Talk:Ben Templesmith

Neutrality

Added NPOV tags and CN's - this page seems to be written by Ultimate Fanboy. Objectivity debated - too much of it would seem to be un-cited individual opinion. Anyone agree or disagree? Al.locke 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tags

I put them there after seeing edits by a user called Templesmith (talk · contribs) basically saying this artist was the greatest thing ever it seems. karmafist 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Templesmith (talk · contribs) for the most part he tried to revert the article back to an earlier edit, due to apparent vandalism from a user at IP:64.169.99.74

Please check article comparisons to verify.

Feel free to change any part where the article claims he is "the greatest thing ever"

Karmafist (talk · contribs) Is now banned permanently for vandalism.

Someone should add something about Templesmith's apparent ongoing main work now, Wormwood:Gentleman Corpse if they have info. Maynard2k (talk · contribs)

Neutrality

Added NPOV tags and CN's - this page seems to be written by Ultimate Fanboy. Objectivity debated - too much of it would seem to be un-cited individual opinion. Anyone agree or disagree? Al.locke 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; it's blatantly so. I will change this at some later stage, if someone doesn't do so first, to at least remove some of the more obvious bias and fanboy hype. ThePragmaticist (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Hoxford

Ben has a new series (Welcome to Hoxford, info: http://www.hoxford.com ) which I'll had to the list but I dont know how to start a new page for it because I've never done that. If someone who's more capable than me could do it that would be greatly appreciated. Jboncha (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dungeons & Dragons artists

Hi. I've been going through artists in the above list, for the most part onyl to the often ommited Fantasy artists cat (which usually crosses over - D&D illustrations may be counted as fantasy art for this purpose). However, on a few pages I've come across in the list, the actual article contains no cited work for the game. So, could whoever added the cat also add some substantiation to the article to justify the artist's presence in that list - particualrly important if someone comes to the page from the category looking for the reference to D&D work. . . Thanks LSmok3 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on Infobox photo

A disagreement has arisen as to which photo should be in the Infobox. User:Unicornmagic favors changing the photo to this one, arguing in his/her edit summary, "Updated image with professional profile photography while on location at major retrospective of his work.

In my opinion, a black and white photo is not better than a color one depicting Templesmith in a comic shop, nor do I see any change to his appearance in the nine months that elapsed between when the two photos were taken that necessitates an "update".

Unicornmagic responded to this by saying, "Let someone unbiased decide since it's also a photo you are the author of. Templesmith now has a beard so is visibly different."

In the first place, a modest beard does not make Templesmith's appearance so radically different that that the February photo is outdated, nor does it justify changing a photo if the new photo is not better in quality. For all we know, he might shave it off by his next public appearance, assuming he hasn't already. He isn't exactly clean-shaven in the February photo, or the one further down in the article, as he has a mustache and chin hair in both of those. Pointing to his beard as justification for changing a color photo of him in a comics shop to a black and photo of him in a museum seems specious to me.

In the second place, I see no reasoning for the notion that Unicornmagic is unbiased, or less so then myself, since Unicornmagic is the photo of the newer photo. If Unicornmagic wants to argue that an editor is automatically rendered unable to be objective about photo placement when is the author of the one them, then the same principle applies to him/her. For my part, there have been numerous times when I declined to replace someone's Infoboox photo with one of my own, because I felt that my photo was not superior in some justifiable way to the one already in the article (Jim Lee, John Schneider, Sandra Taylor, etc.) At other times, I have welcomed latter replacement of my pics with ones the subject himself preferred it--provided that it was at least of equal quality to mine (Trevor Von Eeden, Josh Adams, etc.) In another instance, I removed my own photo from the an article entirely when one I thought was far better than mine surfaced. Is there a subjective element to photo selection? Is the appearance of bias present when the photographer is editing the article? Sure. But that's a far cry from saying that one photographer is biased and another is not. So I would suggest that we stick to what discussing the criteria by which we believe a photo is more or less appropriate, and dispense with accusations fraught with double standards. If a consensus here decides that the black and white photo is more appropriate, I have no opposition to that. Nightscream (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Some observations at this point:

• All images that are going to be involved in that are currently uploaded are on Commons under CCA 3.0. This means that all of them are "safe" both for use and from deletion.
• If a photographer is going to be told "Don't revert to the image you took. You're biased to it", the same standard should be held for all involved photographers. The upshot being: If Nightscream shouldn't revert to his work, then neither should Unicornmagic. Yes, that creates a problem. Two solutions for it would be to ask for outside input and either:
  1. Move Gage Skidmore's work into the infobox until consensus is reached; or
  2. Leave the infobox empty.

