Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Official photo
Old straw poll with 5 images to choose from
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This Wikimedia Commons photo(scroll down for three cropped versions) is an official photo of the Trump campaign. So it would probably be the best one to put at the top, right? I
There is zero support for my suggestion here. In contrast, there was clear consensus for image C above, so I will go ahead and insert it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Winkelvi, please revert yourself. As to image C versus E, the tally is an overwhelming landslide, 12 to 7, meaning over 63% favor C. Preferring C over E:
Preferring E over C:
Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This has all the earmarks of an "official" RfC. An RfC can - and often does - go on for up to 30 days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sanity pleaThe notion that it's about quality of arguments is great, when there is some basis in p&g for any argument, or when there is a uninvolved closer to make that call. It's completely worthless when all arguments are subjective, even when claimed to be otherwise, and all participants are responsible for evaluation of all arguments. That simply does not work, ever. I guarantee that I will always see my arguments as more weighty than those of my opponents—that's why they are my arguments—and I would expect no different from them.
I thought the consensus was for picture C?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Photo Support
26% Stated no specific support, but weighed in: Snake bgd, Anythingyouwant, {
What is the difference in indication if someone said "Strong Support" vs. "Support"? Calibrador (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
_-_Cropped.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
Run-off voting
Old "results" - not official and have no bearing on the current state of the discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
VOTING RESULTS C – 128.3 votes – 51.8% I am installing C in the article per a combination of these results, prior discussions with others (details available upon request), and my judgment. My edit summary will be: Installing new infobox image per voting results (51.8%). If you feel the results do not show sufficient consensus for change, revert and a closer will be requested to make the call. Discarded as out-of-accepted-process: A – 2.6 votes Edit disputed, closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Verification of tallies. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC) |
Notification of previous participants
|
|---|
|
@Ddcm8991, Jean-Jacques Georges, Calibrador, MrX, Display name 99, ShadowDragon343, and TexasMan34: @Zigzig20s, TL565, DarthBotto, Dervorguilla, CCamp2013, Writegeist, and Winkelvi: @Proud User, CFredkin, JFG, Knowledgekid87, Objective3000, Davey2010, and Snake bgd: @Anythingyouwant, Graham11, MelanieN, Buster7, Stemoc, and 1990'sguy: ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC) @Crumpled Fire, SW3 5DL, and Yopienso: ―Mandruss ☎ 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) |
Notification of project and talk page participants
|
|---|
|
RfC: photo
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Image C or E be used in the lead? To indicate less-than-strong support, feel free to divide six votes between C and E, as was instructed up to September 20. ~ Rob13Talk 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
|
|
C6 C5 E1 - Least unphotogenic of the two, includes a smile for those who vote because "he seems like a nice man". And his tie and collar are centered between the lapels of his coat. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Minus 1 vote because it's too narrow. Aspect ratios for comparison: Hillary 0.80:1, E 0.75:1, C 0.67:1. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)- E6 - Donald Trump may or may not be justified in his anger, that is obviously not a question to be debated here. But I think most of us would agree that he is angry, and that he shows it. A lot. A career politician is an expert at masking their emotions, but Trump makes a point of letting it all hang out, and that's in fact one of his defining characteristics, you might say a trademark. I feel E better represents both the man and the candidate for president. I don't know that you would necessarily call that expression an angry one, but it's closer than C. And we could probably improve on E, but these are the two choices. NPOV is not about cross-article parity, and it does not require us to show Trump smiling because we show Clinton smiling. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen Hillary angry too (more bitchy though, with her eyes bugged out -- Russians as I understand it perceive such facial expressions indicative of mental illness). Trump has an angry side, also a visionary side of prosperity & safety for all Americans. (Hillary has an angry side based on her rage over entitlement denial. And as far as a positive vision, even David Brooks, famed Trump hater for the New York Times, recently stated she has failed to articulate why she wants to be president. [Oh yeah, equal pay for women, I forgot.]) IHTS (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 - He is looking at the camera and not off to the side. The lighting is not too bright thus not making his skin an off-color shade of red. He is not leaning over the podium. The flags behind him give off a background focusing on him. Finally it's more recent, taken during the General Election.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 Longstanding here and has been used by several television ads for the election, so is public-recognizable. He's a consistently serious guy during speeches, photo reflects that, therefore, is more representative of who he is as a candidate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 The photo is professional, high quality, gives a more neutral expression rather than an obvious frown in the other photo, the background with the American flag greatly enhances it over the other photo as well. As noted, it is also more than a year newer and taken during the general election. The subject is looking almost directly toward the camera, and is not hunched over leaning forward into the podium as with the other photo. Calibrador (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Although this vote is not inappropriate, per discussion including one admin, I think it's reasonable to disclose that this user is the photographer of C. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6. Looks professional, US flag in the background, as good as it gets.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E4, C2: I would prefer E (per reasons I mentioned above) but can tolerate C; would support C if flag/microphone was removed. --Proud User (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 - Looking at both images properly - C is more or less of him smiling whereas E looks like he's more serious, I'm also sure that E has been used on UK tv however I'm not 100% sure but regardless of that E IMHO looks more professional out of the 2 so gets my vote, Thanks,. –Davey2010Talk 13:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6-The facial expression and bodily position (smiling, not leaning over) appear more natural. The presence of U.S. flags in the background adds color to the photograph. Display name 99 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
C6 - I had suggested a run-off vote earlier but withdrew it. I think it's time for an update. E may have been okay during the primaries, but C fits better as a GOP nominee and better reflects the current state of the race. After so many complaints about the picture for months, hopefully this won't be the case with picture C. TL565 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Removing "vote" because this is just a waste a fucking time. TL565 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)- C6 per Display name. Trump's facial expression is more natural and his head isn't tilted awkwardly like it is in the other option. C is also more recent, which is preferable if all things are equal (though C would still be a better choice even if this weren't the case). Calidum ¤ 14:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 The initial image is fine, why was it changed when this discussion hasn't even been open for 24 hours? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I know I'm not supposed to respond, but it was actually changed before the run-off vote was even posted. I had no idea the image was switched until you mentioned it. TL565 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with E for 10 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. Do this right and according to what's usually done or don't do it at all. While discussion is occurring, the version that was in place when discussion began is what's supposed to remain. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- This "discussion" has been ongoing since 04:35 2 Sep UTC, in multiple sections, with no clear consensus for any single image, and E was in place at that time[13]. E is now in place, no known intent to change that, just as you so forcefully insist, thanks for setting things straight. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. Do this right and according to what's usually done or don't do it at all. While discussion is occurring, the version that was in place when discussion began is what's supposed to remain. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 Flag. No smirk. Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 per Calibrador. The image is also more aesthetically pleasing than E. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to reconsider per this comment by an admin on Calibrador's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- He may have a COI, but I still agree with his rationale. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to reconsider per this comment by an admin on Calibrador's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 E represents Trump: The Brand well and I like the reactionary caption for it in this discussion. C is more presidential but the turkey neck is unflattering. Zaostao (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6. Agree with Zaostao, the turkey neck is unflattering. SW3 5DL (talk)
- C6 : higher quality, more flattering, more neutral, more presidential, etc. I thought we had already voted about this... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 looks much more like the person who showed up at the debate last night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
