Template talk:POTD/2013-10-14

The image

There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the nature of images.

An image is the creation of an individual, either with a pencil, brush, lens or computer.
Artist's who create new images have their property protected by copyright
Artists whose works are no longer protected, still remain the owner of the talent, skill and observation that led to the creation of the work.

Wikipedia Main page has several places for the written word, and one place to feature images.
If the Featured Article was on South Side, Pittsburgh, then this image might be used as an illustration, (in a secondary role)
In the Featured Image category, the feature is first and foremost, an image. Not the subject of the artwork, but the artwork itself.
In this case we can acknowledge:

the artist
the printer (who happens to be the same person)
the method of creation
the type of work it represents
the background or purpose of such a work.

NOTE: This is a picture. It is not South South Pittsburgh.

Amandajm (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing against consensus, as has been pointed out several times already. "Lithograph", "Photo", "Painting", etc. are all nouns. The short form means "This thing was created/completed by this person" (Compare "Lithography by Vito Acconci" at the lithography article, or any of the other images in the gallery). Having printed, etc. is just too much detail. Look at the POTD archives for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of examples.

That you are insinuating the admin who deals with picture of the day does not know what a picture or copyright is, is downright insulting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am insulting nobody. I do presume that you know about copyright, which is why I use what I presume you know, to introduce what you obviously don't comprehend.

The point that I am making is that if the work was still in copyright, then the artist would be treated with such respect that the work would not be reproduced without permission BUT because it is out of copyright, the rights of the artist are reduced to a minimum.
There is such a general ignorance about the use of images, even on the main page, that it is not unusual for an artist to go uncredited, and it is usual for the whole focus to be upon the content of the picture (the place, the object or the person shown), and the artist reduced to the same status as the person who used a computer program to digitally enhance the old image.
Because this is an image category on the main page, the image and its creator, and nature needs to be the matter discussed. The History of South Side is a side issue to the fact that this is a magnificent image. Deal with the image and its creator. The South Side information is secondary.

Amandajm (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while logged out: that would be the Commons FP (images and images). English Wikipedia's FPs are only related to images as they help make encyclopedic content clear. There is no precedent for blurbs which are only about the image shown (except paintings, but even then it is because the paintings have encyclopedic information about them). Please read the criteria.180.254.107.191 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind not editing above my name. Use your own. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to what you have said above: I read the criteria, and observed that there was a note about "encyclopedic v. artistic content".

Currently one of the pictures up for consideration is an "artistic view" of the Alamo. It is a sideways shot at a steep angle that is quite a pleasing picture but contains very little of encyclopedic value about the building, and very little encyclopedic value about the subject of photography. It is unlikely to pass the process.

On the other hand the encyclopedic value of the file in question goes far beyond it being a picture of South Side Pittsburgh in a particular year. It is an extremely good example of a particular type of artwork.

Every work of art (beyond an average snapshot) has encyclopedic value in the area of Art.

You are dealing with images as if they were simply catalogues of useful information. On the other hand, I write encyclopedic article about images.

What I am telling you here is, the present file is a singularly good example of panorama, bird's-eye view and aerial landscape. We have articles on all three of those on Wikipedia. We should also have an article on the artist. It is uncommon for a 19th century lithographic artist to have drawn the image that he produced, as they nearly always worked from drawings or watercolours by professional artists.

My response to the image will be to do some work on the various articles that include such images, and improve them.

Amandajm (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It was a mistake, as your name was left hanging and thus was not seen. Now, it seems to me that the real issue is that you believe the English Wikipedia does not credit image creators / artists enough. That is an issue which will not be solved at this page. The current consensus is that credit on an image description page is enough (see pretty much any featured article). From my experience, the photographer or creator is generally only credited in the article proper when he or she is notable (i.e. photographs by myself and Allan Warren are treated quite differently).

As for your concern that an FP caption should be about the image as an image (i.e. not as an illustration of a concept or topic), that currently has no consensus on the English Wikipedia. On Commons it is fine to have a bare-bones caption "Area which is now South Pittsburgh, in a lithograph by Otto Krebs. Created in 1871, it is now in the public domain" or whatnot. However, on the English Wikipedia, there must be encyclopedic content illustrated by the image, and that encyclopedic content is what is currently presented as a blurb. Again, discussion to change that should not be at this talk page, but rather at WT:POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most recent post. The blurbs are only as good as the articles they are derived from (I don't think anybody has time to write one article a day just to keep up with POTD, so we end up with some very bare-bones blurbs), so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Regarding your point about other examples: the issue is those are a dime a dozen. The FP category Panoramas has dozens of images that are all good examples of panoramas, and as such the panorama article is very easy to overpopulate. In order to ensure the greatest encyclopedic value for the reader, the POTD blurb focuses on the less artsy (more concrete) aspects of an image: what is shown. We could use this image to illustrate lithography as well, or the Mona Lisa for portrait, but that would have less EV as there are thousands of other lithographs, or portraits, or whatever. I am not inherently against the idea of portraying objets d'art as the works of art they are... in the proper place. However, an encyclopedia is not that place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the expired protected page template from the top of the page. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've removed the expiry parameter, but I haven't removed the template itself, as the page is protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]