Jump to content

Talk:Nick Offerman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Different pic

[edit]

Offerman went blonde for like two weeks and has been a brunette for most of the rest of his life. Can we get a picture of him that's more indicative of what he normally looks like? pbp 01:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, this is a pretty awful picture. I thought I had the wrong article at first. Beach drifter (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not the best picture of him but it's the best thing to show what he looks like and it's the best quality picture that is available of him right now. If you can find a free to use photo of him, you are more than welcome to upload it and use it. But this is the best picture to help users identify him and as Stemoc said if there is a picture available, it will be used on his profile. The other picture of him at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival is also in the body of the article to help users recognize him more clearly but the first one is a better headshot so that's why that's in there instead of the Sundance one. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way we can get a list of his awards and honors, and his recent book release? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcap0 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for blondie image

[edit]

By my count, there are at least four editors who oppose the current "blondie" image being in the article:

And only two who support it:

As such, there is not a consensus for the blondie image or its derivatives to be there (if anything, there's a consensus for the image not to be there), there hasn't been for four months, and the blondie image should be removed, even if the alternative is no image. pbp 18:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has become quite ridiculous when this isn't a beauty contest, it is simply a picture to identify this person of which the article is discussing. I removed the image of him "speaking" as it is under an ARR license and will be removed but there needs to at least be a picture present. Even if he is blonde in the picture, it's still a way of people identifying him. And the other picture of him at the Sundance is really poor quality leaving the only image (blonde) to be used. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There needs to at least be a picture present". No, there doesn't. Particularly when multiple editors don't want it to be that picture. You talk about "identifying" Offerman. You can't "identify" him with the blondie picture, because it deviates terribly from how he looks in other contexts (for example, on the cover of his book). In short, a perceived need for an image is not enough to override the fact that a majority of people oppose use of an image. The overriding factor here is consensus, not perceived need. pbp 19:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You can't "identify" him with the blondie picture" says you, I knew who he was when I saw the picture. Granted he had blonde hair but it's not like dying his hair blonde made him a completely different person. Per the simplifed Image dos and don'ts it states:"Try to find at least one image to illustrate each article.". So again, there needs to be at least picture present. Just because you don't like the picture because he's blonde doesn't justify it not being in the article LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me alone doesn't, but me and more editors than who want to keep the image does. I'm frankly flummoxed at how you and Stemoc ignore consensus pbp 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You and the other editors are going based off your own personal opinion when I'm going off guidelines. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're going off guidelines, and I'm going off Wikipedia:Consensus, which is policy. The image has been removed and you (or Stemoc) should not re-add it unless a clear majority of editors or discussion participants believe it should be re-added. pbp 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be missing what consensus is. And per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, isn't a reason to not use a free image. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. If it weren't, every free image on Commons would be in an article. Users get to decide which free images go in an article and which don't. If a majority decide that an image is not needed in the article (for any reason), it is removed. Simply having a free image available doesn't mean it goes in an article. pbp 20:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I will just reiterate that I did not recognize Offerman from the blond picture, and I am very familiar with his work. If there are no other free images then is there any reason not to use the image from the Ron Swanson page? Beach drifter (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you had more of an argument other than "I don't like him blonde" then you could get consensus but that seems to be your only argument. I had no problem recognizing him when I wasn't even familiar with his name. It's not going to hurt by having an image up of him to help users identify who the article is about. If there are free images available then they will be used. There is no reason not to just because a few editors don't like him blonde. Actors change their hair all the time. And he is bearded for a majority or has a mustache so again, this isn't a cosmetic debate on his appearance, the image is just for ID purposes only. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we don't "like" him blonde, it's that we believe that picture to be a poor representation of him. And that's the only argument we need, Lady. Images (free or unfree) can be removed by consensus for any reasons whatsoever. Otherwise, we'd have every single image from Commons in a Wikipedia article. Please accept that consensus is against you and move on to something else. pbp 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the issue of removing an image because it is poorly representative is essentially a image relevance argument, an acceptable reason under MOS pbp 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any image needs to be representative of the subject so that the reader can immediately recognize them. This is a challenge with articles like Nicki Minaj or Lady Gaga, but NOT difficult for other subjects, such as this one. It's better to have no image than a misleading image DP 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps one compromise way to address this is to remove both images from the article. The one of him at the microphone is badly out of focus, and there seem to be legitimate differences over whether the Peabody Awards image of him is representative — different editors in good faith recognize him or don't recognize him, due to the atypical beard and blond hair. Offerman attends press events and the like, so a less controversial image of him should become available at some point, if not already. In the meantime, it's better to have no image than one so out-of-focus it could look like anyone with a similar mustache, and whose poor quality reflects badly on the encyclopedia's standards. No print publication would run an image so out-of-focus. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image is worse than a less than perfect image so I would say removing it is a bad idea. The image is relevant, it is him, just because it isn't the him that you are most used to seeing doesn't mean that it isn't a valid image. I can't believe someone is actually arguing for removal of a completely valid image. If you don't like this one, go find one to replace it with. The one that is out of focus is just horrible. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Djsasso, you say that "no image is worse than a less than perfect image". The blondie image is a "less than perfect" image. Being atypical of a person's most common appearances makes it "less than perfect". You're arguing that the out-of-focus one is "horrible", I'm arguing that the blond one is horrible...and therefore not a completely valid image. And it isn't just "someone", it's many editors, all who believe that the blond image is so poorly representative that it should be removed. pbp 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The out of focus one you can't even remotely tell who he is. Whereas the blonde one is just a different hair color. Hair color is but one part of a persons appearance, a small one at that. The picture is representative of who he is. The out of focus one you can't even tell who the subject is. Not to mention being out of focus is a deletion reason for an image. And it isn't a lot of people its only a couple. At this point pretty much the same number of people think it should stay as leave. Which means a no-consensus outcome which would result in the image being put back in since it was there already. Frankly I think removing it is greatly harming the article and is the image equivalent of a POV edit, if not vandalism itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I count six editors who support removing the image, bukko, so your "its only a couple" argument is wrong. pbp 00:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you're setting way too high a threshold for it being deleted. If 55% of people think prose should be deleted, it gets deleted. Likewise, if 55% of people think an image should be deleted (and I remind you it's 66% now), there's no consensus for the image to be up, and it should be deleted pbp 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tremendously wrong. Having NO image is better than having a crappy, non-representative image DP 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? "No picture is better than having a crappy (your opinion) picture?" As I see it, every article should have at least one photo illustrate the image if there is a free picture available per Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts isn't a policy or guideline, and please stop acting like it is! There is no policy or guideline that states "All articles where an image is available must have an image", and this is exactly why. If a majority of editors want to remove an image (as a majority of editors do now), the image is removed. It's that simple. Consensus IS policy. I don't quite understand why I keep having to explain this fundamental concept of consensus to you (Ed also did on your page), but it's consensus that governs whether images stay or go. And right now, there's a consensus the image shouldn't be there pbp 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you are more than aware consensus isn't a vote. If one side has less people arguing it but have a stronger argument consensus can actually result from the minority of people. One of the strongest consensuses on the wiki is that you should do no harm. Leaving an article, especially a biography, without a picture just because you don't like it is breaking one of the most fundamental beliefs of wikipedia. It's just blonde hair, its not like he looks like a completely different person for crying out loud. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you honestly just say that with a straight face? Djsasso, you're one of the editors I've respected for a long time ... you cannot honestly believe what you just said! DP 09:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DJ sasso is right, actors dye their hair all the time for films and jobs. I can understand it not being in the infobox but it should be somewhere in the article because it IS what he looks like with blonde hair. Doesn't change his appearance entirely. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. As Lady Lotus mentions, actors change their hair and appearance all the time. That is sort of part of the package of being an actor. So something as minor as a hair color change to me isn't even remotely a big change. Though thanks for the compliment. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I tried putting the picture back, even before the page was protected? Nope. Have you answered my questions about where it states "no image is better than a "crappy" one at all? Nope. All you've done is cry "consensus"! Well consensus is also a discussion, and thats what we're having, so take your attitude out of it. Consensus also "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Norms being guidelines and policies.LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google image search will tell you that this man is a chameleon. When i first saw his image, I laughed as it was typically "Ron Swanson". Its not like the image uploaded to his wiki page is of inferior quality or someone else, its NICK OFFERMAN, the man of many faces..the only thing recognisable about him is his eyes, the image does him justice and yet people who go around calling themselves his fans don't even appreciate it..that image is as "Nick Offerman" as this image is Gary Busey..again, i reiterate, good FREE images are hard to come by... I made 3 version of his images (2 blondies and one inferior quality longshot from a film festival)..removing someone's image just because you do not like it is not really an excuse...most if not all images on wikipedia were taken by "amateur" photographers..... the image used in his article was taken by a paid professional one and thus of good quality..I see no reason to remove a very good picture just because a group of people do not like it..as mentioned before, if you have a problem with the picture, "REPLACE" it with a better FREE one by getting one taken with him or getting one freely licensed via OTRS, Do not REMOVE the picture..I kept re-adding the picture because removing a picture which did NOT fail any of wikipedia policies IMO is vandalism ...--Stemoc (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stemoc, you've been informed in the 3RR discussion that claiming image removal is vandalism was wrong, so I don't understand why you're continuing that spurious argument. User:Djsasso, you said "its not like he looks like a completely different person for crying out loud", but IMO, and in the opinion, it looks too different from his most recognizable appearance to belong on the page. To claim that you, Lotus and Stemoc have the upper ground policywise (even though you clearly don't in numbers) is wrong because there isn't a single policy or guideline that says images have to be kept. There's a reason there's no policy or guideline says there have to be images in every article: because a whole bunch of articles would have terrible images like this one. pbp 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

