Talk:Allan Warren

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Photography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography 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.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Allan warren (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.

I absolutely agree with User:McGeddon. Who was the one who "chose" the image? I was under an impression, probably thanks to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing images, that the lead image should be the one that depicts the subject best. "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." Simply put, the lead image should show the subject's face more than the subject's socks. Take for example the article about Pablo Picasso; the lead image in the article is a photograph of the painter, not the Cubism-like portrait of him by Juan Gris, even though Gris's portrait is "a reminiscence to" Picasso's own paintings. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Picasso, Mr Warren is still alive and indicated his preference of the socks image over the "miserable frail looking one". As User:McGeddon pointed out, "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" should be used here. This argumentation is valid for both sides; you'll find a variety of examples for both cases. WP:IMAGE LEAD provides arguments that support the socks image. An "appropriate visual representations of the topic" and a "visual association for the topic" are given by the approach towards composition and setting. I fail to see how a common portrait shot is able to establish a visual association or appropriate visual representation. It would be rather unfortunate to establish a RFD again. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Picasso's being dead (or Warren's being alive) is relevant here. Where has Warren indicated his preference of the socks image "over the 'miserable frail looking one'"? Isn't the present image an "appropriate visual representations of the topic"? How come it doesn't establish a "visual association for the topic"? I'm really puzzled here. If I came to an article about a person I do not recognise, I would certainly appreciate being shown the person's face more than being shown the person's socks. As for RFD, I don't see how it would be unfortunate if the photograph isn't deemed useful. And even if it were to be deleted, all other photographs of Allan Warren seem to depict him much better than the socks photo. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I do not argue against the inclusion of the socks image. I just believe that the lead image should be one that shows his face better. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Warren, the photo of xxx, on the German wiki, the year shows the 1974th But Harvey died at the 1973rd This information comes from you?--Kgersemi (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]