E6, because the present image ought to remain in place until the new batch of very high-quality photos at Wikimedia Commons are considered. UPDATE: It now appears that people do not like any pictures in the new batch. But still, the longstanding image (E) ought to remain because a higher-resolution version was installed on September 12, and the new proposed pic (C) does not seem sufficiently better to justify the change (we nought to wait for a pic that is widely considered to be very clearly better).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC) C6 : higher quality picture. A better picture may become available later that's more recognizably Trump, but this one seems a definite improvement. Skin tone is more normal (not orange). Pic is a year more recent. I don't think the facial expression in C is smirking, but the facial expression in E is kind of odd.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) New pictures are now available from September 17, 2016 and they include better images than C or E. See new subsection below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC) - C6 : We've got a flag in this one, Trump is looking at the camera and it's less awkward than the current one. CatcherStorm talk 18:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 : I consider this photo to be the most professional out of the two. In most publications and likewise media there is a stereotypical "face pose" that a ton of model have, the no smile soft stare. Just type "models" in at google and you'll see what I mean. This is for multiple reasons; most of the advertisements are trying to sell something and they want they want a neutral expression, which is exactly what we are trying to achieve here. Other reasons include; this type of expression reduces the amount of wrinkles the subject has, tends to look softer and more appeasing, and looks more natural. One the subject of less wrinkles; no person wants more wrinkles. As you can see from comparing both pictures, Picture C clearly shows more wrinkles than Picture E. The wrinkles in Picture C are from him smiling, but smiling is not a neutral point of view, although it is preferred on wikipedia for some reason. Most would argue that he is frowning in Picture E, however, I disagree. If he was frowning, you would also see wrinkles, because frowning uses more muscles than smiling does. This means that this is his face at rest, which is natural because most people are usually in their natural state of expressions compared to either smiling or frowning. Just like the models in a lot of advertisements and on the google models page. The face in Picture E has a more softer tone to it than Picture C, which is more neutral. Also, I want to point out that Picture C makes the subject look more washed out than Picture E. Which if you have ever watched Donald Trump he has more of a Orange tone to his skin and we should portray him as he his normally recognized by the public and the media. His hair in Picture E is also combed and more structured than in Picture C, which to be honest looks like a rats nest. The microphone in Picture C is also a problem, it cutes off his tie along with being washed out, while in Picture E, you can clearly see his tie. He is also squinting slightly in Picture C and you can clearly see his eyes in Picture E. I probably have a ton more I could say, but I leave it at this. Chase (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6: I don't think C is the right image to offer up as a replacement, especially since I'd have preferred A (or B by a long shot if it wasn't a tinge blurry). The status quo image gives a better contrast between Trump's head and the background, and seems like more of a natural expression. C's expression looks forced. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 First its new, second its more official and more natural. Flag doesn't change anything. Snake bgd 19:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6. Looks like him in a serious moment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 best Trump photo so far, recent, good focus, smiling, I think is the best. TexasMan34 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Flip a coin This is not a sarcastic comment. Seriously, I have lost count of how many discussions there have been on this issue. It doesn't matter what decision will be made, because the discussion will restart in another week or so. It should be ruled that this is a final decision. Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Flip a coin" may not be a sarcastic comment, but it's not a helpful one unless you can explain how we should decide who should flip the coin. I'm not aware of a way to flip some virtual coin on a talk page. To illustrate my point, I have just flipped a coin and it came up C. All in favor of accepting my flip? Hmmm ... it seems those in favor are an exact match for those who voted for C. So the coin flip was an improvement how, exactly?
As for "restart in another week or so", it's common practice to avoid revisiting any consensus within a week, or anything close to a week, as I'm sure you know. Anyone who tried to would be widely ignored or flamed. But the question of how long this should stand is a question that does not have to be answered here, today. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Flip a coin" may not be a sarcastic comment, but it's not a helpful one unless you can explain how we should decide who should flip the coin. I'm not aware of a way to flip some virtual coin on a talk page. To illustrate my point, I have just flipped a coin and it came up C. All in favor of accepting my flip? Hmmm ... it seems those in favor are an exact match for those who voted for C. So the coin flip was an improvement how, exactly?
- No picture at all The extent of this discussion (and run-off voting?) is ridiculous. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we are ridiculously reaching a resolution with a minimum of fuss and ill will, contrary to Wikipedia tradition. Sorry you disapprove. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a lot of fuss to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well which fuss are you referring to? You used the word "ridiculous" in this section, so I assumed you were referring to this section. There is little fuss occurring in this section, which assures a consensus on 20 September, barring a close tie, with a minimum of editor time required in the interim. An experienced editor thanked me for starting this, saying "It is now orderly, clear and concise". I call that a win for the article and the project. A few disagree, a few who inexplicably feel they are smarter than 27 editors combined. Go figure. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
"There is little fuss occurring in this section, which assures a consensus on 20 September"
Well, actually no. There will not be consensus, there will be votes tallied. You set this up in your instructions so that there would be no discussion and discussion leads to consensus. What you are going for is votes and the weight of each. That's definitely not going to lead to a consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)- The issue has been at WP:AN for about a half hour, with support for this process method voiced by the one admin who has commented so far. Any further discussion here is now pointless, and voting should proceed with the assumption that no sin is being committed here, pending a different resolution at AN. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is me making note of you totally missing my point and, instead, becoming defensive over something I never said nor implied. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue has been at WP:AN for about a half hour, with support for this process method voiced by the one admin who has commented so far. Any further discussion here is now pointless, and voting should proceed with the assumption that no sin is being committed here, pending a different resolution at AN. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well which fuss are you referring to? You used the word "ridiculous" in this section, so I assumed you were referring to this section. There is little fuss occurring in this section, which assures a consensus on 20 September, barring a close tie, with a minimum of editor time required in the interim. An experienced editor thanked me for starting this, saying "It is now orderly, clear and concise". I call that a win for the article and the project. A few disagree, a few who inexplicably feel they are smarter than 27 editors combined. Go figure. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a lot of fuss to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we are ridiculously reaching a resolution with a minimum of fuss and ill will, contrary to Wikipedia tradition. Sorry you disapprove. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 best framing, smiling, flag in the background makes it seem like an official portrait.LM2000 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
C5C6. Taken by the same professional photographer who took three of the four bio pics used by a competing tertiary source (Encyclopædia Britannica) and (since June 2015) by the subject's own campaign.
- Centered tie and collar, as in (1) his campaign bio pics, (2) his company bio pic, and (3) the lead pic in the Britannica bio. Also as in (4) the lead pic in the person infobox in the most analogous WP person entry, "Wendell Willkie".
- Relaxed eyebrows, as in (1), (2), (3), and (4).
- Compare with the old Willkie pic, where the eyebows are elevated and the tie's askew.
B1. Professional photographer, centered tie, relaxed eyebrows, and no microphone, as in (1), (2), (3), and (4).--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)- Between 17 September 2016 and 19 September 2016, notifications were made to DarthBotto, Ddcm8991, Yopienso, SW3 5DL, Christian75, Steve Quinn, EvergreenFir, Objective3000, Jack Upland, Writegeist, Graham, Prcc27, and (by email) the author of Pic E (Pic C's author had already voted). WP:APPNOTE guideline (OK to notify all the editors who participated in past discussions or the Wiki editors most known for expertise); WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy ("Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg#Summary){kind=link}
- E6 – Clear and crisp delineation of face on background. Serious, attentive pose of subject. No self-promotion of a particular photographer. — JFG talk 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 - kinda lost in where to vote, so posting in both places, the major issue with C is that he is not actually smiling, he has what we call a 'forced smile', its near to a smug than a smile....if we wanted a pic of Trump actually "smiling" and not looking at the camera, I would have gone with this one so lets just stop saying that Trump is smiling in C, I have seen serial killers smile better in their mugshots ;)...--Stemoc 10:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly support A per reasons I gave in the section below. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)(Edit comment: A: 2.6 votes, B: 1.8 votes, C: 1.3 votes, E: .3 votes.) Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 is more recent and much better resolution. Jonathunder (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 Nothing wrong with current photo Nations United (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly support E6 Trump's appearance has hardly changed in the last 13 months; there is nothing wrong with current photo and E is in a fairly neutral emotion. MB298 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
C4 E2C6. They are two entirely different projections. (In E Trump is engaged in a townhall exchange; in C he appears to be basking in an environment of support.) Other political candidate BLP lead images normally have neither projection just a smiling straight-on shot (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz). So given the two options, which is the more appropriate projection? Who knows. Which projection do I "like" better? E. Which photo is technically better (resolution, currency)? C. Which is more representative of the current Trump campaign? C. So C. IHTS (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)- C6. He's smiling, looks better, is more indicative of his popular image. E makes him look like he is seriously contemplating but in a posed fashion. -- GreenC 11:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I changed the 'E' image on Commons on the 12th (it was protected due to a edit war back in March) to a higher resolution version without knowing that this conversation was going on, due to being reminded about an old request to do so. It's the same image, but a 'slightly' wider crop, some very minor color adjustment (less orange), and far higher resolution. If anyone thinks that was a controversial change, please poke me over on Commons (or ping me here) and I'll change it back and put the higher resolution version under a different filename. Reventtalk 08:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, double checking, the protection expires tomorrow, lol. Reventtalk 08:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up.
