Jump to content

Talk:Paul Atreides

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

Image

[edit]

Can we update the image to the 2020 version? Since the original screenshot is in poor quality?Triosdeity (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One alternative would be like most of the Lord of The Rings character pages, and group all images together in whatever section is most relevant for adaptations. No one portrayal would be the representative in the summary box. I only use Lord of the Rings as an example as they're both novel series that have had several varied and unrelated media portrayals.184.83.192.15 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all three portrayals of Paul into the infobox, is that better? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, it seems to clutter the infobox and I don't know why the change is necessary. With literary characters we typically use the first or most definitive representation as the main infobox image. I've never seen a gallery used in this way in this kind of article, though technically I don't think it violates the MOS or the template instructions. And Triosdeity, who objected to the current longstanding image, has been blocked indefinitely. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So because 1 user doesn't like it then it should be reverted? And I think the photos should be of them in-character, not random captures of the actors out and about. Miss HollyJ (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not it at all. First, per WP:NFCC a non-free image cannot be used in an article if a free equivalent is available. The policy also has a minimal use element, meaning you can get away with one non-free image that has some representational value, but you can't, in this case, use copyrighted screenshots of all three portrayals. As far as replacing the main image, anyone is welcome to open a discussion about that here. I would argue, though, that the current, long-standing image represents a distinctive (and probably the most recognizable) version of the character, while the available images of Alec Newman and Timothée Chalamet in the role don't look much different than the actors out and about.— TAnthonyTalk 05:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TAnthony This feels like your own personal opinion. The 2020 film is already becoming more impactful than the 1984 film ever was (The 1984 film did not even have any "distinction" or "definitiveness" - it was ultimately a low rated cult film). To provide one supporting piece of evidence, the first film made $30 million in the box office whereas the 2021 film has made over 10 times that about (394mil). I stand in solidarity with HollyJ and InfiniteNexus that the lead image should be changed. Kuhnaims (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity, I'd like to note that Triosdeity and Kuhnaims were both sockpuppets of the same blocked editor.— TAnthonyTalk 14:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TeamEquestria: I'm reopening this discussion per your recent edits to change the main infobox image.— TAnthonyTalk 00:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems straightforward. Google "Paul Atreides" and we see 10,000 images from the 2021 movie, including many drawings and fan art, and only a few from the 1984 movie...and even fewer from the TV mini-series. The movie is likely to be the "definitive" image for Paul Atreides from now on, in the same way the Lord of the Rings movies provide the "definitive" images for the characters from the books. It's also closer to the description of the character from the book, who was fifteen years old. The actor in the 2021 movie looks like a teenager; the other two actors do not. TeamEquestria (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like no one else has any input at this time. I'm fine with your image, but I have a few comments that may inform potential future discussions about changing infobox images in this and related articles:
  1. The Lynch film image has been the definitive representation of Paul Atreides for almost 40 years, the Villenueve film has existed for three.
  2. Google search results don't really mean much in this case. The Lynch film was pre-internet, so all coverage was in print and anything found online is either archival or retrospective. Countless news and entertainment websites and blogs have covered the Villenueve film at every stage of production, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
  3. The Lord of the Rings live action film images are definitive because they are the only representations aside from the old animated films. And even then, the LotR character articles don't appear to use any infobox images at all, but do have representations from the animated and live action films in the Adaptations section, ordered chronologically. I'm assuming that's because they are literary characters first and there are no/few readily available illustrations, which is sort of a weird but there must have been some consensus somewhere.
Anyway, I'll restore your new image, thanks for the discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 14:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a year later, I beg to reopen the discussion. It's not fair to only include one actor's image, especially if he is the most famous one; all the more reason to preserve other two. 59.184.166.178 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're suggesting we show images of all three portrayers in character? The issue with that is that it violates WP:NFCC. Screencaps and promo images of actors in character are copyrighted and non-free; Wikipedia has strict guidelines and limits on the use of non-free images. We have to choose one non-free image, usually for the infobox, and more would be considered decorative and not essential in illustrating the topic of the article. You'll notice we do have images of all three performers from WikiPedia Commons, which means the rights to use them have been released to Wikipedia so they are free to use without restriction. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 15:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image removal

[edit]

