Talk:Eleno de Céspedes

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Spain

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Combined name (redirect?)

Some books write this person's name as "Eleno(a) de Céspedes", "Eleno/a de Céspedes", "Elena/o de Céspedes", "Elena(o) de Céspedes", or in a few cases even "Elen@ de Céspedes" (using the gender-neutral a/o replacement wikt:@). I don't know if any of this should be mentioned in a footnote, but I suspect redirects should be created from these forms. (I created {{R to diacritic}}s from Eleno de Cespedes and Elena de Cespedes.) (I note for example that Thomas(ine) Hall's article mentions the parenthetical and slashed spellings, which in Hall's case are even said to be most common, unlike here where it seems that usually one name or the other is used.) -sche (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating any of these redirects seems unnecessary. A search at Wikipedia for "de Céspedes" already turns up this article as the number #1 result, and no one would intentionally search for one of the variants you list so redirects wouldn't help for finding the article. As far as in-links from other articles, there's a total of only twelve pages in article space linking to the article, and they use "Eleno"; if an article really wanted to use one of the versions you mention (which seems unlikely at this point) then they could simply use a piped link: [[Eleno de Céspedes|Eleno(a) de Céspedes]] so a redirect would not be necessary in that case either. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I find no reason to remove this image. It was created by an user who uploaded its own work, and I quote again, "editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". This one is merely a imagined portrait of a historical character and therefore features no idea or argument at all. Baal Nautes (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baal Nautes, please don't restore that without getting consensus for it.

I don't follow the argument you're making here. The whole point of a portrait is to give an idea of what the subject looked like. In this case, it's an "imagined" one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I could equally ask you to stop deleting it without consensus.

I don't get how you don't get it, but you only have to read Wikipedia's policies on original images here. About the other thing, many historical portraits are imagined, that doesn't mean anything. Baal Nautes (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it; I just don't agree with your interpretation, as explained above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. I 'm afraid this is a topic obscure enough that I don't expect other users to drop by and opine anytime soon, so I just wrote it in Wikiproject LGBTQ's talk page, as indicated in the dispute resolution list of options. Let's see what do people think. Baal Nautes (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This features ideas of what this person looked like. Other historic images are shown to show specifically how history has treated a subject; that is different than someone who felt like doing a current drawing. I don't see how this image adds anything encyclopedic to the article, and it should be kept out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What particular ideas? And unpublished ones? Baal Nautes (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The particular idea that the person looked something like that drawing. Really, that's an idea. If this were some significant depiction - say, a painting of this person by Caravaggio or a shot of Anne Hathaway playing this character in a film, then that would be telling us about how this person was depicted in history or culture. I could draw an elephant and upload it claiming that it was a picture of Eleno and all that would tell the world is that I felt like drawing an elephant. Not encyclopedic content.. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about the need to improve our guidelines on this. WP:IMAGEOR in particular could be clearer in conveying what constitutes OR in an image.--Trystan (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suspect this may be WP:OR or perhaps self-promotion under existing rules. I know it's a difficult case, because there are no images of the subject, but I think we have to settle for no image at all (or have to find something else).

The OR is in the "imagined" part. Lewisguile (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]