Talk:Scott Ludlam

Scott Ludnam elected

This article keeps changing Ludnam's senate elect status. I previously wrote "he had been elected". Someone changed that to "provisionally elected". Today, someone else changed it to "predicted to be elected". Even though the last few overseas postal votes are yet to come in, there is no chance of Ludnam losing. His numbers are safe. Every major news organisation in Australia says he was elected. Example, Murdoch pressand Fairfax This article should join the news media and say he was elected.--Lester 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back... let's hope Rebecca, and everyone else, will finally leave it alone. Enough time has passed, I'd say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.250.105 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can say he's been elected already..... i haven't finished counting the votes yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.89.170 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

I am a little surprised that the image is so important. This sentence caught my eye: "He left New Zealand with his family aged three, and settled in Australia at eight years old...." That's 5 years. It may not be so interesting where they were, but it's a hole in the info chain. 2001:8003:A921:6300:FD8A:5A6A:B198:631B (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed infobox image

Proposal 2

I think the image with the highest EV should be used in the infobox, that best depicts the subject, and is consistent with WP:NPOV. From the many alternatives at Commons I think the best is this as it is of high quality, and shows the subject in a characteristic pose related to his notability (i.e. talking). The current image which one editor insist keeping is lower quality, has less EV and is less neutral. --ELEKHH^T 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We should be using the original, official, free image. It's also the only portrait photo and therefore most suitable for the infobox image. I've added the other images in chronological order (2009 and 2011) to the article body. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, of course, we would use the official Senate portrait, but that option being unavailable I have to go with the one that is actually a portrait. I don't understand the argument about neutrality - we should not be showing people with blue skies behind them? Frickeg (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue sky is just an aesthetic issue (IMO kitsch). NPOV applies to all content not just text, and the same way we do not write an article based on primary sources because of potential bias we shouldn't be using "official" images either when better alternatives are available. Using promotional staged images is not the best choice for an encyclopaedic article. I rather think that candid journalistic photo that captures the subject in a way that hints to his/her profession is better suited for an encyclopaedia. I also don't see the point of adding multiple portraits if there is no additional EV per WP:IG. --ELEKHH^T 01:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Only one can be considered a portrait photo - the original official free photo. And there's nothing wrong with multiple article-body photos, many politician articles have them. No person is adequately represented by just one photo. The point of WP:IG is that the article isn't a photo repository - nobody's adding the dozen or so photos in the commons link you gave above. Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't follow that logic. A "portrait" doesn't has have(correction) to be "official", nor perfectly frontal. Also all 15 photos on Commons are free, so I don't see why you keep repeating that as if would only apply to the "official" photo which you seem to prefer against all arguments (quality, neutrality, EV). --ELEKHH^T 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "have" to be, but is preferable. I keep saying original, official, free photo because other parties don't make free their official photos. I never said 'free' in and of itself. Official photos are preferable especially when they're free. And if you're saying either of the other two photos are portraits, I suggest you understand what portraits are :) Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? --ELEKHH^T 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why what? Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. I meant: Why is official preferable to neutral? Why is portrait preferable to higher EV? --ELEKHH^T 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

