Talk:Patrick Troughton

RFC for image

User:Rodericksilly has continually removed the main image from the page for the reason that it is "low-quality". I believe that this is not a valid reason to remove images from a biography article, especially since the image in question is in the public domain. When I asked this user to stop removing images on their talk page, they deleted my message. I'm requesting comments on whether an image should be included in the header, even if it is low-resolution. Note that a fair-use image cannot be used in place of the public domain image per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You could upload a version of the image that is a bit more zoomed out. It doesn't lead to a higher quality image in itself, but it makes the graininess less apparent. For instance, this is what the image looks like at 50%. @Rodericksilly: could I get your thoughts on this too? ReneeWrites (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the image that was in the infobox for several years, until a few days ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That image cannot be used now that there is a public domain image, per WP:FREER. Free images should be used when at all possible. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:FREER also mentions that the free media replacing it has to be of "acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", which is I think the crux of the issue. One editor prefers to have no image at all over having a low-quality one. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

In my view the image is clearly of high enough quality to illustrate the subject, making it of sufficient quality for the encyclopedic purpose. It's not a high-definition image, but it accurately illustrates the subject with enough quality to be useful. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You are Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Patrick Troughton is dead and we can and should depict him in the role he is known for, the Second Doctor. Someone like you did something similar to the Darla Hood article not long ago and replaced a shot of Ms. Hood from her Our Gang days (which what she is famous for) with a shot of her as an adult from an obscure film simply because the latter was PD. 180.150.38.124 (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to make sure the page follows Wikipedia rules, not sure how that's "Wikilawyering". I'm not "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" or anything like that. The rules are very clear in how they should be applied. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The previous picture doesn't even "depict him in the role he is known for", so I've no idea what you're referring to. Seems like the user who made the change at Darla Hood made the right call too, since that's definitely relevant to WP:FREER. I agree with Di on this one; the free equivalent should replace the non-free one. (Side note: this may be relevant.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Restore this image since the free image fails the "acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" standard. Nemov (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  The image shows the persons face, It absolutely is high enough quality to fill its purpose. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Our definitions of "acceptable quality" appear to be at odds. The photo quality is terrible.The article is better off without it. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just because you think the image is bad doesn't mean it fails the "acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" standard. It illustrates the subject so it by definition is good enough to serve its purpose. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent.

  e·quiv·a·lent

  /əˈkwiv(ə)lənt/

  equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.

  When I look at both of those photos they're not equal. The free image isn't a quality image.

  "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?'"

  No, this doesn't have the same effect. The purpose of a RfC (that you opened) is to ask what other editors think. You don't have to agree with it. We just have to abide by the consensus. Nemov (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support, generally having any image is better than none.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Ortizesp: Please be specific, which do you support: File:Patrick Troughton Head.jpg (as previously displayed) or File:Patrick Troughton 1948 (cropped).png (as at present)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  File:Patrick Troughton Head.jpg is obviously the better image, so if we can choose that's my pick. We can all agree that File:Patrick Troughton 1948 (cropped).png is a lower quality picture, but if push comes to shove I prefer using it than nothing at all.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Restore this image since the free image fails the "acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" standard per Nemov. It is a recognisable image from his later, better known, period. The 1948 image is almost wholly unrecognisable and uninformative. Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• In case it wasn't obvious from my comment above, I support replacing the file with the free photograph per WP:FREER; it's not the greatest photo in the world, but it's certainly sufficient for this purpose. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  And I've just replaced the infobox image with this one, so I doubly support the removal of the non-free file. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 16:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just to note that I have removed File:Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton).jpg per WP:NFCCP#10c. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead

There's a couple of things in the lead that I think may be a little superfluous.

It is true that Troughton was "classically trained for the stage but became known for his roles in television and film", but is that not true of most actors of his generation? The lead also mentions that many of Troughton's television performances between 1947 and 1971 are lost. Similarly, this is true of most TV actors in Britain during this period. Personally, I feel these statements may not be needed. There's also the mention that Troughton was "loved by audiences for his versatility in roles", I was wondering if this might need some rewording as it seems the "loved by audiences" bit is not supported in the text?

Finally, I feel maybe a sentence listing a few other notable Troughton roles might be good. Obviously Doctor Who dwarfs everything but I think perhaps The Omen and The Box of Delights might be worth mentioning in the lead.

Apologies for being nitpicky but I wouldn't want to edit it without saying something here as I can see this is a labour of love. Humbledaisy (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who years in filmography

Hello

I have tried placing the years and episode amount that Troughton did for DW. However, it has been revoked. My reason for placing them all together was to make his infoox look neat instead of having repeats of "Doctor Who - Second Doctor" continually reappearing. Can we come to some sort of arrangment. JackWhovian (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@JackWhovian: Thanks for starting a discussion. Listing Troughton's Doctor Who appearances separately seems more logical to me, not only for the chronology of his filmography, but also the nature of his appearances (main cast from 1966–69, guest star from 1972–73, then 'starring' in 1983 and 1985). Since this is only four of almost 200 television appearances, I don't think combining them looks much neater, and separating them seems to make more sense (to me). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)