And this is where "safe" comes in - neither of the contested images will be deleted even if this takes more than a week to settle.

• WP:BRD - what most editors use as a standard - would point to Unicornmagic having been Bold and Nightscream having Reverted. At that point a talk page Discussion would have been warranted to see if there was a consensus to change the image.

That pretty much covers the non-content issues. And I would suggest that the last editor to revert the image consider applying either option 1 or 2 for the time being - or both involved photographers should expect, and accept, that another editor will remove the contentious material for the time being.

As for the photos:

• Use of a black and white photo seems very odd for a biography of a contemporary person. To be honest, it seems odd for a bio of anyone who is/was alive from about the mid 1960s on.
• "This is a newer image" seldom is a good reason for changing the infobox image. Especially in cases where a person's appearance is not linked to their notability. We have 3 images from over roughly a 16 month span very little change in appearance for a person who is known for his writing, not his looks. And two thing re "Templesmith now has a beard so is visibly different":
  1. Wikipedia is not, at least the last time I checked, intended to be used as an up-to-date identification database or "mug shot book".
  2. Arguing that he now has a "full" beard falls flat when the image proceeds to miss-represent his skin tone and hair color - unless he's also gone in for bleach and dye.
• Unicornmagic's has a nagging aspect in that it looks like the image has been stretched. In comparison to the other two, the head has been pulled out of shape.
• Logos: Not a "make or break" point here since both Nightscream's and Skidmore's images don't make the signs for the venues a clear focal point. Nightscream's is close though.
• The microphone in Skidmore's is an unneeded distraction though.
• "professional profile" describing the photos is a bit of a loaded term. All three have a "professional" quality to them. It's just a question of tone - journalism, promotional still, or pure portraiture.

The long and short of it is that none of them is perfect, but Nightscream's is an overall improvement of Skidmore's and both have an edge over Unicornmagic's.

And one last thought... Even though these are free to use images, that doesn't mean they have to be used. One image of Templesmith is sufficient for the article.

- J Greb (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been invited to comment, I find most of J Greb's analysis astute. And the black-and-white image is indeed misproportioned, stretched vertically; if it remains, that needs to be fixed.

I can't say color or black-and-white is a deciding factor; to this day, many contemporary photos in major newspapers are b/w.

If consensus favors the color image, I would remove mention of Midtown Comics East in the caption; "at a comics-shop signing" identifies the photo sufficiently without giving any particular store commercial promotion; the exact locale can be noted in the information on the photo's own page.