Given the differences in aesthetic taste, computer displays, and possibly even human visual perception, including the effects of ambient lighting in the room, I feel that such ultra-fine tweaking of photos is a waste of time. This is not to say that all tweaking of photos is a waste of time, by any means, only the ultra-fine stuff. A very slight gain to user A often looks like a very slight loss to user B. And in fact I prefer the previous version. That said, at the size presented in an infobox, I doubt the difference is significant enough to worry about.
I reserve the right to update my position when all of those factors have been standardized, including bionic eyeballs for all editors and readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up.
- C6 I wonder if we would even seriously consider running a photograph of Hillary Clinton with an analogous expression to E.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 – Trump's hair in C looks messed up compared to E. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- E5 C1 - The contrast and lighting on E are better. His head against the blue background, more uniform facial lighting, and the colors make it easier to "read". C is better for its facial expression, but the multi-color, multi-patterned background makes the subject harder to "read". The contrast between the head and the background isn't as sharp. This contrast concern is especially an issue for low-vision people and folks using small screen devices. It's not a bad picture by any means, just that for an infobox where the goal is to provide readers with quick, relatively effortless information, E seems to do a better job. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 - It is a more natural, reposed portrait, has better photographic quality (except for the blown highlights on the shirt), and has a more dignified context than some of the others. E has a harsh shadow, creating visual separation from his face to the rest of the composition. Also, his face looks overly orange, flat, and his expression makes it look like he's practicing his 1000 yard stare. MrX 19:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 The blue in the background appears to be the most complimentary for his picture portrait when I view the enlarged image. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- C2 E4 Looks more like an American in the first one, but more like a cat I used to know in the second. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
- C6 - E makes it seem like he's staring off into space. C is much nicer to look at, the smile and the American flag are a bonus. WeaponOfChoice1 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- C4 E2 - I have comfort with both the options, but I admittedly have a preference for the new alternative. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
E6. [[14]] (talk), e-mail message to Dervorguilla, September 18, 2016.]Admin strike, no proxy editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, I authorized "Dervorguilla" to post the above message and vote. I have no idea how to edit the wikipedia and so I wanted someone with experience to perform the edit. I dont want to mess anything up here and I simply dont have the time to sort through all this. Thanks again. Mike MichaelVadon (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will vote for the status quo image E. Pic C has an unflattering neck and I'm certain Trump would not appreciate his neck out like that. In fact, most customers would reject this photo quickly. I certainly would not enjoy seeing my neck out like this.
- Mr. Trump has always been very serious and rarely does he smile. He has constantly brought up issues in a serious manner. He enjoys portraying himself as a strong man and smiling he doesn't do often. Smiling is also not Presidential IMHO.
- Out of many photos that I've put out there in the public domain various publications have selected this photo.[1][2] Merchandisers, such as the Trump bobblehead maker, have selected photo E.
[Vote & comment posted on MichaelVadon's behalf. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)]
- Information found at the Pic E filedesc summary: description="Mr Donald Trump New Hampshire Town Hall on August 19th, 2015 at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, NH by Michael Vadon"; author="Michael Vadon". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- So now that this is an RFC I'm a little confused about if this is still only a place to vote or if we can actually have discussion here. I'm not going to propose any new photos but I will say this: if we could do something about the microphones that would be great. Consensus is often about compromise and I don't see how only giving us photos with mics in them to choose from is a compromise to the people that have stated that they'd prefer a pic without them. So, I definitely think cropping the photos should be considered. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: See related discussion at WP:AN. The point of the RfC is precisely to enable discussion, so have at it. If that discussion actually proves beneficial, you and a couple of others will be vindicated (not your WP:POINT but your viewpoint) and the rest of us will learn something from the experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- So now that this is an RFC I'm a little confused about if this is still only a place to vote or if we can actually have discussion here. I'm not going to propose any new photos but I will say this: if we could do something about the microphones that would be great. Consensus is often about compromise and I don't see how only giving us photos with mics in them to choose from is a compromise to the people that have stated that they'd prefer a pic without them. So, I definitely think cropping the photos should be considered. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: do you have a link for the particular AN discussion? I am having trouble finding it on the AN board. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk)
Someone just close this nonsense already. Photo C will not win since it's not near unanimous. Why the fuck is "voting" being extended when there is no such thing as voting on Wikipedia? Just accept the fact that the current image is never going to change. I'm not going to waste another month on a fucking image that will just go nowhere, so I'm done with this place for good. This was the saddest thing I ever saw on Wikipedia. TL565 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, your inexperience is showing (or you're just being hyperbolic). There are many, many FAR sadder things than this at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Tragic. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, September 24, 2016 (UTC)
- E6 - the status quo, it's neutral and is aesthetically pleasing. When you expand the two photos to a higher resolution and compare, his hair in the "C" photo looks horrible.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 simply for reasons of contrast with the background. I really don't want to get into a (phenomenally subjective) discussion of which image better represents Trump as a candidate: but the fact remains that at the screen size I am viewing this, which is not uncommon, the edges of Trump's face are lost against the background in "C". On a more general note, I really do not think we should be getting into issues such as how angry a candidate is, or how attractive he looks in a photograph. It is not our job to boost a candidate by putting a flag in the background, nor to drag it down (presumably) by making him appear "angry." Our choice should be based purely on the technical quality of the photograph: lighting, resolution, focus, contrast, etc etc. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Perhaps our decision should indeed be based "purely on the technical quality of the photograph". Have you found any relevant policy or precedent? This would help persuade other participants. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a guideline specific to photographs. However, I would cite Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Whether a candidate has an American flag behind him is surely the sort of argument that that policy is meant to prevent. Vanamonde (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's a mischaracterization of the flag argument as I understood it. Clinton has a flag and it was an incorrect application of WP:NPOV. It's still not a good argument, but it's worth stating it correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a guideline specific to photographs. However, I would cite Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Whether a candidate has an American flag behind him is surely the sort of argument that that policy is meant to prevent. Vanamonde (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Perhaps our decision should indeed be based "purely on the technical quality of the photograph". Have you found any relevant policy or precedent? This would help persuade other participants. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 It is simply a better picture. It has a better aspect ratio, better lighting, and is a much more recognizable face that he makes frequently. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 - Better lighting, neutral face, and better quality. In image C, he is squinting and making a strange face. Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Both - Let those interested in such things change it back and forth on a daily basis by those who care as an agreed civil compromise exception to edit warring. It really doesn't matter to me, and I find it very difficult to understand why it would be an issue. Just MVHO. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 02:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- C6 Looks more natural, has flags in the background that add color to it, E may be too POV for we generally prefer more formal portraits. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- E6 Summoned by bot. More neutral photograph. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ^ David Uberti, Opinion Writers Throw Everything They Have against Trump, Columbia Journalism Review, September 8, 2016.
