Talk:Q151952

Pang! 3

I removed this value, as it's not central info nor a very well known attribute of Venus of Milo.--Paracel63 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Which image is the best for the Venus of Milo?

There is a difficulty for chosing the best image for this famous statue. On the French Wikipedia, I changed once the image for a image that I thought better and was reverted with explanations. User Precedente who is a major contributor on this article on French Wikipedia, explained me (it's in French) that the image that I chose was not relevant because the statue was not made to be viewed from this angle. Many images of this statue are from left, believing that it's a front view but the statue was made to be viewed in the front view that is shown by the pedestal. It is shown in La Vénus de Milo et les Aphrodites du Louvre, Alain Pasquier, Editions de la Réunion des Musées nationaux, 1985, p.35. So the choice was made on the file The_legendary_Venus_de_Milo_in_the_Louvre,_9_February_2014_cropped.jpg which has a very good quality and a corresponds with the historical point of view. With this real front view we can see the two legs and the orientation of the head intended by the creator. So it seems to be for now the best documentary image of this item on Wikidata. Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the present one, it is a quality and sharper image and the front view is, in my opinion, more useful.The other the perspective is also wrong and the quality questionable.Greetings.--5.169.247.189 07:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The point is not what is your preference but from which perspective is the best for the artwork. The image that you try is to impose is not relevant also the angle of the currently selected image is sourced above. The other image is still accessible in the Wikimedia Commmons Category. Best regards. --Shonagon (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, because the image you prefer is being forced into articles cross-wiki by a long-term abusive, globally locked sockpuppet in an effort to self-promote his works. There are 101 files in the category "Front views of the Venus de Milo", so if you detest the "yellow" one, then I am happy to entertain your alternative suggestions. But it is unacceptable to feed the troll who attempts to eclipse others' works across all WMF projects. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, the rationale is that the user is a troll and we deny him recognition. Again, there are 101 files in the category and there are plenty of other, viable alternative high-quality replacements for this one. I can propose a few if you'd like to comment and build consensus with me, rather than edit-warring to support a globally-locked, block-evading, long-term cross-wiki abusive, self-promoting asshole? How does that sound to you? Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23, this sounds like a personal reason, and is a rationale based on people, and not a rationale based on the image itself. Shouldn't we prefer the best image, regardless of its contributor? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not "personal"; it's behavioral. There's a difference, you see. If this troll wasn't effacing the hard work of good-faith contributors, I wouldn't be campaigning to replace the images. And they are, ultimately, replaceable, 100% of them can be replaced with works of equal quality, equal licenses, but from contributors who are not abusing me, WMF volunteers, administrators, and people like our friend @Jastrow, who do not deserve to have shit rubbed in our faces and shoved aside for egocentric reasons of self-aggrandisement.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

RE: "they are, ultimately, replaceable, 100% of them can be replaced with works of equal quality". That isn't true. I've looked at the list on commons, and your claim simply isn't true. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed replacements

Per above, a list of proposed replacements:

• 
  1a.
• 
  1b.
• 
  2a.
• 
  2b.
• 
  3.
• 
  4.
• 
  5.

Which of these have been deemed quality images at Commons? The current image has been evaluated for quality. The 1st image you suggest has a person in shot; the 2nd image has an ornate pillar in the foreground that ruins the composition; the 3rd image is off the vertical; the 4th image is blurry (zoom in to see this) the 5th image is a yellow image, and you can see by the bit of arch in shot that it's not vertically aligned. How much time did you spend evaluating these images for quality? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Easily rectified, and there are still about 100 other alternatives, so I'm happy to be patient while we determine better quality. I've cropped the human out of #1, on display as #1b. Elizium23 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've cropped the pillar out of #2, as #2b. Hopefully this can resolve the compositional objection. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The image you've now added to the page is acceptable, though I believe your crusade to remove the images is personal, and not guided by community consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)