Talk:Greg Pak

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Low-importance).

Comics: Creators / United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by Comics creators work group.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

External Links

Video Interview with Greg Pak @ NYCC with Silver Bullet Comics, Feb. 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gonzogoose (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Picture

old pic

new pic

Hi - I replaced the old picture with what I thought was a better picture of Greg Pak. It's more recent, reflects his current appearance (without a beard), and presents an angled profile view rather than a front-on mugshot, which I find to be better for determining what people look like (it may be a bit dark but that can be improved if people think so - I find it depends on the monitor I'm viewing it on). It was reverted with a very nasty message, so I thought I would just see how other people with a more vested interest in this page felt... PermanentVacay (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hi - just trying to get some thoughts on which of the above pictures is better. Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the beard. He's facing the camera, and has a much nicer facial expression. Nightscream (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New One The new photo gives a much better idea of what Greg's face actually looks like and it is a newer photo and shows his more current look. Right away, I much prefer the new, current photo.Coaster92 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is for the the new one, same as Coaster, for just about all the better reasons. If it's too big you could pretty easily crop or scale it down. Recon Etc (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
new one we usually prefer a more formal picture, not a snapshot, especially when the snapshot has irrelevant detail in the background DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is a snapshot defined distinctly from a formal picture? Nightscream (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new one is preferable - the background is nicer and less distracting, and the fact that it isn't posed is also a plus. Colon el Tom 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New One SD (talk contribs) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Terrible background in the old pic. So, if the new pic is more recent then the choise is easy imo. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New one - it looks like you've already found a consensus. Just make sure the picture is fair use - get some independent feedback on it, to make sure. After that, I think there'd bed no further discussion about it. And I'm sorry about the uncivil edit summary you received from another editor. Sometimes people forget that there are other people on the other side of their edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the new one, because it is more current, and because the background is less distracting. Sue Gardner (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Permanent Vacay's recent message to me: PermanentVacay, I apologize for the apparently nasty tone of my previous edit summary. I will work harder to choose my words in a more thoughtful and polite manner. I perceived a certain intent on your part that at the time, I thought was obvious and self-evident, but in seeing how so many others seem to prefer your photo in this case, I've had to reevaluate this perception, which in retrospect, gives the appearance of not adhering to WP:AGF.

That said, I don't think referring to photographs as "mug shots" simply because they are taken from in front of the subject is a very neutral characterization, since it's more accurate to simply call them "portraits', but I'm not going to quibble. In any event, I hope we can collaborate more amenably in the future. :-)

In answer to the apparent contradiction you wished to ask me about, I agree that people should be bold in replacing photos if the replacement is superior, which was certainly the case with the following examples ([1], [2],[3]), and in some cases, I've actually removed my own photos when I thought that those of other editors' were better ([4],[5],[6]). I simply didn't see that to be the case with the Larry Hama or Greg Pak photos, because your replacements, in my view, were not better. It was not intended as alienation on my part (not deliberately, at any rate), and I figured that my edit summary was communication enough. All things being equal, it is not my practice (nor am I aware that it is the practice of other editors) to leave messages on other editors' talk pages every single time I revert one of their edits. However, when further communication is appropriate or requested, then I naturally do engage in it, either on the other person's talk page, or the article talk page, as in the case with this message here. Ironically, I've been accused, after writing the occasionally more-length message, of being too verbose! I hope that clears everything up. Again, I hope we can collaborate better from here on in, and I intend to choose my words more carefully to facilitate that. Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I think what I find most unsettling is your apparent arrogance in reverting the kind of edit you say you make frequently. Given the reaction to the photo by everyone else, it is acceptable if you still prefer the old photo better. I recognize that we have different aesthetic tastes in that regard. However, to revert it and also use objective language in the edit is a bit harsh. It doesn't make it seem like you didn't AGF, I think it is fair to say that you actually did not AGF, although I'm still not sure why. Anyway there isn't much point in having this discussion, as long as you realize that your opinion is not always the majority belief, and that you should consider things like that in the future - and consider that even if you disagree with someone, they are just as likely to be thinking that they were doing the right thing, and others might agree. (and you're right, I shouldn't have called it a mug shot, as it isn't literally - but as you saw from the consensus, many people _do_ prefer angled shots to front-on shots. They tend to more accurately depict a person's features) PermanentVacay (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new photo. Comment: I have somehow become the *photo fairy*, having uploaded possibly more photos for musicians' biography articles than any other editor in this group. (You can find a link for nearly all listed in a link on my user page.) Generally, the most recent photo is placed in the infobox. The same is true of photos with the best quality-- frequently, the two are one and the same as photography and tools to take those photos continue to improve. Frankly, my first response is to tell the lead editors to add more text and then add additional photos in chronological order-- and this way, both photos can be used and seen in the article. Remember also that the photos placed in the text should reflect what is being said in it. More guidelines? See WP:IMAGES. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not necessarily the same, since technology is not the only factor in determining the quality of the photo. The type of camera (simple consumer vs professional-level SLR), the experience/talent of the photographer, the conditions under which the pic was taken such as lighting, movement of the subject and background elements, etc., all create a wide range of variance. I mean, if I take a new photo, and I'm not holding the camera as still as I should, and it comes out of focus, I should still replace it as the new Infobox pic simply because it's "more recent"? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. In any event, this matter seems to be settled, as the Infobox pic has been changed to PermanentVacay's one. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]