See below. Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The quality of the "official" one isn't that bad. And it seems totally illogical to go for "candid" photos over staged ones for the main portrait, not to mention completely against general practice. Are you saying that it's POV to use official portraits on pages like Barack Obama, Louis XIV, or Joseph Stalin? Frickeg (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed is POV. Regarding general practice, please consider that consensus can change. --ELEKHH^T 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're jumping the gun a lot, not to mention goalpost shifting. Wikipedia prefers official free portrait photos over candid non-portrait photos for the infobox. These are facts. Go to some larger forum and get a change in consensus. Until then let's leave Ludlam be. Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not shifting goalpost, I put forward all my arguments in the first paragraph, but you seem to have missed most of them. And please don't bully me and be aware of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Also can you please point me to the talk where a consensus has been reached that "Wikipedia prefers official free portrait photos" as you claim? --ELEKHH^T 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite. If you're not happy with the consensus, OK, that's fine, but the place to discuss a change is not the page of a single Australian senator. Frickeg (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Something else i've noticed while we're on the subject of "quality"... the official free photo is very sharp without any blur despite it being of lower resolution. The one with the black background, look at the original resolution size - look at "Sony" on the microphone. Looks like a night out on the piss. Are we done yet? :) Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The "official" portrait is never always the best image, the one currently used looks ridiculously "photoshooped" and outdated even though its only 4 years old, looks to be taken in the early 2000, the one with the black background isn't good enough to be used in the MAIN infobox, firstly the person is looking away and 1/3 of the image is of a table corner...--Stemoc (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the advocate of the third image is here. All official images are photostopped. And outdated? Even if it were true it's irrelevant. Newer is not better. Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My Lord, this man is a LIAR!...sorry...yeah, my "job" (unpaid and ridiculously time consuming) on wikimedia is to get the best possible images for celebs/politicians/low-lives etc....I generally wouldn't care what image was used but it should be an image which is clear and preferably recent...if you look at the metadata for your image Timeshift, it has actually "been" photoshopped" in 2008, you uploaded it in 2010 so the image isn't just under 5 years old, but just under 6 years old..--Stemoc (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So, what image are you suggesting? Frickeg (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion (neutral), but if you do a nice crop of the "blackground" image, its actually good enough.. ..--Stemoc (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't lie about anything. You advocated the third image. Proposal two on the right is still of bad quality. Zoom to original size and try to read 'Sony' - it's like double vision. Official free sharp image thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but since no one bothers for the "best" image, i'm giving you option from the worst 2 ...and no one would care about the brand of microphone he is using..--Stemoc (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Best" is subjective. Official free image for infobox per wikipedia convention is not subjective. And I don't care what brand the microphone is, i'm pointing out the inferior image quality. Often, larger resolution means poorer quality. Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The microphone is blurred because it is moving, which is not a problem as is not the main subject of the image. However the speaker's face is clear and of higher resolution than the image with the distracting sky. --ELEKHH^T 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going around in circles. Get consensus. Ta-ta for now. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I see is that there is no consensus for the official image either. In the absence of any guideline or policy on this issue, consensus needs to be established here. The above claims that the widespread use of official images in infoboxes would suggest a de facto consensus is not a valid argument, as can simply be the result of systemic bias. --ELEKHH^T 04:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you reckon. Timeshift (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Per talkpage? LOL! Guess what ELEKHH. Ain't happening. Timeshift (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I hoped that when you just said "whatever" it meant you finally understood the arguments... Well, than keep guarding the "whatever" status quo and perhaps you can let us know when you stopped owning this page. Cheers. -ELEKHH^T 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating the fact that I prefer the "official" image as well, and am far from convinced by the arguments against it, especially those concerning NPOV. Frickeg (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Elekhh, cease the wikilawyering (7 now and mostly if not all irrelevant). I'll keep guarding the status quo as you didn't get consensus then decided to dummy spit with the change after a few days of you not being able to get any. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

All links provided had the intention to hint to the bigger picture, but I'm not surprised you find them "mostly [...] irrelevant". No doubt this bullying tone and micro-conservative stance are effective. If only you could imagine of being constructive, assume that other editors argue in good faith, and might have an insight you don't have... Your similarly conservative stance at Plibersek, has been noted too. --ELEKHH^T 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you hear the herds of support rumbling toward you? Or is that just tumbleweeds? You still have no support for your image yet you appear to still insist on a change away from the status quo. I don't suffer fools gladly. And thanks for the other link - yet another where i'm right and you're wrong! Timeshift (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean the "herds" are on your side? Anyway, you're right. --ELEKHH^T 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't need a herd to maintain the status quo. Thanks for saying i'm correct though, it means a lot. Timeshift (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)