Since this edit by Only in death removing the current infobox image has been reverted by myself and two other editors, and restored twice so far by Only in death, it should be discussed here to prevent edit warring. Only in death's original edit summary is Not a valid use for non-free material per WP:NFCC. This is an article about the character, not a particular film's depiction of the character where Chalamet's specific visual asthetic might add value. Fails NFCC on contextual significance (and others). Edit summary replies thus far have been [1], [2] and [3]. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 21:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this policy isn't being enforced for the other Dune character articles. Regardless, seeing as Paul is the main character of the series, I feel having an infobox image would be appropriate. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, find a free picture to use and put it there. Commons probably has many pictures of the various actors who have played him in media, however this article is about the literary character, not the film character, which barely merits two lines in the entire article, so there is absolutely no way a copyright still from the latest film satisfies our WP:NFCC criteria. If the article were entirely about the latest film's depiction, or even substantially, the argument it adds to the article's understanding might come close. But it isnt is it. Having an infobox image for the sake of an image isnt a get out for NFCC - you still need to demonstrate why the picture selected satisfies all the criteria for non-free use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Any image of the character, regardless of medium, would satisfy NFCC as long as a non-free equivalent isn't available, in which case the image would still satisfy NFCC in a lower section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is frankly an idiotic interpretation of the policy and would justify *any* use of non-free media. Your disingenous omission of 'or could be created' speaks volumes. Lack of free media itself is not by itself a reason to use non-free media, if a free version could be created. You can pick up a pen and create a free depiction of Paul Atreides at any time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Only in death reported by User:InfiniteNexus (Result: ). InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can the image be restored until this is resolved, per WP:STATUSQUO? Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've requested at ANEW. It's unfortunate that some admins are willing to allow users to go against consensus by exploiting 3RR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have no idea what you're doing anymore. You've reverted dozens of users already and it's clear nobody agrees with your interpretation of that policy. You're not very consistent with your argument and it seems you're only here to disrupt the article for your own personal amusement. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, if we are going with a non-free lead image, which it can be argued is allowed if there is consensus, it should be Kyle M since he was first. We don't have to have an image of the fictional character in the lead or elsewhere in the article per WP:OTHERCONTENT (that essay is an essay), but examples like Hannibal Lecter, Aragorn, Willy Wonka and Han Solo exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't necessarily have to be the first, just the most notable (which is still open to debate). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd argue that the Kyle M portrayal has been subject to, and received, comment much longer than the others [4][5][6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, naturally. Villeneuve's film didn't exist in 2011. Reverse-recentism? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION-ness? There may be some WP:ILIKEIT-aspect as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention an image alternative, there is page 317, 345, 473, in The illustrated Dune (1978), by John Schoenherr. These are also non-free. He did the leadimage at Vladimir Harkonnen. Not unlike Stellan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the infobox image

[edit]
There is a clear consensus that using a non-free image in the infobox would not be an NFCC violation. It is essentially undisputed that every criterion other than #8 is clearly met, but the analyses that determined a pass on that point were better supported than those which came to the opposite conclusion and the arguments against inclusion were not sufficiently strong to disregard that. There was some discussion about whether any image is needed, and while this was not the question the RFC asked and discussion was limited, there seems to be general agreement that having an image would benefit the article. There was also some discussion about which image to place in the infobox, but as the majority of participants didn't express an opinion there was no consensus on this point, and there is no indication that now the question of whether a non-free image is permitted that this cannot be determined by a normal discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does placing File:Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides (Dune 2021).jpg — a non-free image of an actor's portrayal of the subject of this article — in the infobox violate WP:NFCC?