And, again agreeing with J Greb, two very similar images in an article, particularly one of this size, seems unnecessary.--Tenebrae (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with pretty much everything that's been said already. I would tend to favor the older picture (Nightscream's), because it's proportioned correctly, it's in color, and it's contemporary enough that I don't see that the "newness" of the black-and-white picture is much of a factor. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules/guidelines regarding pictures to say much more than that, but I hope it helps. DeadpoolRP (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Having also been invited to comment, I'm not thrilled with any of the choices. :( I find the Choker signing makes him seem angry, & the b&w shot leaves a sensation he's a bit stupid (or stunned), leaving the small ComicCon portrait the best of a bad lot. I prefer a color shot if only because b&w is more common for art than news today, & even newspapers are moving to color; encyclopedias certainly are, & WP is nearer TV news than newspaper IMO. My $0.025. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If you really want me to be honest about it, I think out of all the images there is of him, I probably favor the Comic Con one the most. This one is probably main article worthy as well but I am not sure to recommend it. I also see no reason for two images of him on this article and when it comes to images that are being in conflict over, Both images look doable and the best advise over what to do in this situation seems to be have already been told. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a personal preference over which image is best. If I had to pick, I'd say the "Gage Skidmore" image has the best view of his face, but the "Midtown Comics" pic shows some personality so I like that one as well. The B&W portrait is fine, but I agree with the issues mentioned above. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you requested Unicornmagic to upload the original image, in colour, just as he took it and without the image editing? MBelgrano (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't occur to me. I did, however, notify him of this discussion, so that he could participate. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been invited to toss in my two cents, I say between the black and white pic and the microphone one, the b&w is much more professional and spiffy. Lots42 (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also invited to put my two cents in. I would say that as is, the Gage Skidmore version is probably the best. I'm not thrilled that we would just use a headshot, but it's the one that depicts his characteristic features, including what he looks like in color. The Midtown version is funny, depicting him in color, straight on, and some personality, but I wonder if the expression detracts from clarity/recognizability when compared to the others. I dislike the BW version because it's distorted and BW, when one should be able to look at an image and distinguish what the subject's hair color/eye color, skin color etc. is. However, I like the full body shot, as it gives a better sense of his build. If there's a colored and undistorted version of the BW photo, that would get my highest vote. For now, it's a toss up between Gage and Midtown.Luminum (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, per invite: I like the "tone", as J Greb put it, of the b&w photo best. Everything else being equal, I will always prefer the portrait/promotional image to the journalistic. I am generally biased against Comic Con panel images, because to my mind they don't strike the right "encyclopedic" tone. That said, Wikipedia is not ruled by my squishy feelings, so it's probably better to look at image guidelines. I know that the the WikiProject Comics team created a set of guidelines for character images, but did we do the same for real people? If not, I'm sure that there must be a relevant guideline elsewhere within Wikipedia. Color vs. b&w and beard vs. no beard are non-issues for me. I do agree that using a distended image is not preferable. Is there actually policy/guidance to support this position or are we deciding this purely by consensus? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say "portrait/promotional image" and "journalistic", which ones are you referring to? I'm not sure which one is the Midtown Comics one, which is the Comic-Con one, and which is the black & white one when I see these terms used. Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was utilizing J Greb's categorization of the photos, which I thought was astute. In this case, I consider the black and white Unicornmagic and the color Molly McIsaac photos to be more in the portrait vein, whereas I consider the Gage Skidmore Comic Con photo to be more journalistic. I hadn't investigated which specific Midtown Comics photo was being discussed (there are several), but I generally consider those to be journalistic as well. As I said, I have a personal preference for portraiture over journalistic vérité, but I don't know if there are stylistic guidelines which deal with this question for Wikipedia as a whole. Naturally, I'd want to use whichever image best follows such guidelines. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus of some kind? Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we do, except to say that few of us favor Unicornmagic's photo. It appears to be a toss-up between your Midtown Comics photo and Gage Skidmore's Comic Con photo, in which case, I favor yours. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So what should we do? Because these discussions don't emphasize the "vote" format, it's hard to know. Nightscream (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that that desire to discuss the issue has petered out. I think there's a vague consensus for a more journalistic image. So, I think I'll go ahead and replace the image myself and see if anyone objects. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I got asked to weigh in on this, although it's another example of why I don't do as much editing here any more due to growing COI conflicts. I could just ask Ben's photographer girlfriend to give us a better picture that would trump you all. Anyway, color trumps black and white on Wikipedia. It's hard to get a good "journalistic" photo of Ben because whenever he's ready for the camera, he prefers to make what he calls a "dickish" expression - which actually makes the current picture a more accurate representation of how Ben poses because the B&W pose isn't "dickish" enough for him. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Straight from the source: Ben Templesmith does not like the colour photo [1] (taken at Midtown Comics East by Nightscream on February 2010) previously used on his Wikipedia page as cited here on his Twitter account:

http://twitter.com/Templesmith/status/28506879944556544

http://twitter.com/Templesmith/status/28508254065664003

http://twitter.com/Templesmith/status/28510412286722050

Ben Templesmith prefers the black-and-white one [2] by Unicornmagic (taken on November 2010), as cited here on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/Templesmith/status/28515526074437632

He hopes that what he says publicly about his own preferences for his own Wikipedia page has some bearing when changes are made, asked for:

http://twitter.com/Templesmith/status/28539575534092288 --guilty (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this a while ago. Nightscream is in the right per policy I think. It's getting a bit awkward because the guy has been brought into it personally. Can someone direct him to the rules? Anyway, maybe he's just fishing for compliments. Tell him the colour one looks good ;). Also it's Wikipedia's article, not his Facebook page; it only ought to be removed if it is defamatory.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. No offense to Mr. Templesmith, but just because he likes a picture doesn't mean it should be used if it doesn't match up with policy. I say that, unless someone can find a version of the current image that isn't distorted, it should be switched back. DeadpoolRP (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely horrible "new" picture added. What was wrong with the last one? This one is so tiny and seems to have been taken as a quick snap where you can't even see him properly in a nightclub? It should be changed or reverted. I do notice Nightscream takes an unnatural and seemingly obsessive interest in maintaining his photographs on a variety of comicbook creators wiki entries. ( more than 10 ) Suggest he invest in a better quality camera or lose the flash at least. I believe his interest in these matters have become far too personally invested in maintaining his material over other valid images. Romniriffic (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My only interest regarding photos is the same regarding any other aspect of comics creator articles, or any other type of article I work, and that interest is their quality be improved/maintained, which is not only not "unnatural" or "obsessive", but is testified by the fact that I have favored photos other than mine on other occasions when I found them to be better than mine. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and confine your comments to the merit of the edits, and not make personal remarks about the psychological state of editors that you have no basis for.

