User talk:Cullen328/sandbox/Unseen

Thanks
Thanks for your reply to me and to on my talk page. This sandbox talk page seems a sensible enough place to develop this, if that's OK with you? (I have it added it to my watchlist. Jim: you probably already know that you don't get automatically pinged when someone posts on sandbox talk pages - even your own.)

I had wondered when I hastily put down my thoughts on 'non-free content' images whether or not a validly uploaded commons sketch or painting would undermine future Non-Free Content justifications of a real photo. It seems like you're confirming that thought, thought I think that is open to debate (especially around the term 'equivalent'). If it's correct, however, then this or any other similar well-intended and otherwise laudable project could actually end up permanently weakening an article's encyclopaedic value, and certainly not enhancing it - irrespective of the subject area.

It would be concerning if it then led to the encouragement and use of more interpretative representations. If basing paintings upon photographs and using them in articles is seen as acceptable and encouraged by WMF, then my fear is that their use instead of a Non Free Content photograph will serve only to undermine Wikipedia, not enhance it. I take precisely the same view with well-meant but uncited and unscientific amateur attempts to represent past fossil environments. With people, if there are photos of deceased persons, then WP:NFC photographs should always be the first approach. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Link to Wiki Unseen.
 * Looking at the (previous atm) Asquith Xavier and Mercedes Richards WP:LEADIMAGE, my knee-jerk reaction is WHAT!? That is not "what our readers will expect to see." At least it's not what I expect to see, after some years here.
 * Nick is more eloquent, and I agree with the above, including "open to debate."
 * I note that the Asquith Xavier leadimage has been changed by @Scopecreep to what I absolutely think is a better leadimage. However, according to that pic is a "Getty", and WP:NFCI #10 seems to say we can't use those. Would any of the others at  be acceptable, like the one with the handshake? Or the one with the child:.
 * Scopecreep, this page and talkpage is a continuation of User_talk:Nick_Moyes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a pic here that says "National Railway Museum", that should be ok for non-free. Perhaps it's even under a license Commons would accept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Correcting ping:@Scope creep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yip. It seems to be. I thought it was off the Mirror archive. I know there was a couple taken that day, but examining this image with the Getty image, indicates that seem to be identical. Well spotted.   scope_creep Talk  13:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Two is the one I originally used, and three is a plaque. It is unsuitable really. Is it a revert case?   scope_creep Talk  13:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's another pic under the plaque at 3. But I think the plaque would be good for the aticle (not as leadimage), if there's a Wikipedian who could take a pic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The pic under three looks quite decent with his daughter. It is out of focus slightly but it would do.   scope_creep Talk  07:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would, but IMO the museum-pic at 4 is a better choice for leadimage, equivalent to the one you put in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Questions
I want to ask the question as to whether we should directly communicate with the WMF consultant leading this project to express our concerns and explain the policy-driven rationale for them? (Personally, I think we should) I would not want individual or group actions by a handful of experienced editors here to be interpreted as some form of attack on the art project, or the groups it is laudably trying to highlight.

I would also not want anyone to accidentally create a problem (whether that be for WMF, for English Wikipedia, or for the groups involved in this art Project) by either approaching this image issue the wrong way, or simply ignoring it and letting an issue fester and create problems down the line. There is much potential for misinterpretation and media misunderstanding of editor motives here, so I suggest that engagement at an early stage to explain our concerns would be far better than editors being accused of removing these portrayals in a piecemeal fashion, even if it's just normal editing and maintenance. The key point to highlight is that we're not seeking the removal of all images of someone on a page, but are keen to see articles retaining their encyclopaedic nature with the best photographs available in an Infobox, rather than promoting the use of derivative works or interpretations of them. (I roughed out a few points in my sandbox here when this was first brought to my notice)
 * To whom should we make that initial approach to?  (Marina at WMF seems the best person to reach out to, I'd suggest)
 * Who should make it? (one of us? all of us? Another body entirely?)
 * How do we best get these image and editing concerns across without causing any offence, or disrespecting a laudable WMF-sponsored project and its participants?

Food for thought, but we should think about engaging sooner rather than later, I feel. Pinging &  Nick Moyes (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it a project they have going? I've not seen it being used in any other article. I was never really keen on watercolours as a represention of a portrait. It alway's seems to be a wee bit out of focus.    scope_creep Talk  07:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nick Moyes@Scope creep, yes it's an ongoing project, see and Shanlaun's comment at Talk:Asquith Xavier.
 * Nick, I don't know what the better way forward is. Shanlaun (who added the Unseen leadimages) calls it a "first-ever pilot of Unseen" which could indicate an element of "Well, let's see what happens and what the reactions are." We could give it awhile and see if there's any reply at the talkpage, or not. The Unseen project's reaction could be "Oh, there's a WP-usable photo in this particular case? Great, visual representation achieved, then we'll move on to the next one. After all, we made clear to the artist involved that there was no guarantee that the pic would remain in article-space."
 * I'll probably go along with whatever you think best, have you considered starting a thread at WP:Village pump (WMF)? Whatever route, feel free to mention my views. I'm unaware of any project space or similar for Unseen to leave feedback on. Yes, it's quite possible someone on or off WP will take offense but I see no sure way of avoiding that per Unseens' stated intent, which, as has been noted, is a laudable one.
 * My basic angle here is that the Unseen proposed leadimages at Asquith Xavier and Mercedes Richards makes me react "WHOA, that's an odd choice for a WP:LEADIMAGE." Other proposed leadimages may not, I'll know it when I encounter them. Scope creep, if I may ask, what was your thinking when you changed the Asquith Xavier leadimage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally when I read an article I always look for the image first, to get an impression of what the person looked like. Often the image will give you idea how the person feels. I've have two favourite images on here. One is a photograph of some flowers, on Gerda's page, the other one is a scientist. I will try and find it. It has been sometime since I looked at it. When there isn't an image, I quite it quite hard to connect the information to an individual. I've seen that phenomena before, where folk tried to add a hand draw portrait, a colour drawing, sometimes their own work, other times professionally created, to try to capture them. When I looked at the Asquith Xavier article, I thought the image was poor representation of who he was. Esther Griffith is is a steller artist. Have a look here: for example.l I think if she had done it in oil, it would have been momentous. The project is laudable.    scope_creep Talk  12:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I added a leadimage at Marian Ewurama Addy. There was none, but the article was mentioned at . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)