Wikipedia talk:Historical portraits and pictures

Discussion
''[Copied over from WP:VP/P. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)]''

Thanks for putting this together, I'll read it with more time later. The "Do Bees" and "Don't Bees" is where I stopped a quick read, when I got to: "Infoboxes do not need images. If the image does not help the infobox, leave it out." Many readers and editors probably like or appreciate the images in an infobox, and an infobox seems almost incomplete, to me, without one. An image takes you into the article just a very-split-second sooner, and creates a context in some form. I have no idea if a policy exists or not about infobox images but I wouldn't think it'd be leaning towards the side of less inclusion and not more. Maybe someone is gabbing about one now and 99 percent of us would never know it (the dozens of talk page - does it come close to 100? that focus on making rules and regs here are scattered hither and yon and often double-back on themselves). But if I were writing that sentence it would go something like, to paraphrase yours, "Infboxes usually look better with images, so please add them. If the image does not assist the reader to appreciate and/or context the subject, please leave it out." Is this okay as a rewording, or is there a middle-ground? Thanks again. Randy Kryn 16:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, let's take a concrete example. Just today I removed an image from this version of Vladimir the Great. It was the same image I then chose to illustrate the section on "Modern illustrators' works" with, as an example of what to avoid. It exemplifies all the problems described there: ahistorical, esthetically second-rate, and most crucially, deeply POV-laden in a covert, non-transparent way, as it projects the romanticising nationalist hero-worship of the 19th century on this figure through its choice of physical features and style. I am fully aware that many readers and editors will probably "like" this image, and will find that the infobox "looks better" with it, but I would still very much like to get the message across that such images are not just harmless eye-candy but deeply and unsalvagably harmful to the encyclopedia. So I'm afraid if you were to propose a rewording that might imply an encouragement for editors to include images like that one, I'd have to strongly object, and I'd rather live with the idea that the essay may not meet with consensus in parts of the community than to see its message watered down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The revised "Do's" are from my fingers . I believe that, in general, short positive statements which state a reasonable purpose work well.   The original use of "alt=" for images dates back to days when some browsers did not support images,  or delayed image download until the main page was displayed.  I am ancient.  "Making the infobox pretty" is not a strong rationale for any image, though some GA reviewers like a bunch of images.  Collect (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe there was a misunderstanding between the two of us – one of the entries I had in the original version ("...always include an informative image caption...") was meant to be about visible captions; while in your rewording ("...always use a clear text description...") you seemed to be thinking about an alt= text attribute, right? Of course I don't object against a line regarding those, but I still find the original point about captions quite important. The point is that in any image caption, including those in an infobox, you should never just say "King Jimbo the Great", but always something like "King Jimbo the Great (contemporary book miniature)" or "King Jimbo the Great (portrait by Soandso)". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Narrative images
Sometimes "portraits" or rather portrayals of subjects are part of Narrative art. Seems that should be mentioned, as it maybe a valid reason for using, depending on the circumstances. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Another instance
This has come up yet again at Talk:Hipparchus. See discussion there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)