Talk:Timur Novikov

Infobox Photo
Hello MB, I understand you cropped the picture in Timur Novikov to focus on the person. But, there was a reason that the picture was taken, and layed-out in this way. Timur was already blind at the time, as his eyes might show. Then again his work centered more and more on religious motives, namely icons - which are characterized by a larger area with one color and only a small figure in the center. .. You get the point. So I propose to go back to the un-cropped version for this article. BR --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , Per MOS:PERTINENCE, "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone." If the subject was blind, WP should not try to obscure that fact. If the uncropped photo serves another purpose to illustrate his work, then it can be added in the body of the article with some text to explain the relevance. MB 15:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Should ist not must. If you care so much for this rule, find a picture that was shot as a portrait for this kind of application. My picture does not fulfill this purpose.
 * Your citation was incomplete also, here is the whole sentence: "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." There is no rule, or advice, to crop an existing image to just show the head. This is BTW also a misunderstaning of portrait photography. --Bernd.Brincken (talk)
 * , the definition of portrait is a photo "in which the face and its expression is predominant" or a "photograph, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders." I only included the relevant part of the quote to emphasize that a biography should have a portrait, I didn't think the definition of portrait would be an issue. Also note that "your picture" was released under a CCA license so it is no longer under your control, just like any edits anyone make to WP. 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing with you, so I'm not claiming legal 'control'. You are the one who is eagerly and incompletely citing rules. Please consider the idea of the photographer and do not misuse his work. And what is your mission here anyway? What arouse your interest in this subject in the first place? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please move this discussion to Talk:Timur Novikov. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Above is prior discussion now moved here. MB 16:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We often have to use photos that are less than ideal simply because they are the best we have available to us. While I am sympathetic to the photographer's wishes, I think the cropped version is the one that best illustrates the subject, so that is the one I would prefer. If Bernd.Brincken, or anyone else, can come up with a better photo, I would be open to using it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Illustrate is something one can do to a technical process or concept. A person is always complex and can not be illustrated anyway. There are various articles, a mojority about people without an 'illustration' picture. So why should it be so compulsory here? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From MOS:LEADIMAGE: "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." Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Modifying a picture in a way that violates the photographer's idea, and layout, just to fulfill the infobox concept, might not be what the authors of these guidelines had in mind. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this discussion mentioned at a user talk page, am not involved in this person's topic and usually not in bio articles in general. Hey, all three of you are trying to contribute and do the right thing, and the question is in a bit of a gray area, IMHO. I suggest using the uncropped pic. Because all would agree that having at least that much image is better than no image. And walk away from this. It may happen that someone else will arrive in a year or two and feel it is appropriate to crop the image down, or maybe a different image altogether will arrive. The decision rule that I would apply is like the doctors' oath, "first, do no harm", i.e. if the action would really bother some one person then don't do it. I have applied this with respect to photos of historic houses in the U.S. One time a resident/owner objected to a legitimate photo of an NRHP-listed house, which they experienced as an invasion of privacy, and the photo was perhaps inadvertently revealing about the owner as it showed distinctive vehicles in front. I supported the photo being deleted entirely from Commons, which the photographer agreed to. Despite it absolutely being legal to take and use the photo, under legal right in U.S. of freedom of panorama. Also when I have been taking photos in historic districts myself, and anyone objected to their house being photographed, I have freely offered to them that I would not use any pic of their place if they preferred that. Here, MB and Kendall-K1 are reasonable in their view that the cropped photo serves better. And Bernd.Brincken seems reasonable too and seems to be harmed a bit by this, so I say just use the uncropped and walk away. My 2 cents. I will edit the article to do that, but won't revert if anyone sees fit to change. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)