Wikipedia talk:Unusual biographical images

Good Articles and images

Per the lead of this essay: "Good articles" are required to have an image (unless it is impossible to obtain one).

Per WP:GACR6 footnote 6: The presence of media is not a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided. This has been part of the GA criteria since April 2018 (diff).

Suggest altering the lead to reflect this. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That's just unfortunate, slightly confusing language. A Good article nominee must meet all six criteria to be passed. Please look at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (look for the part: "If any of the criteria are not met, the reviewer has two options: ..."): if the article can have an image ("Illustrated, if possible"), it must have an image, or it can't become a GA. It's "not a requirement" when the requirement is impossible to meet due to unavailability of media, but if media is available, then it is, in fact, a criterion that needs to be fulfilled for a pass, i.e., a requirement. It is only not an absolute requirement.

Please see Special:Diff/1282472743. —Alalch E. 16:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"Amateur photographers hope to fix Wikipedia's 'terrible' pictures" (BBC)

The BBC recently published an article that may be of interest to editors who find themselves here. The article features a version of the Emil Wakim photograph used at the top of our Project page, as well as the photo of the footballer Kyle Bartley I've just added to the relevant section. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Specific criteria for inclusion: (not defined)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: As far as I can tell, this lovely little project essay does not specifically define "Normal" or "Fine". Part of the interest of this gallery is to show not only poor quality images that we hope can be upgraded (see BBC article mentioned above), but also to highlight the breadth of unusual images (i.e., Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards), and sometimes light-hearted, odd, or amusing images (i.e., Biographical images that are unusual but also highly justified) that are used in this encyclopaedia. "Unusual" means quite different things to different folks (depending on context, culture, and personal preference), as such, your recent spate of deletions seems a bit heavy-handed (to me, at least). If any of the images are offensive, I apologise. If any are truly inappropriate, perhaps we could discuss them here prior to future removal. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
 Note: Restored images. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: Removed images. The onus is on you to get consensus for your addition after the addition has been disputed -- I agree that these are weak examples that do not strongly connect with the language of the essay. File:Joe Colombo (1969).jpg is an image of reasonable quality showing what the man looked like, and there's nothing unusual about it (the pipe does not make the image unusual); File:Francis Greenway Portrait.jpg is a nicely drawn historic drawing showing what this person of history looked like, and the wear and tear is expected for an object of that age; File:Stig Lindberg.jpg shows him interacting with his work, and is of reasonable quality, he looks like himself in it, the pose isn't weird, smiling is normal, and the image is overall pretty good and just fine for a lead image; File:Stolzl bauhaus ausweis.jpg is a Bauhaus Studentenausweis and is a historical document of great relevance for a person notable for playing a "fundamental role in the development of the Bauhaus school's weaving workshop", and the portrait photo is nice and clear enough; File:Gaetanina Calvi.jpg is borderline ... I consider it a weak example because there is nothing unusual about the image for the era that the subject lived in, and the subject is young in it, but not a child.—Alalch E. 15:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've clearly misunderstood the scope and purpose of your project. I do apologise. One question before I head off to other less controversial tasks: apart from one being from 1913 and the other 1988, what's the difference between a Gaetanina Calvi yearbook photo and a Tupac Shakur yearbook photo? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that the Tupac yearbook photo should be in either, as it's also a weak example. Tupac really looks like Tupac in it, and he's a teen in the photo, but he died aged 25 and his appearance didn't drastically change. —Alalch E. 17:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Switching to permalinks

I think that we should add permalinks to captions instead of just linking to the article, to serve as proof that the image was really used as a lead image. —Alalch E. 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense as one outcome of publishing this collection of images will be the eventual improvement of at least some of them. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)