- ^ Editorial, Federal Deficits Explode—Is Anyone Paying Attention?, IBD, August 24, 2016.
Run-off Discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I making this section because people clearly do not seem to understand why this is the system that is in place. Up above please only make your votes and if you have anything to discuss do so here in a clear manner, that we know what you are responding to. There has been MUCH discussion about the photos, so this voting is not in place of the discussion, just a natural progression. Chase (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to remind everyone that wikipedia is not a democracy and therefore consensus will be judged by the merit of people's arguments rather than how many "votes" each photo gets. I see no point of having 6 "votes" and we usually don't do that on wikipedia. It's very unsettling to see discussion being discouraged when discussion is the foundation of wikipedian consensus building. Also, there usually is not a deadline on discussing things if consensus still is not clear. I suggest that after this discussion dies down that you guys ask an admin to access consensus. To be honest, I don't like either photo because in both pics there's a mic in the way and he's not completely upright. But to address Trumps photo... I prefer A because the contrast is not too dark, his posture is better, and he's facing forwards. We don't do runoffs on Wikipedia talk pages so technically A-E are still options and people can even propose more options if they choose. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- You think we didn't make that argument already? Face it, this seems to be the only way we can settle things after a week of chaos. TL565 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinions. Admins are good for weighing arguments based on policy, guideline, and common practice. They are no better than any of us for judging whether one completely subjective opinion about a photo should be given more weight than another completely subjective opinion. If we did that, we might as well save everybody a lot of time and let the admin choose the photo. In any case, the current unanimous-minus-one consensus is that this method is just fine for the purposes of deciding this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well you don't get to make the rules on how consensus for a photo is decided. It doesn't make sense to notify users of a discussion where most of the options (like my choice) has already been eliminated and at a time when discussion is no longer being encouraged. Why even bother to invite more users to this talk page if we aren't supposed to engage in the discussion? If figuring out whether or not there is consensus is so difficult that you have to put it up to a vote that violates wikipedia policy, that probably means that none of the options have consensus and until that changes we are stuck with the status quo. I want to point out that someone "thanked" me for the comment I made above- just so you know that I am not the only one against this unnecessary voting method. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion began on 2 September, eight days ago, and there have been thousands of words of discussion spent on it. Many of us including me feel that at some point we have to move things forward, and there will always be more editors who arrive late and wish they could have participated in the discussion. If you and the other editor wish to dispute the otherwise-unanimously-accepted method of (finally) reaching this resolution, I don't think this is the place. I for one am more interested in results than in strict adherence to someone's subjective interpretation of policy. To me, "results" in this case means spending as little additional time as possible on bringing this largely arbitrary photo selection to a resolution. That's what we're doing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 8 days is nothing considering that the default duration of an RFC is 30 days. If you disagree with my interpretation of wikipedia policy we should call an admin over and see what they think. You've made it quite clear on your talk page that you think that we should ignore the policy about voting. The thing is, we should only ignore rules when it improves Wikipedia. Encouraging limited discussion has a negative effect on the consensus process and therefore it should not be ignored. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, if an admin says we have to waste further time on arguments that change no one's mind, we will abide by that. If an admin says that we need a closer to choose an infobox photo, we will abide by that. Go for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 8 days is nothing considering that the default duration of an RFC is 30 days. If you disagree with my interpretation of wikipedia policy we should call an admin over and see what they think. You've made it quite clear on your talk page that you think that we should ignore the policy about voting. The thing is, we should only ignore rules when it improves Wikipedia. Encouraging limited discussion has a negative effect on the consensus process and therefore it should not be ignored. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion began on 2 September, eight days ago, and there have been thousands of words of discussion spent on it. Many of us including me feel that at some point we have to move things forward, and there will always be more editors who arrive late and wish they could have participated in the discussion. If you and the other editor wish to dispute the otherwise-unanimously-accepted method of (finally) reaching this resolution, I don't think this is the place. I for one am more interested in results than in strict adherence to someone's subjective interpretation of policy. To me, "results" in this case means spending as little additional time as possible on bringing this largely arbitrary photo selection to a resolution. That's what we're doing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well you don't get to make the rules on how consensus for a photo is decided. It doesn't make sense to notify users of a discussion where most of the options (like my choice) has already been eliminated and at a time when discussion is no longer being encouraged. Why even bother to invite more users to this talk page if we aren't supposed to engage in the discussion? If figuring out whether or not there is consensus is so difficult that you have to put it up to a vote that violates wikipedia policy, that probably means that none of the options have consensus and until that changes we are stuck with the status quo. I want to point out that someone "thanked" me for the comment I made above- just so you know that I am not the only one against this unnecessary voting method. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: Please read this if you have any questions regarding if a poll does or does not pertain to consensus. Thank you. Chase (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Because of his COI (declared or undeclared, I don’t know), the comments from Calibrador that attempt to influence the result in favor of the photograph he took should be struck and discounted. And anyway, run-off voting is not the way to resolve a content dispute. A tally of votes here will not provide a valid reason to keep or change the original photograph. Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused to where the COI is or how he is influencing the result. Why should he not vote for his own suggestion? An admin even admitted that striking out his vote is going too far. TL565 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Which admin? Why is this admin not saying anything about the unconstructive voting going on (or have they)? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Chase (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- The admin is not commenting on the "unconstructive" voting because this was that Admin's policy based idea. If Prcc27 had bothered to read the talk page - they would know this. Please see my comments below. And Mandruss is not deciding how things go -- this is an established consensus and Prcc27 is showing up after the horse has left the barn. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I for one am disappointed I missed the voting, but I support how it all turned out. There was plenty of time for those who wanted - to jump on board. I think stopping it in mid-stream is not correct. All this was agreed to as it went on. Just because two editors don't agree after the fact should not carry any weight. Maybe this should be taken to ANI and let it be decided there because I don't find the reasons for thwarting what has been decided compelling. However, I find Mandruss's argument of wanting move things along on what is essentially arbitrary aesthetic judgement a much better argument. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Prcc27🌍 has opened the discussion as if no consensus has taken place. Consensus was established that this is how it would be done, at the behest of an admin. Also, it is impossible to judge on the merits of people's argument when aesthetic judgment is all there is. This was also noted by an admin - who encouraged us to choose a photo in this way. Prcc27 comments are like pointing to the horse after it has left the barn. Although, yes, there "usually is not a deadline on discussing things if consensus still is not clear" - but consensus has been very clear all along - so it seems Prcc27 has not read the talk page up to this point. And it is incorrect to say that consensus "is still not clear".
- There is no possible way an admin can assess consensus on the best arguments for the photos because everyone has an equal opinion. The only possible way - is to choose the photo(s) that got the most votes. This seems to be supported by policy, because an Admin pointed this out. And Prcc27 then voices a preference on photos - with an argument that is much like any other argument pertaining to this - it is all aesthetic. There is no best argument. So, actually stopping this in mid-stream is going against already established consensus (in order to voice an aesthetic opinion?). Sorry, this is not correct. And using Wikipedia policies in this manner does not seem correct either. Consensus has determined what consensus has determined. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can't get local consensus at an article's talk page to disregard wikipedia policy. !Voting gives us an idea of which option has consensus but at the end of the day we have to go with the photo that has the strongest arguments. It is not in the convention of Wikipedia to have plural voting; a simply "support" or "strongly support" should suffice. The argument for the photo I !voted for was not just based on aesthetics; it was based on wikipedia standards not to use dark or blurry photos. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:
we have to go with the photo that has the strongest arguments.
