Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?

Opinion:no. Advocates for the placeholder boxes tend to phrase this question differently. They say, "Is an article without a photo incomplete? Obviously, yes. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with airing our dirty laundry on the article page." I say, of course, you're absolutely right. But that's irrelevant. Every Wikipedia article is incomplete. However, just because an article is incomplete doesn't mean it's inadequate. We put templates on articles when their incompleteness is a problem that should be pointed out to experienced editors and first-time readers. When an article is lacking footnotes, it's inadequate. When an article has a POV bias, it's inadequate. When an article, has such severe cleanup issues that its content not up to a baseline Wikipedia standard, it's inadequate. But lacking a photo does not in itself make an article inadequate. We don't put garish templates on biography articles saying, "This article lacks information on the subject's life during the crucial missing years between age 22 and age 47. If you can provide information on these years, please click here." -Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we more or less do. expand-section does what you suggest, albeit not with such comic precision. What do we mean by inadequate? Purely things that don't comply with fundamental Wikipedia policies? That would also apply to stub templates. But really this is all irrelevant - no-one is arguing that the purpose of these placeholders is to inform the reader that we have no image. Their aim is to improve the article by soliciting donations of images. --Cherry blossom tree 09:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the objections raised in the overview above is that the placeholder boxes suggest that articles without images are inadequate; therefore, I think the question is relevant. You can define "inadequate" however you like. That's the point of the discussion in this section. I define it like this: serious citation problems (yes), serious POV problems (yes), serious content shortages (sometimes), lacking a photo (usually not).Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I think you're asking the wrong questions. "Should that inadequacy be noted in the article?" is irrelevant because no-one is arguing that it should be. I think more appropriate questions would be "Are image placeholders inherently pointing to an article's inadequacy?" and "Is this an acceptable side effect?". --Cherry blossom tree 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the second part of the question. The first part is still worth answering, as it has been used by supporters of the image placeholders as a rationale for their use.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion:no. Per Northwesterner's definition I would say that most articles are not inadequate without a photo. However, I do think quality photos highly improve articles and soliciting for photos is not a bad thing if done in a way that does not detract from the article in question.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been settled as a matter of policy - Featured article criteria explicitly mandates "images where appropriate" as a criteria for feature darticle status. Images are thus viewed as necessary additions to an article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, featured articles represent "our very best work." Articles that do not meet the featured article criteria are not considered inadequate. -Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The goal is for all articles to become featured article quality. Until they are, they're not good enough yet. They may be good enough to host, but they're still considered to have major problems that need to be fixed. And if they don't have an image where one would be appropriate then that is a major problem that needs to be fixed before the article is at our goal level of quality. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the point -- A "not good enough yet" article is not the same thing as an article with major problems. You can't pretend this has been settled as a matter of policy. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good enough yet is a major problem. If you find an article that is not good enough yet, you should try to fix it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are overstating the imporatance of feature article guidelines Phil. Good Article status does not require photos, and the purpose of good article status is to decide what articles are adequate and which ones are not. In my opinion Good Article criteria is the standard of an adequate article on wikipedia. Feature article status is for the next level up. And not every article is capable of reaching feature article quality by virtue of it's subject matter. Certain topics, although notable, are rather limmited in amount of content.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good articles were created as a benchmark on the way to featured article because FAC was an unmanageable tarpit. They are not an endpoint. And, notably, the featured article criteria (as opposed to actual featured article status) does not exclude articles based on topic. Any article that can advance beyond the point of being a stub can meet the featured article criteria. Any that do not do so have serious problems that should be rectified. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, featured article and good article criteria have nothing to do with whether an article is adequate. Celilo Falls is B-class. Sho Dozono is Start-class. They are both adequate. They do not have major problems. Sho Dozono is a living person biography lacking a photo, but to put a placeholder template on it would suggest that the article is inadequate and that it has major problems. That is just simply not the case. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think the good article criteria on wikipedia (although only a guidline) is an unbiased standard through which we can answer the above question. Since Good Article criteria does not require a photo than I think it is inferred that the lack of a photo does not make an article inadequate. That is the question asked isn't it?Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point "GA does not require a photo; thus, an article without a photo is not necessarily inadequate." I disagree with the corollary "Articles less than GA are inadequate." Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I have trouble agreeing with his point, since Good article criteria EXPLICITLY REQUIRES AN IMAGE. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First, read the footnotes: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles." They are only required if free images are readily available. Second, Don't shout. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Free images are assumed to be available for any living person of any notability. The question is whether we have them on Wikipedia. But because we assume they are available we do not allow non-free images for this purpose. As for shouting, I am happy to stop shouting. In return, I ask that you please not be wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good articles of notable living persons without images of their central subjects: Dan Dworsky, Ralph Bakshi, many more. It took me about sixty seconds to find them. You're a charming fellow.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inadequate is the wrong word. We try to improve every article. Even FA don't lose their  tags.  Double Blue  (Talk) 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're circling back to my first point in this section by trying to substitute a standard of incomplete. Yes, all articles are incomplete. However, articles without an image are not inadequate. The placeholder boxes suggest that the articles are inadequate. Ergo, the placeholder boxes are a problem. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also a plethera of articles on living people granted good article status without photos. And I disagree with the supposition that photos of all notable living people are easily obtained. In my particualar area of interest (theater) which you think would be an easy area to obtain photos, there are a number of what I call one hit wonders who earned a Tony or a Drama Desk Award and the njust disappeared. They did one notable thing and then poof! It's hard to find photos on people like that which are not copywrite violations.Broadweighbabe (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: in most cases no. Per Northwestern and Broadweighbabe. I would like to say that in some cases a lack of photo would be inadequate if the subject is extremely well known such as President Bush or Hillary Clinton. However, it is my opinion that the majority of articles do not fall into this category.Nrswanson (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion:no. Photographs are very rarely essential to an article, unlike a diagram or a map which may convey information that is difficult to put into words. In all but a few cases a photo represents either an asset to an article (if it looks good and helps the overall design and look of the page) or a liability (if it is a poor image and detracts from the look of the page). One of the problems with the placeholder system is that it implies an uncritical box-ticking attitude. We expect articles to be written in good English, with correct grammar and spelling etc, but when it comes to photos we accept out-of-focus, unsaturated, crooked etc images. Visual illiteracy should be as unacceptable as verbal illiteracy IMO. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion, supported by GA and FA criteria: No. The Good article and Featured article criteria state that an article should be "…illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images" and have "…images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject," respectively, but do not make images a necessary element for approval. The GA criteria state specifically in a footnote: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used."

It's trivially easy to find Good articles that are biographies of living people, and lack images of their central subjects. Featured articles tend to be better in this regard, but Austin Nichols lacks a photo; the FA review apparently judged the article to be of excellent quality even without an image, but the "No free image" initiative disagreed, and placed the placeholder image on the page. The FA process has far more credibility in my view.

I would contend that no article that has been approved as GA or FA should have self-referential templates expressing substandard article quality. By extension, "missing elements" that do not prevent GA or FA status should not be noted within any article. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The criteria do not just apply to photos but to other kinds of illustration as well, see Images. Diagrams and maps can be very important - often far more so than photos. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but diagrams and maps of people are kinda tircky.Geni 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Austin Nichols. Hmm last comment on the review made on november 21st 2006. notice something?Geni 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Repeating myself, a photo is like a garnish; the meat is the content. It's nice, but not essential. Fishal (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I’ve got an old, hardbound copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, and leafing through it I’ve noticed pages and pages that have no pictures whatsoever. In fact, I’d say the vast majority of all articles don’t have pictures, including biographical articles. It is still an “adequate” source of information on both the living and the dead. –  j ak s mata  20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion: No. A biography does not automatically need an image for it to be acceptable or adequate for Wikipedia. Some placeholder uses, added by users scraping Wikipedia using AWB to add the placeholder everywhere on every living person's page without an image, sometimes are inappropriate. These additions are without a judicious decision whether the placeholder is appropriate, and sometimes ask for almost ludicrous requests of people who would be very hard to get pictures of or are no longer public figures. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Subquestion: Do the placeholder boxes suggest that articles are inadequate?
