Talk:Ronald Davis

Location of image
MOS:LEADIMAGE states "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." This is an article about a PERSON not his WORK. If this was an article about this style of artwork then it would be fine to have this as the lead image. It's common practice for the lead image to only be the person. This is also the practice endorsed by infobox artist (see Template:Infobox artist), which says under the image parameter "A picture of or including the person." This image should be in the body section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, however that is not set in stone....In this case the painting is powerful, and stands as a clear introduction to Davis's ouevre; and it works very well as the lede image in the infobox. One of the most important policy guidelines to remember is: WP:IAR especially when common sense applies....Modernist (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not common sense to depict someone as their art piece. I think it's a "powerful" art piece too, but it would be just as powerful in the body in accordance with Wikipedia consensus and general guidelines. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly it is simply wrong to not include an artists work in the infobox...In most cases it is the work; the artwork that is known; not the artist's appearance...Modernist (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The most logical thing do is to get WP:3O, but you seem to really want it to stay in the Infobox. Also it appears you have more experience in the art realm of Wikipedia than me. I'm a political editor and we usually stick to the policies and guidelines pretty stringently because the topics are so contentious, but this art so what the heck. Let it stay in the infobox. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)