Fine, and who makes that determination? Don't say that we make it together, collectively. I think I and those who agree with me have the strongest arguments. You think you and those who agree with you have the strongest arguments. You can say you have the strongest arguments because you pointed to Wikipedia standards not to use dark or blurry photos, and my response is that my preference photo is not dark or blurry. To my mind, I have defeated your claim that you have the strongest arguments. We can debate this to the end of time and neither of us will change our position. Seriously, how often have you seen someone reverse their position in a Wikipedia debate? I've seen it happen about five times in over three years, and three of those cases were me changing my mind. So how is this disagreement resolved without a closer? Such a closer would have to very subjectively decide whether my photo is dark or blurry, and being an admin does not make one more qualified than anyone else to make such judgments. Admins are experts in Wikipedia p&g, not photo evaluation. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:
- Comment You know what? I don't care anymore what the result will be. It's just going to be contested by someone anyway and will be no way official, wasting everyone's time. As a matter of fact, I'm done with this place. TL565 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: @TL565: "Hey now, Hey now! This is what dreams are made of." Don't be discourage! This is what Wikipedia is all about! We need you! Don't leave us!Chase (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every consensus is subject to change, and many of them are revisited repeatedly. That doesn't mean everyone's time is necessarily wasted, although it is quite possible to waste time and we should work to avoid doing so. I feel that a poll like this minimizes the time spent on deciding this infobox photo. What is the point of spending a lot of time on threaded debate if (1) no one's mind is ever changed, and (2) there is no closer to independently evaluate the strength of the arguments? Has anyone else noticed that we never get any return on that investment?
TL565, I'm not sure what you mean by "official". AFAIK, a clear consensus will be binding until it is replaced by a new consensus on this page, and persistent editing against it will be considered disruption and will be dealt with accordingly. So the idea is to establish that clear consensus, and that's what we're doing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not what you are doing here. What you are doing here is participating in a voting contest. Consensus is not determined by counting votes. This is a pointless exercise that contributes nothing to improving the article. Writegeist (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. By my count, 27 editors disagree. And neither you nor anyone else has provided convincing answers to the questions I posed in my preceding post. Nor has there been a reply to my post of 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC), which I consider well reasoned and well articulated. I conclude that the few dissenters have no real answers and have nothing to bring besides disruption of a process that is working quite well, despite baseless assertions to the contrary. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter; this is not a democracy. Eliminating options to choose from and disregarding wikipedia policy by holding an election is very disruptive so I posted on the Administrators' noticeboard so that we can get an admin to help guide discussion. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: A couple admins have already had their say, but you refuse to listen to them until you find one that agrees with you. Chase (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Third admin here, coming from WP:AN, and I've added {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} to this discussion, because as noted by several people, there's no real way to have a stronger argument than "I like it" on an aesthetic matter like this; I could imagine something being a major policy problem (e.g. a derogatory depiction of the guy) and votes for it being disregarded on WP:NPOV grounds, but that's definitely not the case here. And finally, note that voters on both sides have already offered opinions such as "It looks more presidential" (for the left picture) and "He's used it in his campaign ads, so it's more recognizable" (for the right picture), so it's not as if one side or the other is going solely on votes or depending on wimpy rationales. When people are strongly, strongly in favor of doing C or E (just three people are saying otherwise: use another image, use no image, and be random), it would be a clear disservice to do anything except for using C or using E, and closing as "no consensus, defaulting to status quo ante bellum" wouldn't be particularly good when one of the two choices was already in use. It's not ideal, but counting votes is the only way to do it here. So yes: barring evidence of outright misbehavior, e.g. sockpuppetry or other double voting, the position with the larger number of votes will be deemed to have community consensus for its implementation. Final note: if you want to continue discussing the general issue, go ahead, but please don't continue objecting to the idea of a vote, since you've gotten the admin input you requested. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: A couple admins have already had their say, but you refuse to listen to them until you find one that agrees with you. Chase (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter; this is not a democracy. Eliminating options to choose from and disregarding wikipedia policy by holding an election is very disruptive so I posted on the Administrators' noticeboard so that we can get an admin to help guide discussion. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. By my count, 27 editors disagree. And neither you nor anyone else has provided convincing answers to the questions I posed in my preceding post. Nor has there been a reply to my post of 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC), which I consider well reasoned and well articulated. I conclude that the few dissenters have no real answers and have nothing to bring besides disruption of a process that is working quite well, despite baseless assertions to the contrary. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not what you are doing here. What you are doing here is participating in a voting contest. Consensus is not determined by counting votes. This is a pointless exercise that contributes nothing to improving the article. Writegeist (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every consensus is subject to change, and many of them are revisited repeatedly. That doesn't mean everyone's time is necessarily wasted, although it is quite possible to waste time and we should work to avoid doing so. I feel that a poll like this minimizes the time spent on deciding this infobox photo. What is the point of spending a lot of time on threaded debate if (1) no one's mind is ever changed, and (2) there is no closer to independently evaluate the strength of the arguments? Has anyone else noticed that we never get any return on that investment?
- There is no possible way an admin can assess consensus on the best arguments for the photos because everyone has an equal opinion. The only possible way - is to choose the photo(s) that got the most votes. This seems to be supported by policy, because an Admin pointed this out. And Prcc27 then voices a preference on photos - with an argument that is much like any other argument pertaining to this - it is all aesthetic. There is no best argument. So, actually stopping this in mid-stream is going against already established consensus (in order to voice an aesthetic opinion?). Sorry, this is not correct. And using Wikipedia policies in this manner does not seem correct either. Consensus has determined what consensus has determined. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New image from September 17, 2016 (three days ago)
Because I anticipate (in good faith!) that almost everyone will find this image preferable to those proposed heretofore, I will insert boldly into the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see that User:MrX has reverted. He and others may wish to create a better crop (I made this one with an old clunky computer that I have access to right now). Additionally, he and others may wish to look at the new set of images at Wikimedia Commons from which this image was taken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, I honestly don't care that much about which photo we use (although the expression in this one renders it undesirable). I care about the process that leads to consensus, a process which seems to be constantly disrupted by unwillingness to respect the instructions, canvassing, gaming, and general disruption. As an aside, I'm puzzled about why you put an entire Washington Post article in the file description.- MrX 11:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, the image was extracted from another image already uploaded, so merely copied the original description. I have no idea what "canvassing" you're referring to. People who were aware of these new photos days ago should have mentioned their existence, which would have saved me the trouble (and blowback!) of bringing them to people's attention at the last minute. I have removed the possible copyvio from the original upload, [15] thanks for bringing it to my attention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith, I can only conclude that you don't understand how a runoff vote works. In a runoff (or any vote for that matter), one doesn't introduce new candidates or choices, especially not in the final hours before the vote is to end. It's extremely disruptive and has the appearance of attempting to circumvent the dispute resolution process. This WP:RECKLESS edit was the icing on the cake.- MrX 13:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I knew the !vote was nearing an end, and therefore wanted to bring the new image to people's attention as fast as possible. The way a runoff works is that every editor can change his vote up until the last minute, based on new information, as I did myself in this case. I have no regrets about trying to ensure that !voters are fully informed, nor any objection to your right to revert the new image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to confirm my conclusion above. Please see runoff.- MrX 14:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I knew the !vote was nearing an end, and therefore wanted to bring the new image to people's attention as fast as possible. The way a runoff works is that every editor can change his vote up until the last minute, based on new information, as I did myself in this case. I have no regrets about trying to ensure that !voters are fully informed, nor any objection to your right to revert the new image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith, I can only conclude that you don't understand how a runoff vote works. In a runoff (or any vote for that matter), one doesn't introduce new candidates or choices, especially not in the final hours before the vote is to end. It's extremely disruptive and has the appearance of attempting to circumvent the dispute resolution process. This WP:RECKLESS edit was the icing on the cake.