When I spoke to Mr. Templesmith at the New York Comic Covention where the photo was taken, he said he didn't like the photo that was in the article at the time, so I took another one of him then and there. He also said that he disliked photos of him taken with a flash, but photos taken without a flash often come dim and blurry.

In any event, if a consensus wishes to revert to the black and white photo, I'm fine with that. However, some have pointed out that that photo is distorted, and that this would make it unacceptable. If someone can find a non-distorted version of that photo, or another one entirely like that one, I'm fine with that too. I'll try to contact Mr. Templesmith and see if he can provide a one satisfies both him and Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image again

• 
• 
• 

Cut and pasted from User:J Greb's talk page:

---

Ben Templesmith requested my picture to be used for his wiki page. So I appreciate if you would stop switching back to the old one.

Ben Templesmith Sir, make that my wikipedia entry bio image & I'll buy you a beer or Squid hooker or whatever you want. Nice pic! 20 hours ago · Like · 1

Ben Templesmith Aww, that was quick. Some guy decided "He didn't like the dutch angle" whatever that means... and reverted it back to the last, obviously inferior image. Bleh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.95.202 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Log in, assuming this is Weepygoon.
2. Use the article's talk page along with reading WP:BRD.
3. You're close to making a personal attack rather than discussing the content.
4. While it is appreciated that a subject of an article wants to have input on the article, that doesn't bypass or trump Wikipedia guidelines or policies.

- J Greb (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. And yes, Ben Templesmith has requested my picture be the one for his Wiki page. I have reproduced Facebook comments quoting the man himself. What more do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepygoon (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Copying the Facebook comments here isn't relevant.

What is relevant is keeping in mind Wkipedia has its own ways of doing things. Part of that is that is if your bold edit is reverted, discussing the issue on the article's talk page is preferable to moving into edit warring to get what you want.

And if you look at the talk page for that article, the issue of the infobox image had a going over from Dec 2010 to Jan 2011. And this one - with both images - is a close re-hash of that.

Now, would you care to take a look at the new discussion there?

- J Greb (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the big issue is. Templesmith has requested the picture to be replaced. I am merely acceding to his request to do so. In the history, there has also been indication that this has been carried out at the request of Ben Templesmith himself. So how do I go about changing the picture as Mr Templesmith himself has requested? User "Monk sp the sane" can also testify as he was involved in the same Facebook conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepygoon (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Two major concerns:

1. Image updating: I seriously doubt we need a new photo every year. Yes, people's appearances change over time, but unless it's drastic, noticeable changes don't occur in a 12 month span. And going from a near goatee to full beard is questionable as "drastic".
2. Image format: Most similar articles - writers, artists, and/or comics professionals - stick with a formal layout. That is, the person id square to the frame of the picture, not at a Dutch angle. Then again, they are normally either facing forward or into the article when ever possible.

- J Greb (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no opposition to the Weepygoon's photo as the Infobox photo if it can be straightened. It was also a bit oversaturated, but I desaturated it. In fact, I'd imagine Mr. Templesmith himself would prefer it, given his dislike of flash photos, since this one looks like it was taken without one. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering File:Ben Templesmith at NYCC 2011.JPG is under CC3, it would be within bounds to use it as a base and put up a straightened version in Commons under the same license. So that would account for one issue.

As with the discussion from Dec 2010-Jan 2011, I still see little or no value in having to keep the infobox image "up to date" with as recent an image as possible. The bottom line is that Mr Templesmith's notability is based on his writing and art, not his appearance, the image is a nice "extra" but not a requirement. As long as it isn't grossly out of date, a misrepresentation, or inappropriate, an image shouldn't be just swapped out.

And with all due respect to Mr Templesmith, as was pointed out by others a year ago, this is not his Facebook profile, official website, or a vanity piece. While it is appreciated to have his input, it isn't the final deciding factor on the image to be used.

