Talk:Superwoman (Kristin Wells)

Move it!
This page should really be part of the Superwoman page. It isn't long enough to be alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Apocalypse (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image
On the change to Image:SuperwomanKWells.jpg...

The current image works just as well for the purpose of the infobox. Changing it is it does not enhance anything.

Further, the edit to change the 'box image and move the current image into the article creates a redundancy — 2 images used to provide a visual basis for the character.

Since the change does not enrich the article, and only one of the image, by policy, would be left in the article, there is no good reason to change the image.

- J Greb (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The new image only shows Superwoman, and gives a much clearer illustration than the previous one, so I think it does ENHANCE the page. Qilinmon (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, that you don't like it is sufficient to just change the image even though the current one meets the criteria for use with the infobox?
 * I don't think so, that's just change for the sake of change.
 * There is no change of information needing a new image, and to be honest, the one you propose reduces information by eliminating context — both the comic and the relation to Supertman — conveyed by the current image. - J Greb (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't an image of Superwoman, that is an image of DC Comics Presnts #2, single character images are preferred over comic covers, unless it is a cover of that characters comic. Unless it was edited to focus excluvely on Kristin, the one I put is a far better choice. As for her "relation" to Superman, she has his S shield, a symbol that is universally known to be realted to ALL things Superman Qilinmon (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat from my talk page:
 * It would have been better if you had made your full argument and waited for a response before:
 * Reverting back the contested edit; and
 * Evaded the protection of the page by loading the image you want over the one that was in the article.
 * You may have been surprised. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The DCP#2 cover showed when the character was introduced. Cover or not, that made it significant to the article in a way a simple character image was not. Also, the typical argument against magazine covers doesn't apply here. A magazine cover showing a rose cannot be used to illustrate the article on rose primarily because the cover is not free, but a free image of a rose is possible. The cover here showed a copyrighted character, so no free image is possible until the character is out-of-copyright. If Qilinmon were not the original uploader I would probably oppose changing the image. Gimmetrow 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a question then: how does Qilinmon being the uploader of the original file important? - J Greb (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Qilinmon replaced an image he uploaded - I tend to give uploaders/authors more benefit of doubt about their own work. Gimmetrow 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Authoring I can see it as "their work". The same for images that are of the "I took this photo" or "I created this image" type.
 * Once we get into scans... it gets a bit grayer for me. Same image, but sharpened, color corrected, things like that, yes, I can see it. But swapping the image entirely, that gets farther from just trusting the uploader. Yes, AGF, but there is still the need to evaluate the change. - J Greb (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the point being made here about an uploader/author. Everything a Wikipedian does is governed by the GFDL; an author/uploader has no more rights than anyone else and that is a very explicit part of the social contract we all undertake. I've learnt that to my cost; even essays you author are not sacrosanct. I feel the DCP#2 cover is the best cover to use with regards non-free policy and fair use law, since it conveys more points to the reader and is typically placed on public view rather than hidden from sight. Hiding T 09:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If an editor writes an article and structures it a certain way, that editor ought to have some insight into the original intent, and therefore ought to get some more leeway changing the structure than some other editor who doesn't know that intent. The original image here has been around since 2006, uploaded by Q but probably from, and now Q wants to change it. Perhaps Q has been waiting two years to find a suitable replacement. I don't see a great reason for the change, but since it's the same uploader I would allow more leeway. Gimmetrow 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your line of thiniking, I merely think it isn't a factor per WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, the wiki process and the GFDL. Hiding T 22:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN says that authors shouldn't act like they have carte blanche to do what they want - it doesn't say other editors shouldn't be considerate to authors' preferences, which is WP:UCS. Gimmetrow 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It can't be WP:UCS because that's WP:NOCOMMON. I'm not sure where we are going here, I think I've already stated I understand your view point, I just happen to fundamentally disagree, and I think that uploading a new version of an image over the top of an image in an article protected because of edit warring over that image is so far beyond the bounds of leeway that I'm not sure why we are discussing it.  You know, you may bring a new ball into the playground, but if the people you play with prefer playing with your old one, what you gonna do? Me, I'd rather do what's best by policy and for the article. On that I can see we disagree. I've learnt that's the way Wikipedia works through harsh experience, almost from day one. Hiding T 08:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are multiple issues here. I happen to prefer the DCP#2 cover to the other image. Also, it was wrong to upload one image over the other while the page was protected over an edit war about the image, and I think we agree on that. I'm also making a third point - some of these lead image disputes occur because the second uploader prefers "his" image on the page independent of whatever it may arguably improve the page. That issue isn't really a factor here because the same editor uploaded both images. Gimmetrow 12:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)