Talk:Camilla (given name): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:43, 30 May 2023

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Image of Queen Camilla

I do not agree with this removal. The image is relevant and interesting. I will reinstate it unless someone can come up with a good reason why a queen of many countries, the only queen to bear this name, should not illustrate the article about it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the image illustrative of the name itself? Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:IMGCONTENT which could reasonably prevent a photo of a very famous person from illustrating an article about the name of that person. Thus, Wikipedia is full of such images on such articles. As per this essay, it is appropriate to include historical information. This photo is exactly that. Furthermore, Queen Camilla is included on the list of persons bearing the name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image entry should not have been reversed again without agreement on this page first. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGES should be what's relevant here, not a copyright-focused policy.

There is nothing there either. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Parker-Bowles isn't illustrative of the name Camilla more than anyone else. Including her here is a pretty obvious recentism. From what I understand, there are very few individuals that are illustrative of given names overall.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is no longer "Camilla Parker-Bowles" and calling her that infers bias.

If we are not to have famous people illustrating any articles about their names, we'd better start removing them alphabetically: Abraham (given name), Anna (name) and so forth... --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any strength in illustrating given name articles overall. It's also rather rare. But with "Abraham", there's a very obvious connection to a specific individual. No single individual can be closely and singularly associated with the name "Camilla".

Peter ^Isotalo 19:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problems with recentism here. Including one recent example does not necessarily mean that the article is over-using recent examples. Moreover, Queen Camilla is one of the ten oldest notable "people with the given name..." listed in the article. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion request

I noticed this dispute at the WP:3O noticeboard and I've taken time to read through the debate here. So far as I understand it, this is, in one sentence, a disagreement about whether an image of Queen Camilla is appropriate. Just to give some initial thoughts, remember that the Queen is a living person, and therefore, WP:BLP applies here - indeed, the policy itself points out "Images of living persons should not be used out of context" (see specifically WP:BLPIMAGE). I have looked at the discussion and I do not see the context for having the picture, particularly since, after reviewing the article, no one else with the same forname has a picture in the article. I would suggest that editors maintain consistency within the article, otherwise this may result in continuous reversions (and a possible breach of the WP:3RR rule) or edit-warring.

Hopefully this gives the editors involved some food for thought and leads to a constructive solution. If editors want further assistance please let me know

The Historian (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :::::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 19:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 ::::::I don't see the problems with recentism here. Including one recent example does not necessarily mean that the article is over-using recent examples. Moreover, Queen Camilla is one of the ten oldest notable "people with the given name..." listed in the article. [[User:ParticipantObserver|ParticipantObserver]] ([[User talk:ParticipantObserver|talk]]) 10:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
+=== Third Opinion request ===
+I noticed this dispute at the WP:3O noticeboard and I've taken time to read through the debate here. So far as I understand it, this is, in one sentence, a disagreement about whether an image of Queen Camilla is appropriate.
+Just to give some initial thoughts, remember that the Queen is a living person, and therefore, WP:BLP applies here - indeed, the policy itself points out "Images of living persons should not be used out of context" (see specifically WP:BLPIMAGE). I have looked at the discussion and I do not see the context for having the picture, particularly since, after reviewing the article, no one else with the same forname has a picture in the article. I would suggest that editors maintain consistency within the article, otherwise this may result in continuous reversions (and a possible breach of the WP:3RR rule) or edit-warring.
+Hopefully this gives the editors involved some food for thought and leads to a constructive solution. If editors want further assistance please let me know
+[[User:Thehistorian10|The Historian]] ([[User talk:Thehistorian10|talk]]) 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)