Image talk:BoyGeorge.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious to see the argument for how this photo is "replaceable." This publicity photo is 23 years old, and dates to the subject's brief period of fame; it therefore depicts him how he was most known to the public. He now looks completely different, having not only aged over two decades but having completely abandoned the long-haired, gender-ambiguous style by which he was known (and that image was a highly notable and discussed aspect of his celebrity). In public appearances, he is either completely bald (as seen during his community service), or wearing some bizarre kind of makeup that looks like thick, dripping paint (as seen on his recent appearances on VH1). Therefore, it is completely impossible to create a free replacement that adequately provides the same information as this image. Postdlf 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as the tagger failed to provide what and how it is disputed the tag is not valid and may be removed similar to unexplained NPOV tag attached top the article not accompanied with the talk page explanation. --Irpen 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no requirement to add an explanation when adding the {{rfu}} tag. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

None of that is discussed in the article. This is about context, and in the contect it is being used (to illustrate Boy George at the top of the article), it is a repeatable image. If it were being used to illustrate what he looked like 23 years ago (within the context of that being actually discussed in the article), then you could make a fair use claim, but it isn't. ed g2s • talk 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"George was a visible figure in the London club scene; his androgynous style caught the attention of music executive Malcolm McLaren..." That style obviously could have more discussion (such gender-bending was rather controversial back then), but to claim that the difference between how he looked then and how he looks now is simply irrelevant to the article is completely ridiculous. Postdlf 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. If you want to illustrate his style, then place the image in that part of the article with a suitable caption. At the moment it is just sitting in the infobox, illustrating the person. That could be done by a free image. ed g2s • talk 11:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How does placement in the infobox somehow make it more replaceable than if it were anywhere else in the article? The information the image provides (which the caption does specifically identify) is not contingent upon article layout; the infobox doesn't have some magical property to equivocate the content of all photos. Are you really trying to espouse the rule that "Fair use images of living people are always replaceable if they are used in the infobox"? Is your claim this image should be deleted really that insubstantial, such that merely moving it down in the article would make it no longer replaceable in your eyes? Postdlf 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, if an article is about a person (and not a phase in the person's career), then the infobox can hold any photo of the person, so long as it shows what the person looks like or looked like. This is why a non-free infobox image can be replaced by any free image of the person, even if it shows them at a different stage in their career. But an image used in a section that deals with how a person looked at a specific stage -- that image can't be replaced except by another picture that shows what they looked like at that stage.

Compare: Imagine if we had a free image of an old, captive dodo bird (extinct), and a non-free image of young dodo birds in flight. The dodo bird article describes their flight, and that isn't shown in the free image -- but it would be inappropriate to use the non-free image of a flying dodo in the taxobox. All the taxobox has to show is any dodo bird, and it is thus replaceable by the free image. On the other hand, in the section on "dodo bird flight", we could use the non-free image, since the free one wouldn't replace how the photo is used in the context of that section. That would be very similar to this case.

To summarize, an infobox image can be replaced by any image of the subject of the article. But an image in a particular section can only be replaced by an image that shows what that section is about. (Of course you'd also have to be able to claim that the image is distinctly useful, and not just decorative, but in this case I think that would be an easy claim to make.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, it is all about context, and in it's current context it is replaceable. ed g2s • talk 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It still seems like you're (both) just saying the image is replaceable in the infobox, in which case the problem is solved just by moving the image down in the article so that the infobox remains clear for a free image to take root in. Correct? Postdlf 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(late reply) Yes. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the image... The only remaining question was whether the image should accompany the section titled "sexuality," which does focus on and discuss his appearance and style, or higher up under "discovery," where that style is first mentioned and where the image fits chronologically. I opted for the latter, but as this is a mere editorial decision, it can be changed by the article contributors as they choose.

I'm happy to move the image if it will resolve the issue, but I must say that this still seems arbitrary. If there is a "no fair use images in biography infoboxes" rule, ok, but it's a complete non sequitor to then conclude that the fair use image should be deleted instead of merely moved elsewhere in the article. Postdlf 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think either section will do, so long as that section mentions his looks at the time. And I agree that it is better to move a fair-use image to place where a fair-use claim applies, than to delete the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, for the purposes of this rfu discussion, I contend that the image is now non-replaceable in its current context. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)