Talk:Prince George of Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.234.220.38 (talk) at 20:15, 23 July 2020 (→‎Current image possibilities?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Infobox image

As already explained several times, File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg is a poor choice for the infobox. George is twice that age now and looks nothing like that. Wikipedia is very unlikely to get a new photo of him for years to come, so for how long is it supposed to depict him as a two-year-old? Besides, the exact same photograph is found further down in the article, so no content is lost by removing it from the infobox. A lead image is not a requirement, and File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg as the lead image here is definitely not an improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most recent image as many edits agree it is better than no image in the infobox. Just as his father Prince William doesn't look exactly like his image from 2 years ago as he now has less hair it has a caption below it explaining the image is from 2016 just like this one does. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. IMO, any photo is better than none at all. Just as there's no requirement to have a lead image, there's no requirement that the image has to be up-to-date. clpo13(talk) 21:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A 2016 photograph of an adult depicts him or her perfectly well in 2018. A 2016 photograph of a toddler does not depict a school age child at all. George is now twice the age he was when that picture was taken. That's comparable to using a photo of William when he was 15. While there is no requirement for an up-to-date photograph, there is a requirement that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). Besides, that same photograph appears later in the article, making it redundant in the infobox. I disagree with clpo13's opinion that any photo in the infobox is better than none at all. The only photo we have of the 14-year-old Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway is from 2007; to use that in the infobox would be ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new image doesn't appear later in the article. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a new one, and it's terrible. It's still ridiculous to depict a school age child as a toddler. This 1987 photo is the only photograph we have of Peter Phillips but we have enough common sense not to put it into the infobox. Some might argue, however, that common sense flew out the window when we decided to have biographies of fetuses and newborns. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think you answered your own argument. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think you have no arguments to counter my arguments. But to be fair, it is difficult to counter a clear and universally accepted guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want one I would say another free image will appear in around 1 or 2 years just as the others have and to keep this image in the meantime seems reasonable in my opinion. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other Royal pics don't exist. The current image seems fine to me, in fact a well-composed and charming photo. Readers can actually read the caption to see how old he was then. If it was still there in 10 years time, then yes we'd have a problem. I agree with clpo13. Martinevans123 (talk)
The original photograph is brilliant indeed. The cropped version is really not. It would've been a poor choice even in 2016, since the subject is facing away from the reader. The main problem is that a 2016 image is not a representative image of the subject, thus failing MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and MOS:LEADIMAGE. Readers can read the caption only to realize then that the photograph is useless or, worse yet, misleading. There will still be people trying to add that toddler photo into the infobox in 10 years. Trust me, it happens. And as I said, he is already twice as old as he was when that picture was taken, so we already have a problem. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's still recognisable. Don't see a problem. I feel sorry for Ingrid, but I'm sure her time will come. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the consensus here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the multiple different users adding an image to the infobox and everyone on the talk page agreeing there should be one with only one user reverting them all and dissenting here the consensus is to have an image in the infobox. Naue7 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain image, as another becomes available replace it. It’s ridiculous that no image is in the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Another might not be available for many years, if not a decade or more. It is not ridiculous not to have an image in the infobox; it is what WP:LEADIMAGE advises in cases like this. What is ridiculous is depicting a schoolboy as a toddler. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your many objections above and respectfully disagree, it not so out of date as to be unrecognisable and the caption describes when the image was taken. Cavalryman (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

New picture