- J Greb (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I find Weepygoon's photo to be superior, as it is a face-on proper portrait of the kind you might find in a magazine profile, rather than the other one, which looks like the subject's has been unpleasantly ambushed by a paparazzo. And unless there are compelling editorial reasons not to, we should respect the wishes of the subject as a general BLP rule. I see no such reasons here. Skomorokh 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Skomorokh. I have to say my first Wiki experience has been rather unsatisfactory. I am merely here to carry out the wishes of the subject of the page. He has publicly stated and I quote "Ungh, they think I'm some sort of fascist for favouring a photo that doesn't make me look like a greasy dude in a nightclub. ( And is then used as a visual resource by cons who want a picture of me for their sites because they're too lazy to check my own page or ask me, etc etc..)". As you can see, this causes much distress to the subject and is an issue of public image. The ethical thing to do would be to accede to his request to replace the photo. Weepygoon (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the page, as J Greb indicated on his talk page, and as I indicated on your page, Weepygoon, does not own his Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is property of the Wikimedia Foundation, and not Ben Templesmith, and BLP subjets need to stop acting as if Wikipedia articles are their personal resume or webpage. Yes, the feelings of the subject are one thing that can be considered, but they are not the only one, and we do not revert articles back and forth once a legitimate editorial dispute arises, regardless of how unsatisfactory you find this. What we do is talk things over, and see if we can reach a resolution. For my part, I already stated above my feelings on the photos, and I will try to invite other editors on the Comics Project to join this discussion to offer their views. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: There is now a rotated version of Weepygoon's photo here. J Greb, do you have any objections to using it? Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben's preferences take second place to Wikipedia style guidelines. When all other factors are equal, sure, we can go with his preference. I'd love for it to be one that pleases him, but the style guide trumps personal tastes, whether that means the subject's taste or our own. Doczilla _STOMP! 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked by browbeating new editors with policy minutiae; is there any editorial reason to prefer the first image in the gallery to the third? Skomorokh 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the third one (on the right); I'd crop it a little tighter, even. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Nightscream

As an image itself? No. Within context here? Yes.

Long and short:

• There should be a degree of stability to the page. Period. This would be the 3rd - or 4th (see below) - infobox image change in just over 2 years with little to no real improvement for an encyclopedic article.
• While Mr Templesmith has a right to question the use of an image looks on some levels like he was ambushed (and the photog of that one should know better), that about as far as it goes. His issues with conventions and the images they use is, bluntly, with them, not Wikipedia.
• The current state of the article, with Weepygoon's current reversion to use his image, and their editing history - all edits are only related to using Mr Templesmith's new preferred image - makes me question any faith of them actually participating in this discussion or accepting any outcome short of their image as originally uploaded.
• And the SPA (sorry Skomorokh, I did go there) aside, if they will allow the rotated image to stand, when will we have another occurrence of "Change by request of subject"? Either because he no longer likes it or is still have issues with conventions.

- J Greb (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Mr Templesmith have any other pictures he could contribute for consideration? If we can find one he likes that also matches policy considerations then surely all parties will be happy. Until such time, it is up to editors to determine which of those existing photos we may legally use is best for Wikipedia's purposes.Zythe (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had understood well, there was an infobox image with an acceptable licence, and Ben Templesmith himself considered a second image to be better, and supported the change. It is right that notable people do not "own" the articles about them, and may not do whatever they want with them, so that if they want to do something contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as concealing criticism or negative facts, attacking someone else, vandalize it as a "joke", etc), those take priority. Period. Having said that, is there really a compelling reason to avoid doing what the man wants? The new photo is perfectly within all applicable policies and guidelines, so why not? If there's no policy instructing us to either use the new photo or keep the old one, then we should resort to simple courtesy. Cambalachero (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is this is the 3rd time that the image has been changed to satisfy the subject of the article. And it isn't the first time the issue has come up. See up above. At what point do we say "Sorry, the current image is going to be kept." rather than catering to the subject? When he no longer likes Weepygoon's image? When he no longer likes the one he picked after that?