There already exists an overwhelming consensus on this matter (that it is not a violation), but the sole editor who disagreed edit-warred to have the image removed from the infobox. Unfortunately, all but one admin at ANEW effectively endorsed this removal on a technicality, so I am starting this RfC to resolve this matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No – No free image exists of the character. Images of the actor(s) who have portrayed the character depict the actor(s), who are not the subject of this article. The claim that artistic recreations ("fan art") can theoretically be created is irrelevant, since those would not accurately depict the character. The claim that the character originated in literature and not film is also irrelevant, since no image of the character as seen in the books exists, and the article discusses all versions of the character. The fact that this image is a depiction of the character, and that there is no free equivalent, does not change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we just use WP:Files for discussion? It's a shorter process that's meant for this sort of thing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question isn't exactly "should this image be deleted", it's "should this image be in the infobox". If the consensus is that it shouldn't be in the infobox, the image can still be kept but moved down to the body of the article, probably at § In adaptations. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it fails NFCC in the infobox, it fails NFCC everywhere else in the article as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Image wouldn't fail NFCC regardless of if we decide it's worthy of the infobox or not. It's perfectly fine either way, and the rationale would be to show how Paul looks like in the latest film series. As I recall, I think the guideline for free use is to not show it in more than one article. WuTang94 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That generally helps, yes, but it's not essentiall Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I don't understand how we're suppose to use a free image of the character if one doesn't exist. I also agree with InfiniteNexus and their explanation regarding the point of artistic recreations. There will never be a consensus with that. Had Frank Herbert himself released a self-drawn illustration of Paul then sure but the point now is that most people associate Paul's appearance with MacLachlan and Chalamet's portrayal. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that hypothetical illustration could only have been a free image had Herbert (or any illustrator he allowed or commissioned to make such an illustration) released it without copyright notice before 1978, or with specific notice that it wasn't copyrighted afterwards. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)No, for all the reasons I've already gone into. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No If the original publication of Dune was illustrated with a version of Paul that Herbert endorsed, that might be one thing to say that's the more official version (eg compared to using the drawn illustrations of Sherlock Holmes compared to either Benedict's or RLD's portrayal). Without an original image, then it is fair game to use one of the well-recognized film versions as non-free for this. --Masem (t) 23:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for reason already stated above. HenryRoan (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. For precedence see Palpatine, Thirteenth Doctor, Buffy Summers, Terminator (character). Note, I feel like this is a separate question from whether the article should prioritize the Chalamet depiction over MacLachlan and Newman given the character has been notably depicted multiple times. But that is not what this RfC is asking. It would very much would not be a NFCC violation to use that image in the infobox. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per Masem and others. There are no definitive images for the literary character. And honestly, the costume/props of the adaptation images do identify the character as something other than the actor in makeup.— TAnthonyTalk 00:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per above, but IMO the leadimage should by Kyle M, similar to Willy Wonka. But that's another discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. The physical appearance of Chalomet in the film is not even remarked upon in the prose, and that prose is a tiny fraction of the article. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an interesting reading, but I don't think it's widely applied in articles about fictional people. My impression is that where a photo is possible, articles like Miles O'Brien/Steve Rogers is the norm/common as muck. Or does "not even remarked upon in the prose" only apply when the fictional character has been portrayed by more than one actor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Spock is depicted both in the infobox and the article with pictures of the late Leonard Nimoy even though other actors have played him in recent years (But this may not be an NFCC-relevant example as a lot of those images are black and white and look like publicity stills from that era, which were usually distributed without copyright notices so they would be used as much as possible). Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean it always will be a tiny fraction. It might be nice if any physical description Herbert gives in the books could be cited and quoted in the text, and if any reliably-sourced prose comparing the characters between the original and the adaptation could be added. I'm sure, given that the first novel was published almost 60 years ago, that there's some out there. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – It qualifies as valid under NFCC as mentioned above. 777burger user talk contribs 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this interpretation of NFCC isn't enforced on any other page so I don't see why it should be any different for this one. Goweegie2 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as a clear failure of criteria #8. A character originally appearing in novels does not need a non-free image from a live-action film and an omission is not "detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic". This should also be discussed at FfD, not on the article talk page. I would further encourage the OP to strike the accusations of edit warring towards Only in death, as such accusation was brought to AN3 with no action being taken. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I did fully protect the article so we could have this discussion ... that's not quite "no action".
    • And as I concluded after reviewing and reposting the relevant language from 3RRNO, OiD's editing did not qualify for the claimed exemption as there was no consensus that it did not meet the FUC. So it was edit warring. I see no need for IN to strike anything.
    • "A character originally appearing in novels does not need a non-free image from a live-action film and an omission is not 'detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic'". It seems from the way this RfC is going that ... well that's just your opinion, man!" The FUC clearly leave this as a judgement call for editors to make through consensus. It might be useful if you were to elaborate on why you believe this to be the case.
    • As for why we're not having this discussion at FFD ... as noted above, this is about whether the image should be in the infobox, not whether it should be on Wikipedia at all. Not yet.

      Theoretically we could follow the example of James Bond and have a separate "Portrayal of Paul Atreides in film" if we desire ... that could be one resolution of this (but so far no one seems to be considering it).

    Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think any of those Bond-pics are non-free, though. Some are not Bond per se, "just" the actor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus does not override policy, though. And it does clearly fail NFCC8, because it's not an article about Chalamet or Dune 2, it's an article about a literary character with many portrayals. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So then what about an article like Willy Wonka? There are three non-free images, one for each movie portrayal. None of the literary version. I have personally policed Paul Atreides and similar articles to keep the non-free images to a minimum, basically only a non-free infobox image. I fully understand NFCC but I really think you're overinterpreting here. An infobox image is the primary way we identify a character. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable infobox image here would be an illustration from a book, because that's the OG Paul? That's splitting hairs, and for no reason. A character as depicted in an adaptation is still the same character. The only reason we have multiple articles for "different versions" of some superheroes is because the characters and their many depictions have too much history for a single article. And if you're really going to argue that omission is not "detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic", I don't see how any human fictional character needs an image at all. Superman is a white guy in blue tights.— TAnthonyTalk 14:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " I don't see how any human fictional character needs an image at all." I don't think that's how NFCC is generally read or argued for fictional character articles. Wikipedians like to have a WP:LEADIMAGE, needs is of course in the eye of the beholder. Fwiw, I mentioned Wonka as an example at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Non-free_photos_of_fictional_people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The policy exists to prevent blatant overuse of non-free images, like multiple images in a list, not a single image in a single article. The situation we're having here seems like an arbitrary overapplication of the policy as it pertains to infoboxes, and if it is such a "clear failure" of NFCC then this same interpretation should be applied everywhere.— TAnthonyTalk 17:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that's not why it exists. Overuse can be a single image, as it is here. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But in this case I think it is perfectly apt to consider other examples of fictional literary characters portrayed more than once in a visual adaptation and how we have handled that. Policy gives us no clear guidance on this point. Merely repeating the language of FUC #8 as if no further argument were necessary is unhelpful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument feels a bit in bad faith because you're leaving out key context: the interpretation of that policy, which is what the consensus doesn't agree with. The consensus didn't become the consensus simply because they don't like the policy, which is what you're erroneously insinuating. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus does not override policy, as I keep pointing out. If consensus is that this policy should be deprecated, we need an RfC. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Context matters. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would further encourage the OP to strike the accusations of edit warring towards Only in death Absolutely not. Only in death was edit-warring, and I stand by that. They did so shamelessly and by exploiting 3RR, throwing in hostile retorts that border on NPA. Any user who fails to see that is misreading NFCC. The admins at ANEW made an error in judgment and thus failed to fulfill their duty to prevent disruptive editing — it happens; admins are not perfect, though they are meant to be the best of us. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that I was correct, for the reasons I've given above, and I'd do exactly the same next time as well. However, if the consensus is that we can ignore NFCC8 to put a pointless image in the article, perhaps we need an RfC on that particular part of NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Insert gif of Bugs Bunny saying "no"]. I stand by the assessment made by InfiniteNexus. The only suitable non-free image in my opinion that could replace this as the infobox picture would be if there was one of Timothée Chalamet in-character as Paul at a convention, or something of the sort. I'd even argue that Chamalet's performance is more culturally significant than McLachlan's at this point so I see why the former would probably be more suitable for the infobox, although that's a whole other debate.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to put an illustration of Paul on the infobox, then let both McLachlan's and Chamalet's images be put down in the "In other media" section, if that serves as a compromise. WuTang94 (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to come around about halfway to the position that launched this whole thing.
The real issue is the one at the top of this RfC. The FUC are not implicated by it, at least not directly. It is: Where a fictional character, meriting a standalone article, originating in a still-copyrighted literary work that has been adapted for recorded visual media, what is the best image to use in the infobox?
There are a lot of factors that go into this, and I will save discussion of them for the NFC thread Gråbergs started. But most relevant here, I think, is that, yes, we can't say that Chalamet's portrayal is the defining one. It is at the moment, I agree, but will it always be? There's some recentism involved here.
So I asked myself, how does Herbert describe him?. This Screenrant piece accurately sums up the description we get in the novel's first chapter: black-haired, green-eyed, an oval face with strong bones.
That easily excludes Alec Newman as a portrayal matching that. But while MacLachlan and Chalamet do have the dark hair, they wear it differently, and neither has green eyes.