George is now double the age he was in that picture. He looks very different as a 6 year old (as most humans do compared to when they were 3). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an encycopedia it doesnt have to be a "current" image, although if you have a later free image perhaps suggest it here to gain a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it does not have to be a "current" image. It cannot even be perfectly up to date. The problem is that the present image does not adequately illustrate the subject, who is now three times the age he was when the picture was taken. Another problem is that it is a crop of an image that already appears further down, so we have a redundant and extremely outdated infobox image just for the sake of having any image in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a newer picture on Commons unfortunately. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That was my point already last year. See #Infobox image. Currently we have a photograph of a 2-year-old in the article about a schoolboy. I would not hold my breath for a new picture any time soon, but surely no picture in the infobox is better than an absurdly outdated one. It's not like the article is so long that the three pictures of George in the body are not readily visible. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That disgusting underhanded wombat tableau was still a little too readily visible, so we're down to two in the body for a solid three overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that someone else, other than who I had this discussion with three years ago, was objecting to that image. Unless others object, I will put it back, perhaps doing a better job of alleviating text sandwiching. Since you're the only one, apparently, with strong objections, I don't see why you won't let it be. I've explained my preference for it. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd be gone by now, too, or at least realized how wrong that picture truly is. Guess not. If we're just reaffirming ourselves, have it your way again then, I'll be back when he's twelve. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an adorable picture, and I don't know why you can't see it. Plus, there are all the optical illusions that you pointed out that should make it even more enjoyable. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't enjoy chimerae molesting children while elder statespeople look on approvingly, accidental or not, call me crazy or sensitive or whatever. I do enjoy the Rule of Three, so figured this would be a win-win. It was not (no hard feelings, though!). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, in 2020: the article has too many images, repeated images, and inappropriate images. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, specifically MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says that the lead image should illustrate the topic, be what readers would expect to see, and be the kind of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. This no longer illustrates the subject of the article because this is what the subject looks like now. A person coming to read about the 6-year-old schoolboy prince would not expect to see the picture of an infant on top. To make the matter worse, the uncropped version of that image (same image for all intents and purposes) is found again in the article under Prince George of Cambridge#Official appearances. As MOS:LEADIMAGE says, sometimes it's best not to have a lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We recently had a discussion (2018's "Infobox image", which is on this page as of this writing) where the consensus seemed to be to keep the present image, especially in lieu of having none at all (even the image of a cherub immediately tells people that they're at an article dealing with a living person, instead of, say, one of Queen Victoria's less notable offspring). The problem has been availability, especially with apparently stricter copyright on more recent pictures (the current images are largely due to relatively generous Australian and US copyright provisions). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this discussion proves that there is no consensus for the inclusion of that image anymore, for reasons already stated. Having "none at all" is what the Manual of Style recommends in cases when no appropriate image is available, and the photo of an infant is, for reasons already stated, not appropriate. Yes, the availability is the problem, and that problem is not going to be solved any time soon, likely not before George reaches the age of majority and starts doing more stuff in public. We should not have the infobox depict him as an infant until then. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can an editor sketch him (or some other forgotten royal urchin) based on how he might appear today, and release it publicly? Realistically, I mean, no doodles (and no wombats!). Lots of bored competent artists out there, compared to February. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, at the UK royals' website, I read the instructions concerning release of photos, thinking someone might approach them (preferably a UK citizen, which I am not); and I thought that their conditions precluded that being a possibility. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an issue with a lot of the articles on younger royal children. For example, we have some photographs of the children of the Crown Prince of Denmark in their articles, but they are all severely outdated--Prince Christian of Denmark is currently 14 years old, but the photograph is of him as a 5 year old. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have sorted that one out. I also suggest that Dhtwiki stop reverting and ignoring the present consensus that portraying the subject of this article as an infant is inappropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast; it's already been deleted. I remember it as a tightly cropped version of a public-domain photo (per being taken by a US government photographer) that is still on the page. It either shouldn't have been hard to establish copyright bona fides or to create another cropped photo (although there have been complaints all along that the photo shows a too-youthful George). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed an intervening edit, which presumably replaced the photo you're talking about with a copyrighted one. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping infobox image

