Talk:Greg Pak

Picture
Hi - I replaced the old picture with what I thought was a better picture of Greg Pak. It's more recent, reflects his current appearance (without a beard), and presents an angled profile view rather than a front-on mugshot, which I find to be better for determining what people look like (it may be a bit dark but that can be improved if people think so - I find it depends on the monitor I'm viewing it on). It was reverted with a very nasty message, so I thought I would just see how other people with a more vested interest in this page felt... PermanentVacay (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Hi - just trying to get some thoughts on which of the above pictures is better. Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The one with the beard. He's facing the camera, and has a much nicer facial expression. Nightscream (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The New One The new photo gives a much better idea of what Greg's face actually looks like and it is a newer photo and shows his more current look. Right away, I much prefer the new, current photo.Coaster92 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is for the the new one, same as Coaster, for just about all the better reasons. If it's too big you could pretty easily crop or scale it down. Recon Etc (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * new one  we usually prefer a more formal picture, not a snapshot, especially when the snapshot has irrelevant detail in the background   DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question How is a snapshot defined distinctly from a formal picture? Nightscream (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The new one is preferable - the background is nicer and less distracting, and the fact that it isn't posed is also a plus. Colon el Tom 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The New One SD (talk contribs) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Terrible background in the old pic. So, if the new pic is more recent then the choise is easy imo. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * New one - it looks like you've already found a consensus. Just make sure the picture is fair use - get some independent feedback on it, to make sure. After that, I think there'd bed no further discussion about it. And I'm sorry about the uncivil edit summary you received from another editor. Sometimes people forget that there are other people on the other side of their edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the new one, because it is more current, and because the background is less distracting. Sue Gardner (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Regarding Permanent Vacay's recent message to me: PermanentVacay, I apologize for the apparently nasty tone of my previous edit summary. I will work harder to choose my words in a more thoughtful and polite manner. I perceived a certain intent on your part that at the time, I thought was obvious and self-evident, but in seeing how so many others seem to prefer your photo in this case, I've had to reevaluate this perception, which in retrospect, gives the appearance of not adhering to WP:AGF.

That said, I don't think referring to photographs as "mug shots" simply because they are taken from in front of the subject is a very neutral characterization, since it's more accurate to simply call them "portraits', but I'm not going to quibble. In any event, I hope we can collaborate more amenably in the future. :-)

In answer to the apparent contradiction you wished to ask me about, I agree that people should be bold in replacing photos if the replacement is superior, which was certainly the case with the following examples, and in some cases, I've actually removed my own photos when I thought that those of other editors' were better. I simply didn't see that to be the case with the Larry Hama or Greg Pak photos, because your replacements, in my view, were not better. It was not intended as alienation on my part (not deliberately, at any rate), and I figured that my edit summary was communication enough. All things being equal, it is not my practice (nor am I aware that it is the practice of other editors) to leave messages on other editors' talk pages every single time I revert one of their edits. However, when further communication is appropriate or requested, then I naturally do engage in it, either on the other person's talk page, or the article talk page, as in the case with this message here. Ironically, I've been accused, after writing the occasionally more-length message, of being too verbose! I hope that clears everything up. Again, I hope we can collaborate better from here on in, and I intend to choose my words more carefully to facilitate that. Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I think what I find most unsettling is your apparent arrogance in reverting the kind of edit you say you make frequently. Given the reaction to the photo by everyone else, it is acceptable if you still prefer the old photo better. I recognize that we have different aesthetic tastes in that regard. However, to revert it and also use objective language in the edit is a bit harsh. It doesn't make it seem like you didn't AGF, I think it is fair to say that you actually did not AGF, although I'm still not sure why. Anyway there isn't much point in having this discussion, as long as you realize that your opinion is not always the majority belief, and that you should consider things like that in the future - and consider that even if you disagree with someone, they are just as likely to be thinking that they were doing the right thing, and others might agree. (and you're right, I shouldn't have called it a mug shot, as it isn't literally - but as you saw from the consensus, many people _do_ prefer angled shots to front-on shots. They tend to more accurately depict a person's features) PermanentVacay (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The new photo. Comment: I have somehow become the *photo fairy*, having uploaded possibly more photos for musicians' biography articles than any other editor in this group. (You can find a link for nearly all listed in a link on my user page.) Generally, the most recent photo is placed in the infobox. The same is true of photos with the best quality-- frequently, the two are one and the same as photography and tools to take those photos continue to improve. Frankly, my first response is to tell the lead editors to add more text and then add additional photos in chronological order-- and this way, both photos can be used and seen in the article. Remember also that the photos placed in the text should reflect what is being said in it. More guidelines? See WP:IMAGES. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The two are not necessarily the same, since technology is not the only factor in determining the quality of the photo. The type of camera (simple consumer vs professional-level SLR), the experience/talent of the photographer, the conditions under which the pic was taken such as lighting, movement of the subject and background elements, etc., all create a wide range of variance. I mean, if I take a new photo, and I'm not holding the camera as still as I should, and it comes out of focus, I should still replace it as the new Infobox pic simply because it's "more recent"? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. In any event, this matter seems to be settled, as the Infobox pic has been changed to PermanentVacay's one. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)