This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Recount is over, She lost again. She does not meet requirements for an article. She has never been elected to anything and she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, there has never been a discussion about her article. Speedy delete applies -- 2601:2C6:C080:4070:0:0:0:322F ( talk) 00:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
From my view, these are examples of sources that help support WP:GNG notability:
Beccaynr ( talk) 01:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Beccaynr: In this edit, you removed this image with the comment "rm out-of-date image". All images are out of date the instant after the shutter clicks. That's not a reason for deletion. Similarly most the of the text content in the article is similarly out of date, right? We are an encyclopedia, we describe the past, not only the present. This image could certainly be better, but the problem is that we can only use images that are free to reuse and modify; WP:IUP. This is the only one I've found, and I'm reasonably experienced at finding them. If you can find a better one, please do. Until then, we should use the one we have. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.She looks like a baby in that photo, which I fear will have the effect that Beccaynr describes above. KidAd • SPEAK 00:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@ KidAd, Beccaynr, BottleOfChocolateMilk, Putitonamap98, Muboshgu, Stormy160, and HaileJones: The campaign team that I asked for a better image didn't write back, and the campaign is over, so they aren't likely to now. I'll try one more time. Here are the images we have.
I honestly think the first image is just better than the second. I think she actually looks better in it, but that's a judgment call; however it's hard to argue that the image is not simply more clear. Another option is to keep the second image in the infobox, and to put the third image in the Early life section since it illustrates the part of her being an intern for Cuellar, looks like BottleOfChocolateMilk tried that. Pinging recent editors. Opinions? -- GRuban ( talk) 02:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
disparaging lightper WP:BLPIMAGE and it is WP:UNDUE to include a picture of her in 2014, and WP:UNDUE to include an image during an internship with her later political opponent in two elections. The recent image seems most appropriate at this time per our policies, if it is appropriately licensed, because it is contemporary. The sources in the article also do not appear to support the amount of attention that the older images would provide if they appear anywhere in the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia must get the article right.That she may appear "quite happy" in 2014 does not appear to be strong support for how it now appears for Wikipedia to use an out-of-date image prominently to depict her. I do think it is a big deal to depict powerful women as much younger versions of themselves, while recognizing it is not your intent to create a false or misleading or disparaging impression. In addition, subjective feelings of how "good" she looks, or how her later candidacies may add value seem irrelevant to weighing what the sources and text of the article support per WP:UNDUE. From my view, it is sky-is-blue obvious that it is inappropriate to prominently use younger pictures of her in the ways proposed here, especially after the licensing issue is addressed and the contemporary image is (most likely) deleted. I realize you are proceeding in good faith, but I also hope you can consider how attempts to include these images may appear from the perspective of a female attorney and former Congressional candidate, including in the context of reporting about how her age and past internship were discussed during the campaigns. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So Becca and I met at the
WP:BLPN, linked above, where two people said the image should be included, one said it should not be. But one was very insistent that we start an RfC to settle the issue, requesting it three times. So, here, ladies and gentlegnomes, it is, the much demanded, and hopefully final:
Should either or both of the following images (they're basically the same image, one is a crop of the other), be included in the article Jessica Cisneros?
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.Beccaynr ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawing RfC. I'm apparently not nearly as good at neutrally summarizing why as I think I am, so will just link. Apologies to RfC participants for wasting their time. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Recount is over, She lost again. She does not meet requirements for an article. She has never been elected to anything and she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, there has never been a discussion about her article. Speedy delete applies -- 2601:2C6:C080:4070:0:0:0:322F ( talk) 00:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
From my view, these are examples of sources that help support WP:GNG notability:
Beccaynr ( talk) 01:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Beccaynr: In this edit, you removed this image with the comment "rm out-of-date image". All images are out of date the instant after the shutter clicks. That's not a reason for deletion. Similarly most the of the text content in the article is similarly out of date, right? We are an encyclopedia, we describe the past, not only the present. This image could certainly be better, but the problem is that we can only use images that are free to reuse and modify; WP:IUP. This is the only one I've found, and I'm reasonably experienced at finding them. If you can find a better one, please do. Until then, we should use the one we have. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.She looks like a baby in that photo, which I fear will have the effect that Beccaynr describes above. KidAd • SPEAK 00:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@ KidAd, Beccaynr, BottleOfChocolateMilk, Putitonamap98, Muboshgu, Stormy160, and HaileJones: The campaign team that I asked for a better image didn't write back, and the campaign is over, so they aren't likely to now. I'll try one more time. Here are the images we have.
I honestly think the first image is just better than the second. I think she actually looks better in it, but that's a judgment call; however it's hard to argue that the image is not simply more clear. Another option is to keep the second image in the infobox, and to put the third image in the Early life section since it illustrates the part of her being an intern for Cuellar, looks like BottleOfChocolateMilk tried that. Pinging recent editors. Opinions? -- GRuban ( talk) 02:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
disparaging lightper WP:BLPIMAGE and it is WP:UNDUE to include a picture of her in 2014, and WP:UNDUE to include an image during an internship with her later political opponent in two elections. The recent image seems most appropriate at this time per our policies, if it is appropriately licensed, because it is contemporary. The sources in the article also do not appear to support the amount of attention that the older images would provide if they appear anywhere in the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia must get the article right.That she may appear "quite happy" in 2014 does not appear to be strong support for how it now appears for Wikipedia to use an out-of-date image prominently to depict her. I do think it is a big deal to depict powerful women as much younger versions of themselves, while recognizing it is not your intent to create a false or misleading or disparaging impression. In addition, subjective feelings of how "good" she looks, or how her later candidacies may add value seem irrelevant to weighing what the sources and text of the article support per WP:UNDUE. From my view, it is sky-is-blue obvious that it is inappropriate to prominently use younger pictures of her in the ways proposed here, especially after the licensing issue is addressed and the contemporary image is (most likely) deleted. I realize you are proceeding in good faith, but I also hope you can consider how attempts to include these images may appear from the perspective of a female attorney and former Congressional candidate, including in the context of reporting about how her age and past internship were discussed during the campaigns. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So Becca and I met at the
WP:BLPN, linked above, where two people said the image should be included, one said it should not be. But one was very insistent that we start an RfC to settle the issue, requesting it three times. So, here, ladies and gentlegnomes, it is, the much demanded, and hopefully final:
Should either or both of the following images (they're basically the same image, one is a crop of the other), be included in the article Jessica Cisneros?
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.Beccaynr ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawing RfC. I'm apparently not nearly as good at neutrally summarizing why as I think I am, so will just link. Apologies to RfC participants for wasting their time. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)