Talk:Incheon Women Artists' Biennale

Removal of picture
To reiterate the conversation from my talk page the following are the objections to the picture that has been recently removed. The picture could, quite literally, have been taken anywhere. To quote from WP:PERTINENCE "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." All the photo shows is a room full of people. We don't know who they are. We don't know where the room is. We don't know if anyone in the pic is one of the artists whose work was a part of that years event? Most importantly we don't see any "art." It should also be noted that there are more men than women in the pic. It tells a reader nothing at all about the Incheon Women Artists Biennale. This sentence, also at the pertinence guideline, sums it up "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used." The picture is certainly "cluttered, ambiguous and not obvious" as to what its relevance is to the Biennale. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 16 random unnamed and mostly obscured-from-view people milling around in a generic bland unidentifiable space not only does nothing for the article or encyclopedia, it detracts from the article and encyclopedia. It certainly shows no art or identifiable notable artists. It should not be used in the article because it's non-instructive and irrelevant, and it does not improve the article but rather detracts from it. Softlavender (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not involved with the content dispute, but I am adding input based on the ANI report. I do agree that the picture could had been taken anywhere. Heck, could had been taken where I live in Montreal. I also don't see the purpose of the image, to be honest. People attending the event. It is not exactly notable. Callmemirela   {Talk}   &#9809;  20:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not generic: There's a brick wall, and an overpass on the left. Many American cities don't have overpasses. Again, I'll have to pose this question to Callmemirela: That many Asians gathered at one "random" event in Montreal? I don't think so. And yes, some of these people are likely artists, otherwise, why waste their time commuting an hour from Seoul? The photo shows the popularity and the viability of the biennial. --A21sauce (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would appreciate it if you would stop talking about this image. It doesn't meet any of our recommended guidelines for inclusion.  If you took this photo, then surely you have another one from the series?  If this is the only photo you have, then I'm afraid we can't use it.  This image could have been taken at the art gallery down the street from me.  If this still confuses you, then pick up a basic photography book or take a class.  You will learn all about framing and composition which will immediately solve the current problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it adds very little to the article, but I think that discussions of where it could have hypothetically been taken are not useful and detract from the main point. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Montreal's Asian population at the 2006 census is over 187,000. Once again the generic nature of the pic is only one of the many objections to its use in the article. Yes you took the pic and have a right to be proud of it. There are many other places on the web where you can display it. BTW it does not belong on this talk page anymore than it does in the article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it so that everyone could see what we are discussing. I think that's reason enough. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK . Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insight of Asian population in Montreal. I am certain the population has grown a lot more since it's been 9 years from the last census and I certainly see them daily. I stand by what I said. It seems to offer little insight about the article's subject and it doesn't properly represent the photo's location. I can easily take a picture of Downtown Montreal and say it's New York City, based on the similarities. Regardless, it seems 4 against 1 for the removal of the picture. Callmemirela   {Talk}   &#9809;  22:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's five to one, and the uploader sockpuppeted to replace it, and has engaged in multiple unfounded insults and personal attacks in various venues towards the good-faith editor who offered policy-based reasons for its removal. I think we're done here. Softlavender (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I only counted those involved in the discussion here. Yes, I think this discussion is over now. Callmemirela   {Talk}   &#9809;  23:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This picture definitely has no place in the article. While it may very well be taken at the event in question, it doesn't aid in any reader's understanding of the subject matter given that it's incredibly generic. ~ RobTalk 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The implicit argument of bad faith on the part of the uploader is not good. The picture should be judged on its merits - and on merits alone, it doesn't seem to add anything to the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)