Talk:Q232229

Attached picture is fake. FlankerFF (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not "fake". Its a cultural depiction. Tons of ancient people have paintings made hundreds of years after their death as their infobox images. Every single woman of the Roman republic except Fulvia has a "fake" image by your definition.*Treker (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

At least those pictures have historical and cultural value. Painting by modern "Freelance Concept Artist / Graphic Designer Art" - does not. --Sigwald (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What "historical value" exactly? Just because they're old? And why would that make them more fit to be linked in a Wikidata infobox exactly? I can tell you what, this picture here was based by the artist on the bust of Brutus, her son, but just with feminized features and historically accurate clothing and hairstyle. I'd say that's worth more than some old Medieval miniature that tends to feature on Wikidata items.*Treker (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I must say I was also struck by the use of a modern art to depict this person. If we had an older picture, with indeed more "historical value", in the sense that it served as a depiction for the item during centuries (like saints or Ancient writers portraits), I'll go with it over a modern portraiture. However, as we have nothing for this one and as the actual picture aims to be a realistic one, I think we can keep it. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In any case since we do not know if it looks like her it should probably be in related image (P6802). Maundwiki (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Modern fantasy drawing

Hello.

I removed an image from this page. The image was a modern fantasy drawing of someone's fantasy about the appearance of Servilia. Of course, such an image can not be said to be a representation of her on her official page. You see; when certain biographical infoboxes are used on her article page in different language versions of Wikipedia, this image is shown of her. Many language versions of Wikipedia have the goal, to creat a serious Encylopedia, and therefore does not wish to have this type of image in the infoboxes of a real person. It does not give the scientific impression expected from an Encyclopedia. It gives the appearance of fan art. Further more, it is not truthful, particularly since an explanatory text can not be used when it appears automatically in an infobox.

To put it there would give the impression, that the drawing is a truthful image of her. In other words: it would be POV. Therefore, I removed it.

I later replaced it with an contemporary coin image, that May portray Servilia. My reasoing was: if there should be an image of her at all, then surely, it is better to have one a contemporary one that may actually portray her, than a modern fantasy drawing, that certainly does not. It was removed it with the words: "Pure speculation that it would be based on Servilia".

This user was correct: we can not be certain if the coin is indeed a depiction of Servilia. Therefore, I have no objection to the removal of it. But to replace it with a modern fantasy drawing, can not be said to be the oposite of POV either. A fantasy drawing is per definition the personal speculation of an individual. It is much more of a POV, or at least not less, than the coin image.

If we want to give a correct scientific impression, this page should be left without an image rather than a personal modern fantasy drawing. It makes the articles look like fan art, I'm afraid, and if it is not removed, than different wikipedia versions would prefer to avoid using the biographical user box in order to avoid showing this image, which is a unfortunate.

In short: to use fan art as the image of this person, renders the user boxes useless and lower their value for a scientific Encylcopedia. With all due respect to the creator of this fantasy drawing, I ask you to respect the scientific goal of Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I simply do not agree that these are issues.StarTrekker (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you give a proper reason to your disagreement? The concerns I have raised above, are valid and legitimate concerns. Because they are legitimate, the proper thing for you to do, is to adress them: give a proper response to them, and explain the specific reasons to why you do not agree. To simply say "I do not agree" without explaining why, is simply not sufficient. It is difficult to take such a response seriously. Have you created the fan art yourself? Your reply can give the impression, that you are emotionally attached to the fan art because you have created it yourself. it does not reflect well on you, are on in Wikidata as a scientici project. --Aciram (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that your concerns are valid. Something being "fan art" as you call it is of no importance as far as I see it. You arbitrarily deciding that the 21st century is the cut off point to where artists interpretations have value isn't based on anything but POV, there are tons of Wikidata items for historical figures with illustrations from the Middle-Ages to the 20th-century but I don't see you removing all of them. You thinking my opinions reflect poorly on me is of no concern to me.StarTrekker (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aciram: I want concrete and direct answers to these questions:

1. What exactly qualifies something as "fan art" as opposed to just a depiction?

2. Why is "fan art" bad?

3. How old does a piece of art/later depiction of a dead person have to be to no longer be considered "fan art" and thus acceptable to you?

If you can not give consistent replies to these I will regard your opposition to the image as a pure "IDONTLIKEIT" issue. I will not accept depriving our readers of visual reference to improve their recal of the subject because someone simply feels like it's "off" to have a modern image.StarTrekker (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What is this? May I ask how old you are? Is wikidata a serious project? The reputation of Wikidata and Wikipedia rests on following basic scientific rules: the same rules one follows at universities, and in other achademic situations. Forgive me for saying so, but you appear to be ignorant of the most basic definitions in this regard. This makes me uncertain how to communicate with you. If you do not understand the concerns I have expressed, then you also express a deep ignorance of what differs an serious scientific and factual Encylopedia from a children's cartoon.

1. "Fan art" is an image created by an unknown private individual, not known by any authors of academic literature. A private person.

2. I am baffled by the question. Wikipedia is suppose to be a serious encylopedia for adults. In such an Encyclopedia, only two sort of illustrations are accepted as illustration of an individual: 1) an image that actually shows how he/she looks like or 2) an old, well known image, well known by the scientific and scholarly community of academics, which are known to depict the person, even if it does not in fact show what she actually looked like.

3. It should be at least a century old and well known by the scientific community. This is not about me. This is basic academic rules for any serious Encyclopedia. I am so baffled that I do not know what to say. How old are you? Does wikidata have no serius rules and regulations or contributors aware of these basic rules?

I have to admit I am so suprised that I do not even know what to say. I feel as if I am speaking to someone who has never read a text book. I had no idea Wikidata was not a serious project. It is not possible to have a discussion with someone not aware of even the most basic rules: you appear so unaware and uninformed about the basics that you do not even undestand that my concerns are legitimate.

I am astonished. But this does make matters clear; in order to avoid having fan art displayed in the infoboxes in different wikipedia versions, the infoboxes will simply be removed. That way, this image will be hidden in any way and wikipedia will not be affected by the less serious enviromnent of Wikidata. It will be done. You may do as you wish: it will not be visible in Wikipedia, and thus not hurt Wikipedia's credibility. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aciram: I personally feel that this discussion is nearing an uncivil tone. I don't believe that you are an inferior editor just because you disagree with me, but I feel that you have started out and continued this talk with condescension towards me. I appologize if you feel that this discussion has been aggravating and/or frustrating, it is not my meaning to argue so intently that it sours others from Wikidata. I find it unfair that you have apparently decided that all of Wikidata is "bad" because you've had one dispute with another editor about one item, on a project filled with thousands of editors and millions of items. I assure you that Wikidata does amazing things and even if you dislike me you surely will have others who you get along with better.

Originally I was going to post a long refutation to your replies/points for my questions, but I feel like this discussion will lead nowhere but us both becoming less likely to engage in good faith due to fundamentally different perspectives on the topic and obvious beliefes that our personal view is for the greater good of Wikimedia.

If you truly are considering removing all Wikidata infoboxes I will not try to stop you if that is what you believe will improve the Wikipedias, but I believe so will result in a net negative for our readers, so I will propose a compromise instead. To me having an image is imperative to reader recal and understanding, the brain is incredibly visual and much research has shown that having an image in text books and Wikipedia articles help people understand and remember what the information they have taken in far better. As such I would be willing to (even tho I consider it a far less helpful visual) to include the image of the coin instead here on Wikidata, with a description that makes it clear that the identification is the opinion of one scholar.StarTrekker (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)