Support either. Eye-catching, high-quality, and encyclopedic. I'm curious about something: the caption explains the red feathers in her hair (a mark of royalty) but not the thing she's carrying, which (from its appearance in the rest of the set) appears to be some kind of ceremonial weapon, possibly a mace. Would it be possible to track down an explanation and add it to the caption? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support in principle – as an intriguing and engaging human image (Could be cropped a bit on both sides.) However, the person to the subject's left (right side of frame) really must be identified also. –
Sca (
talk)
22:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
We know the person next to her is another member of the royal family. Probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, given she's the only one of about the right age. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C: I mean, it's probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, but I'm not going to be able to provide sources for that other than lists of the Eswatini royalty and identified photographs of her from a few years later. Only royalty is allowed that headdress, though. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI, several other Wikis use a very tightly cropped version with their Sikhanyiso Dlamini articles. It excludes all but the other person's ear, which obviates the ID issue, although aesthetically it's less interesting. → –
Sca (
talk)
16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
We could just say "another member of the royal family" in the caption. I think that part is clear enough. Searching Getty Images for Temaswati finds images of her in similar costume from 2004, 2005, and 2007, but unfortunately not 2006, and the 2005 image shows several other young women also wearing the red feathers, so I think we can't just assume that this is Temaswati. There is also another photo from 2006, but without names; she is third in the line after the leader of the dance and then Sikhanyiso, suggesting that she probably is indeed Temaswati, but again there are quite a few others with red feathers. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Please excuse me for saying so, but from a journalistic point of view, saying "another member of" would be laughably tantamount to saying "and someone else, whose name we failed to get." –
Sca (
talk)
22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is clear that we do not have documentation for the name. Why do you think it is inappropriate or laughable to say so? Do you think we should try to cover it up or pretend to knowledge that we don't have? Do you think we also need the name of the blurred woman in the left margin or the blurred man on the right? Does our lack of knowledge of these things somehow turn this into a bad photo of Sikhanyiso Dlamini, or of the reed dance? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – There is no need for the other person's name. The composition centers on the princess, the other person is incidental to the composition, especially with the blade in front of her face. The article, the EV and the photo all center on the princess. The Alt 1 crop is too tight, the origonal is better, it shows the princess in a group setting, and doesn't cut off her pole awkwardly on the left.
Bammesk (
talk)
03:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Due to lack of ID for second person in photo. I do so reluctantly, but I can't endorse cavalier disregard for established and logical editorial practice. –
Sca (
talk)
13:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm leaning towards opposition while the second subject is unidentified. Perhaps it would be worth putting this on hold while it's looked into?
Josh Milburn (
talk)
19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Armbrust: if this nomination is listed as "on hold" (as it is), what do you mean by claiming that there can be no more supports and by striking the support that was added after it was put on hold? Do you intend that we should continue to keep this on hold until the identity issue is resolved but then go back and count only the opinions that were expressed before it went on hold, even though some of the opinions are explicitly based on the missing information that caused the hold? What is the point of putting a nomination into such a "frozen but will automatically fail once it unfreezes" state? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
TracyMcClark: yes! thank you! I pursued that but I found it really hard to say if its really her because of the age difference and that there are not many pictures of her. Sikhanyiso confirmed it so now we know 100% :) Cheers,
Amada44talk to me11:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fantastic work! We need more Eswatini images at FP, so I'm going to have to dig through your photography, Amada. Unless you'd rather? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs16:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support either. Eye-catching, high-quality, and encyclopedic. I'm curious about something: the caption explains the red feathers in her hair (a mark of royalty) but not the thing she's carrying, which (from its appearance in the rest of the set) appears to be some kind of ceremonial weapon, possibly a mace. Would it be possible to track down an explanation and add it to the caption? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support in principle – as an intriguing and engaging human image (Could be cropped a bit on both sides.) However, the person to the subject's left (right side of frame) really must be identified also. –
Sca (
talk)
22:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
We know the person next to her is another member of the royal family. Probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, given she's the only one of about the right age. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C: I mean, it's probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, but I'm not going to be able to provide sources for that other than lists of the Eswatini royalty and identified photographs of her from a few years later. Only royalty is allowed that headdress, though. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI, several other Wikis use a very tightly cropped version with their Sikhanyiso Dlamini articles. It excludes all but the other person's ear, which obviates the ID issue, although aesthetically it's less interesting. → –
Sca (
talk)
16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
We could just say "another member of the royal family" in the caption. I think that part is clear enough. Searching Getty Images for Temaswati finds images of her in similar costume from 2004, 2005, and 2007, but unfortunately not 2006, and the 2005 image shows several other young women also wearing the red feathers, so I think we can't just assume that this is Temaswati. There is also another photo from 2006, but without names; she is third in the line after the leader of the dance and then Sikhanyiso, suggesting that she probably is indeed Temaswati, but again there are quite a few others with red feathers. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Please excuse me for saying so, but from a journalistic point of view, saying "another member of" would be laughably tantamount to saying "and someone else, whose name we failed to get." –
Sca (
talk)
22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is clear that we do not have documentation for the name. Why do you think it is inappropriate or laughable to say so? Do you think we should try to cover it up or pretend to knowledge that we don't have? Do you think we also need the name of the blurred woman in the left margin or the blurred man on the right? Does our lack of knowledge of these things somehow turn this into a bad photo of Sikhanyiso Dlamini, or of the reed dance? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – There is no need for the other person's name. The composition centers on the princess, the other person is incidental to the composition, especially with the blade in front of her face. The article, the EV and the photo all center on the princess. The Alt 1 crop is too tight, the origonal is better, it shows the princess in a group setting, and doesn't cut off her pole awkwardly on the left.
Bammesk (
talk)
03:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Due to lack of ID for second person in photo. I do so reluctantly, but I can't endorse cavalier disregard for established and logical editorial practice. –
Sca (
talk)
13:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm leaning towards opposition while the second subject is unidentified. Perhaps it would be worth putting this on hold while it's looked into?
Josh Milburn (
talk)
19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Armbrust: if this nomination is listed as "on hold" (as it is), what do you mean by claiming that there can be no more supports and by striking the support that was added after it was put on hold? Do you intend that we should continue to keep this on hold until the identity issue is resolved but then go back and count only the opinions that were expressed before it went on hold, even though some of the opinions are explicitly based on the missing information that caused the hold? What is the point of putting a nomination into such a "frozen but will automatically fail once it unfreezes" state? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
TracyMcClark: yes! thank you! I pursued that but I found it really hard to say if its really her because of the age difference and that there are not many pictures of her. Sikhanyiso confirmed it so now we know 100% :) Cheers,
Amada44talk to me11:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fantastic work! We need more Eswatini images at FP, so I'm going to have to dig through your photography, Amada. Unless you'd rather? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs16:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply