Talk:Scott Allie

Image choice

The article had this image:

• file:10.16.11ScottAllieByLuigiNovi1.jpg

for some time.

The subject did not like that image, and provided:

• File:ScottAllie3.jpg

Editor nightscream disagreed that the second was a better image, due to the shadows.

He makes a good point.

I arranged for the subject to provide a new image, which I have now uploaded at used as a replacement.

• File:Scott Allie.jpg

I hope we can all agree this is the best of the three.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's dimly lit, it's not as in focus as the previous image, and it's cropped poorly at the top in a way that chops off the top of his head. What's his problem with the previous photo? Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The 3rd image is best. It's depth of field may not be as deep as the 2nd image, but it is higher quality overall. The second image is certainly more flattering than the original, but the 3rd looks better - the contrast is better and doesn't suffer from being too dark. For the sizes that these appear on WP articles, nobody will notice any focus issues. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that there are lot of watchers of this page. I count three in favor of the new version (including the subject himself, which I think is fair to count, an arguably deserves extra weight), and only one support for an image which the subject detests.

It would be nice to have a larger number weighing in, but until such time, I'm replacing the image with the newest one. Nightscream, I recognize that you have more photographic expertise than I have, but I feel while the subjects views get limited weight when it comes to text, I think their views deserve weight when it comes to the choice of photo. I don't see any way any reasonable person can conclude that there is a consensus in favor of the first photo.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is, how much weight does the subject's views get? Some, yes. But not all of the weight, which is what you seem to be arguing. There's a difference between taking their views into consideration and acting as if they get to dictate the photo unilaterally.

As for your comments that "it would be nice to have a larger number weighing in" and "I don't see any way any reasonable person can conclude that there is a consensus in favor of the first photo", you could've addressed that by simply calling for a consensus discussion, which you didn't do. Instead, you decided to engage in edit-warring, which is a blockable offense. Choosing not to call for a consensus discussion, only to then say that it "would be" nice to have a consensus that we don't have, strikes me as rather intellectually dishonest. I will call for a consensus discussion, and report your edit-warring to an uninvolved administrator. Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I said "I think their views deserve weight". That is not at all the same as "all the weight". I see it as a kind of tie-breaker, or useful information for respondents who might otherwise consider the two options close.

I didn't call for a consensus discussion because I've never heard of one before. It looks like a useful concept, but I do not yet see how you did it, or who was notified. I didn't "Choos[e] not to call for a consensus discussion" I didn't know there was such a thing. How was it done? Who was notified?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not at all the same as "all the weight". And yet, you changed the photo anyway on Allie's say-so, rather than by discussing it with others, as is required when making controversial or disputed edits. That certainly seems like you afforded his say-so all the weight.

I didn't call for a consensus discussion because I've never heard of one before. It looks like a useful concept Are you joking? You've racked up over 34,000 edits in almost four and a half years of editing here, and you've never heard of consensus discussion???? Are you serious? (Sigh.) Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NEGOTIATION.

How was it done? Who was notified? I left messages inviting participation in this discussion on the talk pages of editors who I knew had done work on comics-related articles and/or on the WikiProject Comics. I also left a notice on the Comics Project talk page. Nightscream (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Consensus processes. So for example, I am familiar with each of the five main ways to reach consensus as listed on that page. However, the way you phrased it, I thought you were talking about well-defined process with its own set of rules that I hadn't heard about.

That said, I have my own personal rule, which I don't believe is a Wikipedia rule, but I think it ought to be, and I broke it. While we have Wp:Bold, and I cautiously support that for text changes, I think images, especially the main image in an infobox, are different. My personal rule is that if someone provides me with an image and there is no image in the article, I'll add it but if there is an image on the article, I'll post the possible new image to the talk page, and ask editors to choose. I should have done that in this case, but his distaste for the old image was so strong, I wanted to be helpful, and I was unable to comprehend that someone might feel so strongly about the old image. I was wrong on that point, and I apologize for breaking my own rule. I am happy to accept the consensus view.

I hope those who are weighing on on the choice recognizes a few relevant facts:

• The image on the right is more recent.
• Someone noted the image on the right is dark. Let's remember he works for Dark Horse Comics, and vampire related issues; being dark might not be a bug but a feature.
• The subject strongly dislikes the image on the left. The subject does not have veto rights, but anyone choosing the one on the left has to be willing to say that the image on the left is so much better than the one supplied by the subject that it trumps any feelings of the subject itself.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Recentism is not a relevant criteria for the Infobox unless there has been a noticeable change in appearance on the part of the subject. The idea one image is more desirable because it was taken seven months after the first one is silly, IMO.
• This is an extremely thin, tenuous argument. Infobox images generally do not aim to recreate the atmosphere of works of fiction that the subject works on. Wikipedia strives for a dispassionate, neutral, formal tone. Not atmosphere.
• Well, as of this writing, four more people here say that it does than those who chose the right photo. That's hardly going out on a limb, as rationales go, since the feelings of the subject, as you stated, not a huge consideration. I've worked with subjects before who disliked the photos I took of them and put in their articles, and I've even had mine photos removed entirely from the Commons out of consideration, but only after they supplied a pic of equal or superior quality. Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox consensus discussion

Which of these photos is better for the Infobox?

• 
  A
• 
  B March 4 version
• 
  C March 8 version
• 
  D March 9 version

• I've never heard of Scott Allie before, and I haven't read the above discussion, but since I was asked to participate, I think the photo on the left right is a far better photo. I have no expertise in photography, and I can promise you that, whichever I choose, my wife will maintain it was the wrong choice. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Never having heard of the subject person, I like my friend Luigi's more colorful picture on the left. My taste is often criticized as garish. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The photo on the left struck me as the better image just from looking at it, and reading the discussion thus far confirms that choice for me. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto. But the subject presumably looked different ways over time, and the year of the photo is a necessary caption. But this kind of photo contest strikes me as a little ridiculous. Does he have an official piucture, and is he willing to license it? DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Not real familiar with the background here, but I'm leaning towards the image on the left. Having a portion of the subject's head chopped out of the picture isn't optimal by any means. If we've a better option (and we do—the first image) then, in my humble opinion, it should be used. DGG's suggestion to inquire about a licensed official portrait is worth considering as well. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I was asked to give input here. The first photo was taken with a strong flash and a 7 year old camera. Consequently, the image looks like many of the free photos I see of people taken from various conventions. The second photo has much better lighting and it looks like more care was taken to produce, but it is unfortunately cropped and incredibly grainy/noisy due to the high ISO. Since it will be used in an infobox, the noise level is not as important because it is resized. If people want a high resolution photograph they can find the other images on the Commons. Additionally, the subject prefers the second photo. Given all this, I think the second photo should be used in the infobox. The case for either is weak, but for me its tipped just a bit for the second. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I was asked here for my input as well. Although I do have professional experience in photography, it is of maritime subjects, so don't overly weight my opinion. I prefer the image on the right, as the lighting is better and I am guessing it is more recent. The photo on the left is flatter due to the flash, and a bit more cluttered. Either would be fine for the article though. Seaphoto^Talk 04:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) I initially preferred the right-hand image, but it has slightly grayish skin tone, is too tightly cropped, IMHO. So I prefer the left shot as somewhat better for the infobox in the article; moreover I prefer the 23:00, 9 November 2011 version with its milder contrast. Since the photos are separated by a year, and are both free, it would be fine to put the right-hand image in the history section. --Lexein (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC) See changed !vote as of 9 March, below. --Lexein (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• As we have a choice of acceptable photos, I would go for the one that has the whole of the head, i.e. the one on the left. However, it needs to be cropped. The wide black side borders of the current version are not good, but we can easily lose most of them by cropping to keep just the head and very little more. As for the contrast, I tend to agree with Lexein above. If the photo on the right is also used, we should process it to make it brighter. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that having the top edge cropped isn't optimal. If I didn't know Scott, I'd go with the left, but the one on the right looks more like him. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Just my opinion, since I don't know anything about Scott Allie either, but based on the photos above, I would also go with the one on the left that isn't cropped. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Both photos seem fine to me, and I'd go with whichever is more recent. I think the one on the right is a better photo, and don't think the top of his head being cropped off is an issue. It's slight, and it's not like some unusual feature is missing. The one on the left, if used, should be cropped a little tighter. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd pretty much agree with Argento Surfer, with the caveat the the color tone in the left image would seem preferable.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I have also not heard of Scott Allie before, but since I was asked to participate by somebody who has always been a class act, I prefer the left photograph, as it is taken from the front with greater brightness. The subject also looks friendlier in this photograph. David A (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• For composition and overall professional look, I prefer the image on the right. What I don't like about it is that the overall lighting is poor and it crops his head in an odd location. The photo on the left is best for use in the article, though perhaps it could be cropped to include less of the background. In any case, that's the one I think should be used in the infobox. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• While I can sympathize with the subject's desire to have a picture presented that he personally finds more flattering, I would have to vote for the photo on the left. In addition to completely showing his head, I think the background adds some flavor to the picture that is missing in the other shot. However, given my acknowledged sympathy to the subject's wishes, I'd say that if he is willing to provide yet another photo--one that is less tightly cropped and of equal quality to the photo on the left--we should defer to his wishes. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps we can stick with the recent photo of him. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:53, March 7 2013 (UTC)
• I was asked to include my input here. I have no knowledge of photography or the subject, but just looking between the two photos the one on the right should be used in the infobox and the other in the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