- J Greb (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the history, and certainly agree that we should not be kowtowing automatically to unreasonable demands whatever their source, but should our guiding principle not be that the time to change a lead image is whenever a more suitable one is found? Procedural concerns with the history of these discussion aside, is there any content-related reason, as Cambalachero asks, not to go with the suggested alternative at this point in time? Skomorokh 01:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: The cropped and straightened image seems the best of the three, and I applaud User:Nightscream for doing work on the image that the original uploader should have done. J Greb and others are correct, I believe, in their reasons for desiring a degree of stability with articles — Templesmith crossed a line with his demands, and Weepygoon does not quite understand the ultimately academic and disinterested framework of an encyclopedia in general, not even specifically Wikipedia. I would advocate for the third image in that a full-frontal shot is preferable to a side shot, and an obliquely angled image in no way serves the purpose of plain, simple, easy identification for the sake of reference and posterity, which is the only reason to have an image here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

JGreb, the only reason it keeps coming up is because Mr. Templesmith is consistent in his dislike for how he is depicted in flash photography. He has, as I recall been clear in his advocacy for that previous black and white pic, and for Weepygoon's. I don't think, if we decide upon using Weepygoon's, that this is going to come up again. It's not like it's Mr. Templesmith who keeps advocating a new pic every so often. He simply hasn't liked any of the ones taken with a flash. Now if Goon's image was not up to Wikipedia standards, then that would be a problem, but what's wrong with it?

Zythe, what's wrong with Goon's photo? That is the one he wants considered. Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am indifferent myself as to which image is used and was leaving that up to the other editors who protested changing the picture.Zythe (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was asked by Nightscream to give my perspective. The image itself is fine. I have no problem with its use. However:

1) I do take issue with the image being the third or fourth update in 2 years when his image hasn't changed enough to be considered a misrepresentation or inhibitive to identifying him. If Templesmith has his face melted off, gets a wicked face tattoo, gains 300 pounds, gets in a knife fight with devastating or badass facial scarring consequences, or decides to change his hair color for the next 30 years, then an update with those changes may be warranted. But going from goatee to no goatee isn't a "significant" change to his appearance. Continuously updating his photo with superficial changes in how one might identify Templesmith if they need to is unnecessary. Doing so would only set a silly precedent for changing a subject image every time someone gets a new haircut. I would not support any future changes of this nature.

2) The constantly stated point that Templesmith wants this photo for the page has no bearing on what picture is selected. This is not a page under his ownership. It's an encyclopedia page under Wikipedia. As stated above, it's not his personal Facebook page, his professional web domain, or anything else. With exception to problematic depictions (re: ambushed photography, misrepresentation, misidentification, etc.), that the subject just doesn't like one image rather than another isn't sufficient enough reason to implement one photo over another. If it was, every single page on Wikipedia would be subject to the personally-selected image, selected information, and promotional statements of its subject or the entities owning or representing a subject, and that's not what Wikipedia is. Subjects (or the organizations that own copyrights or represent subjects) have no particular ownership over the content of Wikipedia pages about them, though obvious consideration is made for libelous or egregious content, which should be removed anyway.

In the future, users would be wise not to use "the subject desires ___" as an argument and to demonstrate legitimate reasons for suggesting a new picture. Personally, I support the new photo because it is a front-face depiction of the subject. That's about the only thing I have in its favor over the previous photo. However, again, if this photo and future photos are only being pushed because they're an unnecessary update of superficial cosmetic changes or to meet the personal preferences of the subject, then I would lean toward keeping the original photo, and would likewise be against future actions in the same vein. Neither the past photo or the new ones misrepresent Templesmith as he is now and is likely to remain for the near future and Templesmith is free to select his own representative photos for his own personally-owned profiles.Luminum (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've lost track. Is Ben still pushing for the same black and white photo? If so, our answer has to be no. Color is preferred. Doczilla _STOMP! 12:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. This has gone on too long and has grown too complicated. Doczilla _STOMP! 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Doczilla. And since this particular shot of Templesmith at the table seems unobjectionable to all the editors here, I'm going to make the leap that a straight up-and-down version of it is more appropriate for an encyclopedia than a skewed image with more distracting background. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. The up-and-down edit with less background is more encyclopedic. Doczilla _STOMP! 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103182104/http://www.comicsbeat.com:80/2010/10/30/2010-eagle-award-winners/ to http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/10/30/2010-eagle-award-winners
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=148444

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SLhxiSA1?url=http://www.horroraward.org/prevrec.html to http://www.horroraward.org/prevrec.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130422022557/http://ben-templesmith.livejournal.com/ to http://ben-templesmith.livejournal.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005170041/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=5239 to http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=5239

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121209142804/http://ben-templesmith.livejournal.com/ to http://ben-templesmith.livejournal.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)