| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo
editSteve Orlando contacted me personally about the photo, wondering why I had reverted it back to the earlier one. I replied as follows (copied here for transparency):
- Thanks for asking. It's mainly a stylistic choice for Wikipedia. The Manual of Style for biographical articles calls for traditional portraits, "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". That generally means a neutral head-and-shoulders shot, rather than a more creative or flattering one appropriate for promotional materials. I understand why you like the newer one more, but I think the other photo is more stylistically appropriate for an encyclopedia (rather than for the dust-jacket of your next hardcover). I’ve seen more than a few debates on WP over which of two photos to use, and when there’s a choice between one of someone with their eyes scrunched up with a big smile, and one of them staring blankly into space, the latter wins. It better fits the goals of project.
- The other reason I switched it back is a legal issue. To include a photo in Wikipedia, it needs to be licensed for use by anyone, for any reason, with no royalties, and it seemed doubtful that “User:Comicfan227”, who claimed it was "my own work" when they uploaded it, actually had the authority to do that. And their explanation of the change – because you wanted it – isn’t how Wikipedia makes such choices, any more than the subject of an article automatically gets to decide what it *says* about them.
- Obviously, if you own the photo we could fix the licensing, but... I honestly think the other picture is more “encyclopedic”. On the other hand, if you have a more recent photo of that type, and which you can give away the rights to, I’d be happy to help get that into place, because we don't reject a photo *just because* the subject provides it, either. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- He's uploaded another photo that's a better fit for an encyclopedia article (and is properly licensed), which is now being used in the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)