We need to form a consensus on keeping the 2016 infobox image. I read the "Infobox image" section as establishing consensus to keep an outdated photo in the absence of anything better. Others see the "New picture" discussion as favoring its removal, but I see it as either ambiguous or evenhanded. I'm going to restore the photo, per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD (it's been removed yet again). I don't see WP:ONUS as relevant, or WP:LEADIMAGE as dispositive, to our keeping it. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is formed. Five people in the past few days have objected to portraying this six-year-old schoolboy as a diaper-wearing infant. Do I need to repeat everyone's arguments? The only argument coming from your side is that any image is better than none, which is explicitly refuted by WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. Please stop restoring the contentious material. This is a short article and readers can see three images at a glance; absolutely nothing is gained by repeating one of those images. Surtsicna (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was only explicit in my abject condemnation of what that filthy monster seems to be doing to the diaper-wearing infant, but if you want to assume I'm on your side about the way the intervening years have warped him and the lack of use for an infobox image suggesting he's frozen in time, that is indeed a starkly safe assumption. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Dhtwiki is fighting off someone else's insistence. Are we all allies now? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm leaving it up to the talk discussion to decide. Normally, I'd put the image back while letting this discussion take its course, as per guidelines. However, Surtsicna is adamant that it must go and you seem to have sided with them. I'm temporarily bowing to a 2-to-1 count to keep it off, and deciding not to have any more edit warring than necessary at the article. I suspect that, since others will want an image for the page, we will have more attempts, as we've had in the past, to place an infobox image there, which is an argument for leaving it there. However, unless people come here to state their preference in favor of the image, I can't pretend I have consensus on my side. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit! If temporary bowing becomes tedious, feel free to lay down and join us forever. In the meanwhile, the more image-pushers, the merrier; maybe with enough concerted effort, a picture that isn't totally obsolete may squeak through! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, did I just stumble into a wikt:hornets' nest of infobox image edit warring it seems. Feel free to undo the edit I did before reading the talk. I found it odd, as it seems others have too, that a notable person did not have an image in their infobox. Even if that image is of a child 4 years out of date, I'm on the side that it's far better than nothing as we await a newer image. Now if some are pushing that a current images must be had for people's articles, I'd suggest working through a lot of the wiki space. For example, have you seen the prince's great grandfather recently? He's aged quite a bit from his 2015 image! 😏 If one goes back one more generation, does death excuse the use of an image 16 years out of date? Whomever is pushing WP:IMAGERELEVANCE as a reason for removal, one would really have to twist any of the reasons listed there to be an apt reason for removal in this case. If people do feel this is a windmill that needs tilting, may I suggest editing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images to include this situation? If the Style editors go along, it makes it easier to then justify removal over WP:STATUSQUO. (just my 2¢) — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are being serious, a 98-year-old has not aged quite a bit since he was 93, whereas George is now three times older than he was in 2016. MOS:IMAGELEAD specifically says that not having a lead image may be best when no suitable image is available. Besides, the image you added is already in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Philip looks aged since 2015 to me [1]. And after death, okay with you to use any image? "Suitable" is also quite a relative term. Who determines suitability in these cases? Is one editor's judgement enough to trump WP:STATUSQUO? Should not a consensus be built first? I didn't see that in the edit history. Using even MOS:IMAGELEAD's seems to go beyond what it is trying to prevent. I must also inquire, to you a brave knight who's been defending the honor of the world's royalty in Wikipedia for at least 12 years now 😏 (my sincere congratulations on your editing longevity and support for our encyclopedia!), when removing an image that you find "not suitable", do you also take the time to make a WP:RI to put out the call for a more suitable image? May I also suggest that in situations such as this, you'd do what I've now done which is to put a comment into the infoboxes so that others will find the debate before doing the edit work. Cheerio — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. Suitability is determined by editors. Five people have objected to the repetition of the image in the past few days. As for historic (i.e. dead) people, the common practice seems to be to use the best available image from the height of the person's career. What I normally do when I remove an image is look for a better one on the Commons and on FlickR, where I beg people to donate their photographs (which is how Diana's biography finally got a decent lead photo). In the case of George, however, it will probably be many years before another photo is available. Surtsicna (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome! Suitability is so relative and may swing to whims, I do prefer codification in style rules. So, the Queen Mother, the current great-looking color 1986 image, or an image during the "height of the her career" which most would probably consider the WW2 era? Editors could certainly disagree here. 😁 Great job on image hunting. Yes, using WP:RI is suggested, but I've also seen years before anyone responds to some requests. Nevertheless, I'll try. Now back to "Price George, BC" where I was headed before I was sidetracked here. Cheerio — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We did have a WW2 era photograph in the infobox there for many years, back when the article was titled Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. It seems that the focus shifted to her dowager years when the title did. I am not placing much hope in WP:RI either, but it certainly does not hurt to try. In the mean time, I'll be begging strangers on FlickR. Surtsicna (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return image, have just commented above before reading down, it not so out of date as to be unrecognisable as Prince George and the caption describes when the image was taken. Cavalryman (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • What the caption does not describe is why Wikipedia is depicting a 6-year-old schoolboy as a 2-year-old toddler. It looks jarringly amateurish, hurts the credibility of the article, and contravenes the first point of WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be ... the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it looks jarring having no image at all. Cavalryman (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Then your beef is with the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is with the failure to include an available and recognisable image of Prince George in the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The Manual of Style says that it is okay to have no lead image. It also lists very sensible criteria for a lead image which the 2016 image fails. So yes, the Manual of Style is where your beef lies. As it stands now, images are not mandatory in infoboxes. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not fail, that is where you are mistaken. So again, my “beef” is with the failure to use an image that is recognisably Prince George. Cavalryman (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It is not "natural and appropriate" to depict a 6-year-old as a 2-year-old and it is not "what our readers will expect to see", so yes, it fails MOS:LEADIMAGE. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "natural and appropriate", the linked guideline goes on to say "illustrate the topic specifically" (this isn't a photo of a generic child, nor is it a fanciful caricature), as well as "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" (this is a professional photo). In other words, what was on the minds of the people writing that guideline doesn't seem to be images that are somewhat out of date. Just about every image can be seen to be unrepresentative, especially of people, where they're of a certain age, hair style, body weight, mood, etc. As far as "what our readers will expect to see", I now count four recent attempts to place that particular image (or one so similar I couldn't tell the difference), only one of those editors having brought their concerns here, to this discussion, where there it's now 3–2 in favor of having the photo. That doesn't take into account the several editors in the previous discussions here, only one of which, by my count, other than yourself, has objected to any image in lieu of a more contemporaneous one, which we would all like to have. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, I too believe you are misinterpreting the policy, and I also think if a count of were conducted of both attempts to reinsert the image (that have been instantly reverted) as well as talk page comments, there is overwhelming support to reintroduce it. Cavalryman (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Being a "professional photo" does not mean that it would be included in a high-quality reference work. One cannot seriously claim that a high-quality reference work would depict a 6-year-old as a 2-year-old, or almost anyone three times younger than they are. It is also obviously not "natural and appropriate" to depict the subject like that, and readers would obviously not "expect to see" such a ridiculously outdated photograph (hence #New picture). The photograph is still in the article and there is no consensus to have a duplicate in the infobox. Perhaps it ought to be mentioned that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may mention any policy you like, the point is there is general community support for the reintroduction of the image to the infobox with a small minority against, and there is no policy foundation for not reintroducing it. Cavalryman (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You are wrong on both counts. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the 2yo photo should be added to the infobox in the absence of a more recent photo. I was perplexed to see photos later down in the article and none in the infobox. It's better than nothing even if it's somewhat old. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prenatal development

This biographical article is unique in having been created before the subject was born, and the first paragraph of Prince George of Cambridge#Birth and baptism is there to remind us of that dubious curiosity. I have tried to rewrite it from a 2020 perspective but I cannot find whatever happened to British national economy and pride. Hopefully someone else might. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current image possibilities?

There are now two, just officially released this week by the Palace. But I have no clue as to their policies on image copyrights. When released on Instagram here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC8EOXUliV5/ and here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC61TwRFOXU/ they were immediately picked up by dozens of global media outlets and put into articles. That seems to imply they are put out for restriction-free usage. Anyone who is more tied to this (like Surtsicna) should investigate. It would put this constant issue to bed (at least for a few years). Also, Dhtwiki may find it's an easier way to get an image into the article's infobox than their flirting with a possible 3RR ban – as seems to be happening right now. 😉 Cheerio – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_George_of_Wales&oldid=969172553"