- MrX 13:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, the image was extracted from another image already uploaded, so merely copied the original description. I have no idea what "canvassing" you're referring to. People who were aware of these new photos days ago should have mentioned their existence, which would have saved me the trouble (and blowback!) of bringing them to people's attention at the last minute. I have removed the possible copyvio from the original upload, [15] thanks for bringing it to my attention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, I honestly don't care that much about which photo we use (although the expression in this one renders it undesirable). I care about the process that leads to consensus, a process which seems to be constantly disrupted by unwillingness to respect the instructions, canvassing, gaming, and general disruption. As an aside, I'm puzzled about why you put an entire Washington Post article in the file description.- MrX 11:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see that User:MrX has reverted. He and others may wish to create a better crop (I made this one with an old clunky computer that I have access to right now). Additionally, he and others may wish to look at the new set of images at Wikimedia Commons from which this image was taken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have to admit this is better than option "C", but I still prefer E. Chase (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I kinda agree. This image is easier to "read", but something is off about it. It seems unnatural. I understand that's a subjective view... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, I like File:Donald_J._Trump_at_Marriott_Marquis_NYC_September_7th_2016_11.jpg out of the "new batch". Not sure if better than E, but better than C and this one shown here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I kinda agree. This image is easier to "read", but something is off about it. It seems unnatural. I understand that's a subjective view... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well you're essentially rewinding the clock to September 10, negating all the editor effort made during that time. For an improvement that seems obvious to you but I suspect (in good faith) many others will dispute, including me. I see no non-messy solution, but at a minimum the existing process should be allowed to play out. Then we can decide where to go from there. I'm beginning to wonder whether I was incorrect when I essentially told one experienced editor that they were exaggerating with their statement: "It doesn't matter what decision will be made, because the discussion will restart in another week or so." At some point I think we need to say good enough, just so we can get some other work done. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- It looks silly like he is mid sentence in a speechShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a link where you can see the big batch of new photos taken during September 2016. Some older ones are mixed in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- It looks silly like he is mid sentence in a speechShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: Allow me to suggest that you un-strike your vote. I'm closing that voting in 3.5 hours, and we're not going to add new candidates to that at this late hour. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'd rather keep my !vote struck out, at least for now, because we suddenly have a fairly unusual collection of first-rate photos that ought to be considered. Any further votes could be limited to three days, since we have already identified a large pool of !voters who can be easily notified. As for you closing the !vote, didn't you yourself !vote at 21:47, 18 September 2016? I don't think that closure by an involved !voter is wise, even if the close is opposite to what you !voted for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Duration was set at ten days from the start, and there has been no objection to that. This is not a "close" in the usual sense, as I'm not going to be making any judgments besides the sums of some numbers, which are subject to verification by others. So I don't need to be uninvolved. I'm merely using the word close because I can't think of a better one. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I object to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On what basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On the basis that we should wait 24 hours to see if there is consensus to consider the September photos at Wikimedia Commons (including the one atop this subsection), or not, before finalizing this decision.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well we do not have sufficient participation to reach a consensus on that question in the next three hours, so I'll go with the de facto consensus represented by ten days of no objection to the 10-day voting period, by 30+ editors. If we then reach a consensus to do so, the voting can be reopened.
I will oppose that, since, even if we pinged all participants, some would doubtless fail to come back and reconsider their votes. That would be problematic, since it would be improper to presume they would stay with their existing votes. Basically, that's a monumental mess you're suggesting. There are very good reasons to stick to a process and see it through, rather than changing horses mid-stream. We can always start a new vote and ping everybody, which is essentially the same thing but with far better organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)- When a great deal of new information becomes available, as in this instance, we should at least give editors a chance to strike their votes (as I did). Why not extend by 24 hours and then count the !votes? I strongly suspect that many people who !voted for the new image (C) will want to strike their votes, as I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not extend by 24 hours and then count the !votes?
- I believe I just answered that question. Sorry you didn't like my answer. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)- You'll be creating unnecessary article instability if you change the top image without giving people a chance to look at new alternatives. That's just my opinion, do with it as you will. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's one perspective. The alternative perspective is that I'm following the agreed process and you're the one proposing article instability. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mandruss, please just close it as you had originally planned and disregard the attempted disruption and gaming. - MrX 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's one perspective. The alternative perspective is that I'm following the agreed process and you're the one proposing article instability. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You'll be creating unnecessary article instability if you change the top image without giving people a chance to look at new alternatives. That's just my opinion, do with it as you will. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- When a great deal of new information becomes available, as in this instance, we should at least give editors a chance to strike their votes (as I did). Why not extend by 24 hours and then count the !votes? I strongly suspect that many people who !voted for the new image (C) will want to strike their votes, as I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant:, from my perspective your actions here are inappropriate These are as follows: overriding consensus on a whim and posting your preferred image on the article page, challenging the close which was established would happen ten days ago, challenging the closer without sufficient grounds and being argumentative about it, and then objecting to the close. This appears to be an attempt to disrupt the process, and this page is under Arbcom American Poltics 2 DS. I hope you can do the math, and please drop this. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised that there was any objection to the image atop this subsection. But several editors have already said it's better than at least one of the two images in the runoff. My article edit was reverted, and I have not contested the reversion. What I do suggest is giving !voters 24 hours to revise their !votes (as I did) in view of new information. To portray that simple suggestion as disruptive is absurd. You and everyone else are free to reject my suggestion if you wish. People are about to have their !votes counted despite new information that they haven't been given a chance to consider, which seems silly and unnecessary to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well what seems silly and unnecessary to you is really inconsequential at this juncture. And this process is not going to change course or stop just because you have an opinion. Consensus is not gong to
bechange because you have an opinion. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)- That's fine Steve, editors like me who fail to persuade other editors are essentially inconsequential and that is what I am here. That's fine, I have no problem with that, I'm not filibustering against you or denying your right to speak or your right to form a consensus against my opinion. But I do insist on striking my !vote prior to the deadline. I have no conflict of interest that prevents me from doing that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will respect your strike if it's still in place at 08:39. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant - I didn't say you are inconsequential - I said your opinion is inconsequential at this juncture. At other junctures your opinion mattered, from what I can tell. And it would have been better said "opinion didn't seem to matter. Capice?Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I changed my !vote to "E6". Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant - I didn't say you are inconsequential - I said your opinion is inconsequential at this juncture. At other junctures your opinion mattered, from what I can tell. And it would have been better said "opinion didn't seem to matter. Capice?Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will respect your strike if it's still in place at 08:39. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine Steve, editors like me who fail to persuade other editors are essentially inconsequential and that is what I am here. That's fine, I have no problem with that, I'm not filibustering against you or denying your right to speak or your right to form a consensus against my opinion. But I do insist on striking my !vote prior to the deadline. I have no conflict of interest that prevents me from doing that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well what seems silly and unnecessary to you is really inconsequential at this juncture. And this process is not going to change course or stop just because you have an opinion. Consensus is not gong to
- I was surprised that there was any objection to the image atop this subsection. But several editors have already said it's better than at least one of the two images in the runoff. My article edit was reverted, and I have not contested the reversion. What I do suggest is giving !voters 24 hours to revise their !votes (as I did) in view of new information. To portray that simple suggestion as disruptive is absurd. You and everyone else are free to reject my suggestion if you wish. People are about to have their !votes counted despite new information that they haven't been given a chance to consider, which seems silly and unnecessary to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well we do not have sufficient participation to reach a consensus on that question in the next three hours, so I'll go with the de facto consensus represented by ten days of no objection to the 10-day voting period, by 30+ editors. If we then reach a consensus to do so, the voting can be reopened.
