or Modern Railways - to see if they had an article? If so, there will probably be a photo with it; scan that in. It will probably be copyright, so upload to Wikipedia (not Commons) providing a WP:FUR at the same time, also ensuring that all ten WP:NFCC criteria are met. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's plenty, but having a copy to hand in scannable condition is another thing. Besides which, such a photo would be small, B&W and halftoned, so not of adequate quality for Tony. Then there's the problem of WP vs. NFC, which just isn't worth the trouble. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful comment Redrose64. My thoughts, bulleted:


 * A small black and white picture, particularly a promotional shot, if available, would be ideal if you can get it past the lawyers.


 * As for such an article being "not of adequate quality for Tony" - this is an insinuation by Andy that I'm trying to WP:OWN the article or its content. I am happy to confirm that this is not the case.  But I don't want to make a big deal of this offensive insinuation as it distracts from the productive policy-related discussion we can have here.
 * I am also happy to confirm my belief that a photograph of the locomotive, rather than a model of it, at whatever resolution and with whatever technical flaws, will be better than a photograph which is not of the subject.
 * Unfortunately we don't have such a photograph, so that's currently a hypothetical situation and the current discussion is about having no photo v. having one not of the subject.
 * I also note that user:Jeni has not restored the narrow gauge model photo and insisted that first we reach consensus on the talk page. I am happy to do so, as I have always done.  I am not impressed by her continued confrontational behaviour, but again I don't want to make too much of it.

Tony May (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the model was fundamentally different to the subject article, it would be inappropriate to include, but the image in use is representative of how the real thing looked. A picture of the real thing would be preferable, but in the absence of one, the current image is fine and it is not fundamentally dishonest to use as suggested. Bow1s53 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * user:Bow1s53 - I note that you started editing in December 2018, made 10 trivial edits, then became dormant for several months, returning and making a beeline straight for this talk page. Unfortunately, this does make you look very much like a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Tony May (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because you are picking fights with seemingly everyone doesn't give you the right to run around and make false accusations. You have ended up in the hole you are in because you want to fight with everyone and listen to no-one. I only have one account, your accusation is without foundation. For what it's worth, I have come across an image of the subject matter, not that it would meet the high standards that you seem to think everybody should meet, but based on your rudeness, I shall not be uploading.
 * I don't know which is worse; your constant bullying of other editors, or the sitting on the fence by Wikipedia's administrators when your continued rudeness is brought to their attention. Bow1s53 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. To clarify, it is the photograph that needs to meet basic standards, as set out in the WP:MOS (see below). Tony May (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES - various quotes that do not seemingly apply to this article
I've gone through MOS:IMAGES, (and that is not perfect by any means) but I wanted to share these relevant quotes. None of this is what I've written. I find it difficult to disagree with any of it however. I am also not cherry picking quotes:


 * 1)  "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."
 * 2)  "not every article needs images"
 * 3) "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate"
 * 4)  "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value"

And from MOS:LEADIMAGES:


 * 1) "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page."


 * 1)  "The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there."
 * 2)  "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

It seems that "consensus" is being used to override the WP:MOS. Perhaps someone could address these points and either say why (1) the WP:MOS doesn't apply to this article or (2) why the WP:MOS is in fact wrong. The alternative is in fact that not including a lead image of something we don't have an image of is in fact the only appropriate course of action.

I'd be grateful if people tried to keep their comments on topic. Tony May (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Addressed here. Copy/pasting the same argument across multiple articles is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response user:VQuakr; actually I think both articles, although broadly similar insofar as we have a prominent photograph which is not the subject, are in fact slightly different. There are additional copyright issues with the use of the model photograph, for example.  I think further discussion is needed here.  Tony May (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest a query be made at WP:IMAGEHELP for the copyright question? Copyright restrictions on an image of a model is pretty specialized so getting help there would be good. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. VQuakr - The fact that it is not an image of the subject should be enough to disqualify it from use, given the quotations above. Tony May (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're not talking about copyright concerns, the rest has been addressed at the other page. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With all the respect that I can muster, User:VQuakr, the only thing that has been addressed at the other page is a truly bizarre attempt to derail the conversation by talking about cupcakes. Tony May (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)