Talk:Portrait of Margaret Thatcher

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portrait of Margaret Thatcher article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

I added an image of the portrait to this page but Neveselbert has now twice reverted this, replacing this with another similar but different file. They have not started discussion as recommended by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR but left an edit summary saying "PNG image is cropped, which is not in line with WP:NFCC".

They seem to have got this backwards as WP:NFCC requires "Minimal usage ... An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." My original version cropped the outer border of the portrait which seems to be plain black and featureless. We don't seem to need this but please discuss if there is more to it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The border is part of the composition as created by the artist. For that reason I believe we should use the uncropped image as the copyright exception is for critical commentary on it as created, and not on a subjective crop of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any confusion, Andrew. What I meant was that the image doesn't seem to align with the spirit of WP:NFCC, based on DeFacto's reasoning. The version I uploaded is the smallest image available on Richard Stone's website, and its dimensions have not been altered. I believe it's more respectful to the artist to use the version displayed on his website without any changes. Also, using this version will avoid contradicting the dimensions described in the infobox and prevent confusion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "spirit of WP:NFCC" is ineffable and so we have to go by its actual text. That specifies "minimal usage" which is obviously not the artist's full vision but a more limited view.

The point about dimensions is erroneous too. The artist and our infobox give the dimensions as 40" x 28" which is a ratio of 1.43 to 1. My original file is closer to that ratio as its ratio is 373 x 267 = 1.40 to 1. The new rival version is more distorted as its ratio is 375 to 279 = 1.34 to 1.

We note that there seems to be an issue with the template used for the fair use rationale. The original file uses the standard {{Non-free use rationale}} which has a Portion parameter which makes it clear that cropping is expected and encouraged. The rival version uses the deprecated {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template.

This alternate template was discussed last year. Nevelsebert argued at length to keep it but their arguments were unconvincing and the outcome was that it was merged into the primary template. Nevelsebert then disrupted the merger, as discussed at template talk.

So, it appears that the rival new image of the portrait is really a continuing attempt to cling to a deprecated template. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I kindly ask that you assume good faith in this discussion.

My point about dimensions was related to maintaining the aspect ratio that the artist has clearly intended. The version I uploaded preserves the same ratio as the one displayed on the artist's official website. This is important for respecting the original work, especially when no alterations are necessary.

You've cited WP:NFCC to argue for minimal use, but I'd draw your attention to the Portion example in the § TemplateData section of {{Non-free use rationale}}. It suggests that, in certain cases, The whole work is used to prevent misinterpreting the work. This directly supports the use of the full image in this instance. Further, the § Necessary components section of WP:FUR reinforces this, noting that when an image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used. The version I uploaded follows this logic.

{{Non-free use rationale 2}} has not been deprecated, but redirected. The template still exists and functions as a wrapper, and the only reason I used it for my upload is that it is the template automatically employed by WP:FUW.

Regarding the merger from last year, I assure you that it has absolutely nothing to do with my intentions. I used {{Non-free use rationale 2}} purely because it is integrated into the File Upload Wizard and not out of a desire to "cling to" deprecated templates. I did not, and do not, intend to disrupt anything.

If there are any further misunderstandings, I'm happy to engage in discussion to resolve them. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image file on the artist's website doesn't have the same dimensions which that website states. It also doesn't appear to have the same cropping that the picture frame imposes on the portrait (the web site shows the actual framed picture too). It's not clear that the artist maintains the web site themself and so the claims that a particular version is special seem to be quite speculative. So, there's no valid case on those grounds. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please revert. There's no consensus on the talkpage for the cropped version, and both I and DeFacto oppose it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for change and so we should stick to the status quo ante. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I'd be willing to yield to your file if you rewrote it with the full uncropped version. Your arbitrary crop is not acceptable. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template

Andrew, is there a reason why this template is necessary for such a new article? {{Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page?}} would suggest that it's unnecessary unless this talkpage becomes one that is frequently misused, that attract frequent debate, articles often subject to controversy, articles that typically attract new editors, and highly-visible or popular topics. I don't see how we're there yet. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often engage with new articles, either by creating them, patrolling them or reviewing them. The top priority template for me in such cases was {{friendly search suggestions}} as this provided access to the sources which most new articles need. A decision was taken to deprecate that and use {{talk page}} for this functionality instead and so I now use that. This template also provides a variety of generic advice which seems appropriate for all talk pages. If the talk page doesn't get much traffic then the template is harmless as it will not be perceived. If a talk page does become busy then the template is there ready to help keep good order. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]