- On the basis that we should wait 24 hours to see if there is consensus to consider the September photos at Wikimedia Commons (including the one atop this subsection), or not, before finalizing this decision.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On what basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I object to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Duration was set at ten days from the start, and there has been no objection to that. This is not a "close" in the usual sense, as I'm not going to be making any judgments besides the sums of some numbers, which are subject to verification by others. So I don't need to be uninvolved. I'm merely using the word close because I can't think of a better one. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'd rather keep my !vote struck out, at least for now, because we suddenly have a fairly unusual collection of first-rate photos that ought to be considered. Any further votes could be limited to three days, since we have already identified a large pool of !voters who can be easily notified. As for you closing the !vote, didn't you yourself !vote at 21:47, 18 September 2016? I don't think that closure by an involved !voter is wise, even if the close is opposite to what you !voted for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
![[15]](/w/index.php?title=File%3ADonald_Trump_at_Aston%2C_PA_September_17th.jpg&type=revision&diff=207203697&oldid=207168450){kind=link}
I am going to briefly come out of retirement just this once, since I was involved in this discussion when it started. We just had a long drawn out tiring discussion on this for three weeks. Do we really need start this whole thing all over again when we are literally just hours away from voting being closed? More than 40 people have already voted and I don't think anyone is going snap their fingers because someone suddenly suggested a new photo at the last second. This is exactly the kind of thing I anticipated and why I left this place.(Although an admin made it more official since then.) I think Anythingyouwant's original vote should be counted regardless since he only struck it out due to a clear COI. Btw, I Oppose the new photo. TL565 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- TL565 the answeer to your question is there is absolutely no requirement that we start this thing all over again with only a few hours left. Nor is their a basis for it. And there is not a sufficient rationale for negating a consensus of 40 people. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I knew someone would find a random photo from that set. Distracting microphone and weird lips should immediately disqualify. Full disclosure that I took C photo above, but don't believe this to be a COI, I am just giving my opinion on this distraction. Calibrador (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not sure if it was a sensible idea to start this considering the other one was about to close, Anyway it's now closed, we have consensus to use the other image so that's what we should stick with, I would suggest someone closes this. –Davey2010Talk 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You see, this is the problem with the run-off voting that was implemented. It discourages consensus building, discussions, and suggesting better photos. In my opinion, this photo is better than both of the options in the run-off vote section. Perhaps many people that voted for C or even E would agree that this photo is better. But 2 photos were forced on us and the search for better photos was strongly discouraged. As for this proposed photo; I still don't understand why pics with a microphone photobombing Trump keep making it into the proposed photos. So I don't necessarily support this photo that much more than the other options. The vote between C and E was so close you could hardly say pic "C" has consensus. I don't know how we should move forward after this runoff vote. Either way, many people are going to be unhappy with the outcome. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think we're past that discussion, given the opinions of
TWO ADMINStwo admins andFORTY REGULAR EDITORSforty regular editors. I think I know a WP:STICK when I see it. Your silly WP:POINTy vote, resulting in weird-looking tally results with one decimal position, after I had contacted you about that 16 hours prior to end of voting, is quite enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)- Then why were you reverted when you changed the photo? It's obviously not up to you or me to have the final say in what the consensus was. We'll wait for it to be officially called by a closer. Until then, the status quo remains. Also, stop shouting at me please. As I noted before, participating in a voting system you designed doesn't mean they actually support that as a way to form a consensus. I'm not going to even bother reading the essay you linked to since it's just an essay. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm through trying to explain what should be obvious to an editor with your experience. Others are obviously free to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then why were you reverted when you changed the photo? It's obviously not up to you or me to have the final say in what the consensus was. We'll wait for it to be officially called by a closer. Until then, the status quo remains. Also, stop shouting at me please. As I noted before, participating in a voting system you designed doesn't mean they actually support that as a way to form a consensus. I'm not going to even bother reading the essay you linked to since it's just an essay. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think we're past that discussion, given the opinions of
BTW, I'd like to see at least one editor verify my counts. I was pretty careful, but a lot of shit was changing during the final few hours, after I had done the counts. With each change, I had to adjust the tallies accordingly, and I could have made a mistake in the confusion. For that matter, I could have made a mistake in the original counts. If someone could take that on and respond here that would be awesome. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hopefully the closer will verify that. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anything's possible, but that was not the purpose of the "closer" request, as clearly explained in it. I think the word "close" has created a little confusion, since this is nothing like the typical close, so I'll try to avoid that in any future similar situations. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure your count is correct. I would like to know why all these voting sections have been closed and reopened several times. I don't understand why the photo has suddenly become such an issue. If the man wins, he gets another official photo, if he doesn't win, the one that's been there all along will be fine as nobody will notice. And I'd like to thank whoever decided to go for GA as that's what this article has been needing for some time. Thank you, to whomever it was. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: I can confirm the numbers that you counted. I got the same thing. Thank you. Chase (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CCamp2013:
Thank you very much! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CCamp2013:
- Getting tired of a new image being suggested every week or so - Lets pick a picture, and move on as I feel that like 3 GA articles or so could have been made by now off the energy wasted on these discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The info box picture
So is the run off voting done? Are we doing Picture C or are we keeping it put? CatcherStorm talk 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CatcherStorm: Runoff ends September 20. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Image
@Davey2010: You are not wasting your time, however, a closer has been requested. So we must respect that and that means, the consensus will not be decided until the closer decides it. Chase (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- CCamp2013 - I have nothing against you but what difference does it make if an nac closes it and an admin ? .... Either way the image is going to be readded and going down this route is simply wasting admins time, It's pure and utter horseshit it really is, If consensus is to use C we should as a community say right C it is ... not act like children saying "err lets wait for the teacher" which is essentially what we're doing here, Right I'm off to have a cuppa before I self combust. –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: I quite agree, however, to avoid any edit warring we need to leave it alone until it can actually be forced. And we all know that some people who supported E will edit war to have their picture back, more so than people who wanted C. At least we have a reason for the time being to leave it at E, previous consensus, then at C, the new unofficial consensus (which is so close and that's why a closer is even being asked for). If the decision was something like 55% or greater than I would understand. Chase (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- As I said in my AN request, this is the approach that was suggested at VPP days ago. I knew we would probably end up with a close vote, and I sought guidance there. They declined to be pinned down much, and in fact I got a response from only one editor, but this is the best I could come up with based on their comment, which was: "I've got it. A discussion didn't have to have an RFC template to get a close. WP:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed says When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. It also says It may be useful to close Requests for comments, but that's a separate statement in another paragraph. If the outcome isn't clear enough for one side to acknowledge it's over, a uninvolved close can still be requested. Alsee (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC) emphasis added - We all know a 51.8% !vote would not represent consensus for change in a more normal situation, and the question was whether this situation was enough different to play by different rules. That's the purpose of the "closer" request. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure who this was referring to, as I have read the comments over there as well and the structure that you put it was a bit confusing?, but yes I understand the request. One user has requested a closer, so that is what we must do. This is why I put the image back to previous consensus until that answer is resolved and we can detour others from edit warring. Chase (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I failed to indent that correctly. I was responding to Davey. Feel free to fix my bad indent and remove both our comments to avoid unnecessary clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure who this was referring to, as I have read the comments over there as well and the structure that you put it was a bit confusing?, but yes I understand the request. One user has requested a closer, so that is what we must do. This is why I put the image back to previous consensus until that answer is resolved and we can detour others from edit warring. Chase (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- As I said in my AN request, this is the approach that was suggested at VPP days ago. I knew we would probably end up with a close vote, and I sought guidance there. They declined to be pinned down much, and in fact I got a response from only one editor, but this is the best I could come up with based on their comment, which was: "I've got it. A discussion didn't have to have an RFC template to get a close. WP:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed says When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. It also says It may be useful to close Requests for comments, but that's a separate statement in another paragraph. If the outcome isn't clear enough for one side to acknowledge it's over, a uninvolved close can still be requested. Alsee (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC) emphasis added - We all know a 51.8% !vote would not represent consensus for change in a more normal situation, and the question was whether this situation was enough different to play by different rules. That's the purpose of the "closer" request. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- CCamp2013 - I'm back, all calm & collect