Opinion: Yes. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Yes. Nrswanson (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Yes. This is emphasized by the position of the placeholder in the body of the article. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it says it can be improved in the same way the edit buttons say it. Double Blue (Talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And they are distracting. Fishal (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. “No free image” means “this article is lacking an image” which implies inadequacy quite clearly. There's a world of difference between “edit this article” and “incomplete article, if you can add more to it click here”. –  j ak s mata  20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They broadcast a message that there is something wrong with the article. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Subquestion: Is the suggestion of inadequacy an acceptable side effect?
Opinion: Maybe. But given the other problems with the placeholder boxes, the side effects pile up pretty quick. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Yes and no. Per my comment above, in cases where photos are not a glaring ommission (which is most articles) I would say that the use of the image tag is unacceptable by virtue of it suggesting inadequacy. On those articles where a photo could reasonably be assumed as a given then I have no problem with the use of the tag. But I would venture to say that any article that really needs a photo on wikipedia already has one.Nrswanson (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: No. There are a negligible number of articles where the lack of a photograph is so significant that it should have priority over the general appearance of the article itself. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Once users realize that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, they'll upload the image without having to place distracting placeholders everywhere. –  j ak s mata  20:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subquestion: Do past discussions about fair use vs. free images indicate consensus that images are necessary?
Proponents of the image/form have, in a couple places, claimed that past discussions involving free vs. fair use images indicate a consensus that free images are necessary elements of a Wikipedia biography. I find this difficult to accept. Although I was not a participant in those discussions (and have not seen a link to them), it seems to me that the following two positions are logically independent: The subjects of these two discussions seems so divergent, that I'm not sure it's possible to conclude anything useful about prior consensus from the fair use debate.
 * Free images are vastly preferable to fair use of non-free images. Inclusion of non-free images reduces the incentive to upload free images, so it should be discouraged.
 * Free images are necessary to biographical articles.

If I'm misunderstanding the connection, please correct me, with a link to a past discussion that better captures the issue. -Pete (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What you missed was that rather a lot of the oposition to removal of unfree images was due to complaints that it would leave the articles without images.Geni 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you're saying. But I'm still unconvinced that this is relevant to the present discussion. People will have a certain reaction to seeing something removed, even if there's good reason for the removal. That is a special case, and should not be taken as an an expression of the general consensus on whether articles should have images in general. We're in a better position to explore and evaluate that consensus now, rather than recycling something from a different situation. -Pete (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think that discussion is relevant to this one at all.Nrswanson (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion:No I agree with Pete & Nrswanson; these are separate issues, and the inferences that can be drawn from the past discussion about relevant points here are tenuous at best.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion:No per comments above. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Side Comments
Given that none of you appears to have read through that debate let alone taken part in it do you really think you have enough evidence to base your opinion on?Genisock2 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Genisock2 etc: You have now made over 60 comments on this discussion, many of them one-liners. Despite this very high level of involvement, I still don't know what your opinions are! Almost all the posts are spontaneous (usually unpunctuated, mispelled and ungrammatical) expressions of disgust with other people's ideas. Why not stop spewing out this stuff, reflect on your views, write a few paragraphs, edit them properly (using a spellchecker) and then post them? Thank you and good luck! --Kleinzach (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to subpage?
The main page is still 190k long and it's difficult to navigate - especially for newcomers. Would it be acceptable to move this ('Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?') to its own subpage? The page would of course still be open - it would not be an archive. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)