The article has been fully protected until 19 March 2014 per this 3RR complaint due to multi-party edit warring about the image. If a compromise can be reached here on the talk page, ask at WP:RFUP for protection to be lifted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 16 March 2014

[edit]
I would like, or someone else, to add a list of rewards and Honors.

Kh 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please post the exact wikitext that you would like to see included, making sure you cite it to reliable sources. If there is a consensus to include the material (or at least, no objections) after leaving a few days for discussion, please reactivate this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New image

[edit]

I've been in contact with Olga from UMBC and she agreed to release a photo of Offerman under a different license specifically for use on the Commons. Can we add this photo to his infobox. Hey PBP, you're welcome. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is acceptable to a couple of the people that had issue with the other picture I will add it now. If anyone objects let me know and I will revert myself and we can wait until the protection is off. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate cropping if a smaller picture is needed...not a fan of "extras" appearing in images....I did say i would be happy if the image was replaced by a "free" one instead of completely removed and Lady Lotus did just that.. No Qualms from me..--Stemoc (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nick Offerman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nick Offerman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by article subject

[edit]

The subject of the article, made an edit to the article itself, which was seen here. Kosack (talk · contribs) removed the edit. The subject of the article did not cite any reliable sources, but perhaps it should be returned to as the subject was trying to make it with addition of sources to verify the attempted added content. Thoughts?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information Offerman added has already been included. Kosack (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex life

[edit]

Comments about Offerman's sex life in the "personal life" section seem to be getting reverted. But he's actually an outspoken advocate for middle-aged sex, and he and his wife have even performed a traveling show about the subject. He even edited this very Wikipedia article to add a comment about his sex life and has been interviewed multiple times on the matter. This in itself has encyclopedic value. Let's stop being so easily shocked by matters relating to sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:8021:7854:4D01:7739:F14A (talk)

Unless it is discussed in third party sources, then Wikipedia doesn't care what the person has to say about themselves. I added back in your bit about the tour he does with his wife but the rest of it wasn't appropriate. It doesn't matter that he edited this Wikipedia article himself, it isn't his article so he doesn't have a say about what goes on it. NZFC(talk) 19:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father

[edit]

His dad actually taught at Channahon middle school, but was a social studies teacher 2601:248:5000:4730:E4A5:3169:47A4:238B (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024

[edit]

Added his 2024 movie (Civil war (film) ) Movie enthusiast1234 (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Offerman&oldid=1224935866"