, I apologize for ranting at you, I actually assumed the community would be cool with it, I hadn't really thought anyone would edit war over it but perhaps I'm putting too much trust in this place! , - Mandruss - Ah right I hasn't spotted the discussion otherwise I would've chimed it and probably wouldn't of gotten so riled up over it!, I mean perhaps I'm looking at it differently to everyone else but to me the 1.8% is for C period - It's not much however it's just over 50 but then again it's all about the discussion too which again looks more for C than for E, Ah well if an admin close is preferred then that's what we'll do :),
- Again I apologize for the melt down, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not a problem, these things can very easily get impossible to comprehend, even when we try really hard to avoid that, and they often do. The important things are AGF and reading comprehension, and you possess both. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- More accurately, good AGF judgment; i.e., avoiding both false positives and false negatives as to bad faith. Not easy when all you have is words on a computer display. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: I quite agree, however, to avoid any edit warring we need to leave it alone until it can actually be forced. And we all know that some people who supported E will edit war to have their picture back, more so than people who wanted C. At least we have a reason for the time being to leave it at E, previous consensus, then at C, the new unofficial consensus (which is so close and that's why a closer is even being asked for). If the decision was something like 55% or greater than I would understand. Chase (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Pic
I was away from my laptop computer for a few days, but have now had an opportunity to crop the image at right. I will request that the Wikimedia Graphics Lab advise whether the microphone shadow could or should be removed, and will update this comment accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- WHOLEHEARTEDLY OPPOSE Chase (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Chase, you said above: "I have to admit this is better than option C, but I still prefer E." Why do you prefer E compared to this new one? To me, he looks dead tired in E, plus orange, the lighting is bad, he's not looking forward, there's no flag, et cetera. All of that is fixed in this new one. I admit, it would be better if the microphone was absent, but pic E hides more of his neck in darkness than this new pic hides behind the microphone. I like that the new pic is more of an action shot than a portrait (and thus does not include a fake grin).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- User talk:Anythingyouwant, Honestly, the man's orange. He gets a spray tan or whatever he does, but he is orange. That should not be an argument against pic E unless he was seriously the color of an Oompa Loompa. That would be too orange. He has in this pic what some refer to as a "Derp'" face. Also, why does there need to be a flag? Flag or not is irrelevant and a baseless argument. The lighting being bad is subjective and I do not agree. As for him not looking forward, he actually is... Just not pointed to the camera. In my opinion, E is the best option at the time that we have. Also, this discussion is meaningless because there is an RfC that is probably taking place about the photo. He probably is tired also. He is running for president. Pic E is by far the most neutral pic we have. Chase (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, well, I learned a new word today: derp face. Which the Urban Dictionary defines as "A facial expression reminiscent of one who is retarded". He just looks happy to me, unlike the miserable tired person in image E. Anyway, thanks for your feedback.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for illustrating that this is all subjective. In other words, your comments are not going to convince me that he just looks happy, and my comments are not going to convince you of derp face. You're not going to take a closer look, open your mind completely, and suddenly see the derp face. Human psychology doesn't work like that. And I strongly suspect that 80% of Republicans would see happy and 80% of Democrats would see derp face. Which is why DISCUSSION OF INFOBOX PHOTOS IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. There, I think I've said it clearly and concisely, and I can just link to this diff if I need to say it again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: To be clear, I am in one of those 20% ranges. I think that makes it pretty ovbious which one. Chase (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eeek!! A REPUBLICAN!! How will I ever trust you again?? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss; A republican who likes men, so I'm trustworthy. Chase (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- The thot plickens! Is this National Out Day or something? ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss; A republican who likes men, so I'm trustworthy. Chase (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eeek!! A REPUBLICAN!! How will I ever trust you again?? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: To be clear, I am in one of those 20% ranges. I think that makes it pretty ovbious which one. Chase (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for illustrating that this is all subjective. In other words, your comments are not going to convince me that he just looks happy, and my comments are not going to convince you of derp face. You're not going to take a closer look, open your mind completely, and suddenly see the derp face. Human psychology doesn't work like that. And I strongly suspect that 80% of Republicans would see happy and 80% of Democrats would see derp face. Which is why DISCUSSION OF INFOBOX PHOTOS IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. There, I think I've said it clearly and concisely, and I can just link to this diff if I need to say it again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, well, I learned a new word today: derp face. Which the Urban Dictionary defines as "A facial expression reminiscent of one who is retarded". He just looks happy to me, unlike the miserable tired person in image E. Anyway, thanks for your feedback.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- User talk:Anythingyouwant, Honestly, the man's orange. He gets a spray tan or whatever he does, but he is orange. That should not be an argument against pic E unless he was seriously the color of an Oompa Loompa. That would be too orange. He has in this pic what some refer to as a "Derp'" face. Also, why does there need to be a flag? Flag or not is irrelevant and a baseless argument. The lighting being bad is subjective and I do not agree. As for him not looking forward, he actually is... Just not pointed to the camera. In my opinion, E is the best option at the time that we have. Also, this discussion is meaningless because there is an RfC that is probably taking place about the photo. He probably is tired also. He is running for president. Pic E is by far the most neutral pic we have. Chase (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Chase, you said above: "I have to admit this is better than option C, but I still prefer E." Why do you prefer E compared to this new one? To me, he looks dead tired in E, plus orange, the lighting is bad, he's not looking forward, there's no flag, et cetera. All of that is fixed in this new one. I admit, it would be better if the microphone was absent, but pic E hides more of his neck in darkness than this new pic hides behind the microphone. I like that the new pic is more of an action shot than a portrait (and thus does not include a fake grin).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- What is it about DJT articles that spawn so many, many sections about his image? Isn't there something more important to discuss? Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- What spawns it is that our top image is presently very crummy, unlike, for example, the top image at Hillary Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Calibrador (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – The microphone obscures his tie knot. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Now I can't get past "'Derp' face" (laughing heartily). Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Derp face" works well for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Mandruss and Steve Quinn: I am glad you both enjoyed the term I used in my analysis. Chase (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- It did aid clear and concise communication by giving us a term to use. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - odd expression; subject obscured; excess blank space (though that, at least, can be fixed by a better crop). Jonathunder (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC no longer needed
Chase has expressed a concern that "there is an RfC that is probably taking place about the photo". If so, it's not listed at RfC:Biographies.
Nor is it needed -- we no longer need to get a "firm" talk-page consensus, whatever that was supposed to mean. A very "weak" consensus is good enough to let us break this long deadlock.
Some of the discussion contributors may reasonably believe that we do have at least a weak consensus; some, that we don't. Others may be ambivalent. Perhaps we should just poll them. We may get a clear answer; or we may not. But I tink it would be interesting to find out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 06:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Dervorguilla, It has already been decided to have a RfC. Chase (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Our choice of methodology was rejected at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CCamp2013: Interesting. The current Jill Stein RfC has its own section heading ("RfC: Factually inaccurate and misleading claims") at Talk; and there's a notice about it at RfC:Biographies.
- (I'm not criticizing anyone; there may well be something special about the Trump article or RfC. I just don't understand what it is.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC))
- It was initially listed only at Politics, I've added Biographies. With any luck it's just a matter of waiting until the bot shows up to list it at Biographies. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)