After seeing the newly photoshopped right photo done by Amadscientist, I would support the right photo even more for the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The image on the left is better composed and better lit. For infobox placement (top-right of page), it's always favorable to use an image where the subject's body position is toward the content (as in the right picture) vs. the screen edge (as in the left), but the cropped head and less friendly facial expression kinda kill it for me. So I say the left image. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I vote for the one on the left. --luckymustard (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Right. The image is composed like a head shot, which better highlights his features.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• The one on the left has much better color. It also looks candid and unposed, which is a minor plus in my book. Then again, the one on the right has far better composition, without the distracting background, and looks more professional. If the color could be adjusted on the right-hand image to eliminate the grayish flesh tone, I think I'd go with that one. If no one wants to do that, then I'd vote for the left-hand one. I'd tend to give minimal weight to the wishes of the subject except in cases where a photo is extraordinarily unflattering, and that's not the case here. Rivertorch (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• The one on the right is superior for a number of reasons. Composition, lighting and direction the subject is facing (the subject should face towards the article from the infobox when possible) as well as background and crop of image. I will say this image could use a bit of photshop to brighten the image a bit, but the lighting in the image is superior as not being too bright causing shine on the face. My 2 cents.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the uploader if I could photoshop the image to improve its quality. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the original March 4 version ("B" above), to preserve the sense of "left-right" discussion above. --Lexein (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Addendum: after Amadscientist's good color corrections in "C", I still feel it's cropped too tightly, mainly because in most BLP articles, heads/hair aren't cropped. If we can get the source image uncropped, then it would have my unreserved !vote. But I won't argue any further against "C". --Lexein (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC) See changed !vote below, at 9 March. --Lexein (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• A weak vote for "C" the one on the right. Would be a much better solution if we could get a full head shot without the clipping, but the above improvements have made it more than passable, in my opinion, and the subject's preference has just about tipped it due to the further work. Still, would much prefer a better image be submitted. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I've revised your comment to match the image placement. You and I edit-conflicted while I was adding back the Mar 4 version as I've commented above. --Lexein (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all concerned about the crop at the top cutting of a portion of the figure's head. If this were a feature image nom I would, but for lack of anything else right now, I prefer C. of course I am the one who modified it but it does look better than the darker version and the shiny version (A) to me at least.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. The coloring in "C" is completely artificial and fake-looking. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's between B and C. C has modified too much. B is too dark or not enough contrast between the dark and the light. But I would go with B--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been decided, but my vote would be B. A better headshot than A and less touched up than C. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note that although the C thumbnail shown here looks flat (typically due to over-unsharpmasking, in my experience), the image looks considerable better in article size, and full size. Check it out, y'all, and see if that alters your opinions. Amadscientist - is it possible you oversharpened? --Lexein (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC) See changed !vote below, 9 March. --Lexein (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• The aesthetic preference I would have for C is tiny compared to my discomfort with the notion that the subject of the article is trying to tell us what image of him we should have as our illustration of the article. Difficult to see his submission of an image as anything other than COI and an attempt to make the article fit his PR agenda. Kevin McE (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Either B or C works for me. I have no issue with using a photo provided by the subject of the article and I will note that this happens fairly frequently. Consideration of Mr Allie's motive (if any) should not have any influence on the choice. —howcheng {chat} 19:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• In my opinion 'B' would be good choice --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• I find the flash lighting in A to be too harsh, so it's between B and C. I'd probably take B since it looks more natural. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't want to put down either of the photographers in my comments, so I hope they do not take it as such. Ultimately, I would say neither photo would be used in a professional publication (not saying that is Wikipedia) but if we had to set a bar. You're looking at a technically inferior photo (A) against a head shot that is artistically bland. I would say photo A captures much more of his personality and character, while photo B is what you would expect in a program. Because the choice is between the two (excluding C), photo A would be my choice. The reason for this is that while photo B is likely professionally shot, it's what in the film, theatre, and entertainment business would be described as a dud photo. It offers little to no insight about the subject other than his look. Photo A leaves much to be desired but is far more descriptive from a material point of view, that being it seemingly represents his likeliness accurately, he's in a setting relevant to his career, and his personality is exposed. Photo C since it's clearly the least technically superior considering the post-production is poor (colour balance / white balance / saturation problems; his face is yellow...). Mkdw^talk 03:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• For your consideration: D: I've uploaded D, an only-auto-color-corrected version of B, after waiting a suitable length of time for Amadscientist. Though in many ways I agree with Mkdw about A, it's still another WP candid shot, so I am now stuck, literally, flip-of-the-coin, between "A" and "D". I've closed my eyes and looked, and gone outside and come back in and looked, and I can't decide. Sorry. I'm not seeing a yellow cast on my PC laptop, external LCD monitor, or external CRT. Gah. Help! --Lexein (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Kinda liking D more now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Since every group of editors I've invited to this discussion has resulted in a fairly even split (the first two groups resulted in splits with slightly more "votes" in favor of A, while the most recent one resulted in a split with one more editor in favor of a version of the latter photograph), I'm willing to compromise by saying that D is the best of the three versions on the right, and that it resolves the issues I had with its originally dim lighting and color. While it's still cropped in a way I'm not crazy about, that's a relatively minor issue now, and one that at least some editors said was irrelevant. So unless anyone objects, I'm going to place D in the Infobox. Thank you for participating. Nightscream (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arriving here in response to a request on my talk page from March 9 by Nightscream, I'd agree that D is a good choice of the options here. --Pine^✉ 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think there are problems with composition, shadow, and cropping on all of the images. I would agree with a previous statement that when it comes to the opinion of an image as subjective as a the subject's own portrait, the subject's own preference should carry some weight. Therefore, barring objectionable or misleading content or discrepancies, the subject might be allowed to have his or her own choice. - Glendale1 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Wikipedia policy doesn't permit the subjects of articles to edit those articles, and that's because they are incapable of neutrality. They have the right to object to factual inaccuracies, but their opinion about whether something in the article is flattering should have no weight. None. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Rick Remender: Lead image selection - Redux

It got messy and stalled because new images came along midway. Can we try again?

• Talk:Rick Remender#Lead image selection - Redux

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Allegations

Allie is getting some coverage in the comics press about allegations of misconduct. This has to be handled very carefully for bios of living persons reasons, but should not be removed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Since both Allie and Dark Horse publisher Mike Richardson issued statements acknowledging and apologizing for the incident, I believe we're safe to include this pertinent passage; I've reworded it more neutrally after restoring the undiscussed removal in July under the false edit-summary that it was "rumor." Now that it's been restored, with yet an additional citation quoting Allie himself, I would ask the seemingly WP:COI redlink editor who removed it not to edit-war and revert, but rather, per WP:BRD, discuss the issue here as two other editors already are doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Allegations - 2020 Update

Hi Tenebrae - can you point me towards the manual of style you're referencing when you removed "Io9 reported that"? In many critical reception & controversy sections, I've seen specific outlets referenced when quoted because it gives context on who is doing the coverage. My intent with the quote was to highlight Io9's report that Dark Horse's Mike Richardson said they were going to take action and then didn't take action. On a different note, at what point should we suggest page protection due to vandalism? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The name of the news site that reported it doesn't seem relevant to me, since the cited fact is a simple matter of these things happened. Unless there's some particular bias, conflict of interest, or other credibility issue, the source is just a form of verification, and as long as it's reliable, it doesn't matter much for the text of the article which one it is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Sariel Xilo. I think Jason A. Quest said it as well as can be said -- it's not a matter of Wikipedia MOS but a matter of good, non-repetitive writing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

HiTenebrae & Jason A. Quest. Thanks for following up. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a style preference set out by WikiProject Comics. I mostly edit in the RPG space and including the media outlet in the text of the article is something I've seen done a bunch (I think that's a result of all the debates on what is & isn't a reliable/notable source in RPG AfDs). I probably over cite as well due to the AfD debates. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help. Quick note: Seeing things done a particular way when they could be done better isn't really a precedent. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cheers, mate! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)