I think, then, we might want to illustrate the infobox with a free image based on that description. There is some fan art in the Commons category; but I do think that we could do better, especially with AI, as long as (as I've said before) we don't show (or show much of) anything unique to the book and covered by its copyright. Maybe with a desert background. Anyone want to give it a try? Daniel Case (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chalamet actually does have green eyes. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO! He has the eyes of the Ibad! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm likely to oppose any fan-art suggested. Fan-art has, in general, no WP-relevance. We're not interested in artistic expressions of the general netizen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the editors at the Spanish and Polish Wikipedias disagree (of course in the former case it's because they allow no fair-use media; I don't know if plwiki has a corresponding policy, though). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted some paid-for art (I assume) in the thread above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, when comments on this Rfc dies down a bit, I think we should ask for a closure at WP:RFCL and see where that leaves us. If the closure is "Yes, you can have a non-free leadimage if you want", we can get into what image, non-free or free, in a new thread/Rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Annoyingly, I am going to have to vote yes on this occasion (believed NFCC#8 violation). As much as I would like to see an image in the infobox, I do not believe its ommission would seriously affect the ability of a reader unfamiliar with the specific character, or the wider Dune universe (literary or filmic). The inclusion of the comp image with Newman, Chalamet, and McLachlan beneath the infobox is enough to fulfil that purpose. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/further suggestion: Looking at the pages for several Lord of the Rings characters like Frodo Baggins or Aragorn, their infoboxes don't seem to have any illustrations, yet screenshots of all adaptations of those characters (yes, non free, but fair use) appear, including all cartoons and the Peter Jackson series. If no illustration from the author exists, I'm fine with leaving the infobox without a picture, but want to push for putting screenshots of each adaptation of Paul Atreides, namely of Newman, Chalamet, and McLachlan, in the article, just like the LotR examples. WuTang94 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This RfC seems less than neutral and per WP:RFC Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded. While it's not biased enough for me to cast a bad RfC !vote, I just wanted to point this out so that !voters may consider whether the wording is subconsciously inclining them one way or another. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC question is straightforward and neutrally worded, followed by a factual recounting of pertinent contextual information. I don't see how anything is non-neutral. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is fine. However, I don't think saying unfortunately (especially when referring to a decision that would have likely resulted in a block if the "fortunate" outcome were to have occurred) is neutral. Looking at the AN/3 discussion and the page history, I count six in favor (you, WuTang94, 2603:8001:3f02:518c:511c:83f1:2c18:40d7, Goweegie2, Kokaynegeesus, and TAnthony), 3 against (Only in Death, Black Kite, Clreland), and FFF suggesting an FfD. 6-3 is probably not overwhelming consensus given two of those in favor didn't leave any explanation for their side(IP 2603... and Kokaynegeesus, who pointed to the fact that others felt the same way but did not cite any policy or say per User:XYZ), especially when the two people deeming it overwhelming are involved (you and Kokaynegeesus above). Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 00:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was 5–1 before the ANEW report, hence "overwhelming". I didn't suggest there was overwhelming consensus at the time of the RfC, just that the admins at ANEW (wrongly) ignored the existing consensus. "Overwhelming" consensus also includes the 19 years of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS where a non-free image existed in the navbox and was never removed for (presumably) more than a day. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the first two sentences of your response, I apologize. I misunderstood There already exists an overwhelming consensus on this matter.
    As for the second half, you probably already know I'm going to cite WP:WEAKSILENCE. How many editors know NFCC off the top of their head, visit this article, see the image, and know/check its copyright status? Out of 443 editors([7]), probably less than 30. 29 would be a sizable consensus, except that number is 100% speculation and it could be much less (or much more; ideally the latter). When it comes to potential copyright (and thus potential legal) issues, we should be certain, not merely trusting in an unknown number to claim overwhelming consensus.Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 03:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No - Per InfiniteNexus and others. Does not fail NFCC. Hope that helps! Kokaynegeesus (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm increasingly confused about what this RfC is truly about. The statement is about whether it would be a NFCC violation, but a lot of discussion is about whether there should be an image in the infobox or whether to prioritize a particular version of the character over another. These are separate questions. As I stated above, it would not be an NFCC violation to have the image in the infobox, but I don't necessarily think there needs to BE an image in the infobox. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what it's really about. The reason it's been framed as an NFCC debate is that it began with an ANEW report on an editor who kept citing NFCC as a reason to remove the image of Timothee Chalamet as the character from the infobox completely, when in fact as I have written above that really isn't a factor. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, exactly. There doesn't need to be an image in the infobox, and therefore any non-free image is immediately dubious, especially if it fails NFCC8, as this one does. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You saying it over and over again without going into why you think it would be does not encourage the rest of us to give your position much thought. In fact it rather comes across as bludgeoning the debate. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Case closed in my opinion as the vast majority of comments seems to lean towards no violation of free use. If needed, let's move on to a new RfC to discuss which image goes into the infobox, if any. This is getting beyond ridiculous. WuTang94 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus does not override policy. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't necessarily need a formal RfC to decide what image to use; a normal discussion would suffice. And we wouldn't need to worry about low participation given this influx of new page watchers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, a normal discussion could work. But it should probably be in a new thread, after this one is closed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel, I've already explained above why it fails NFCC8 (with the caveat at the moment). I didn't think it was that arcane a reason. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, FUC 8 is a reason to delete an image if there's one, and only one, article the image could possibly be used in. If reliably sourced text is added to this article that discusses Chalamet's appearance in the Villeneuve film, it seems you would be amenable to using it next to that text.
    To say that the absence of any sourced text describing the appearance of a copyrighted literary character in a visual-media adaptation by itself makes the use of a non-free depiction of that character a violation of FUC 8 remediable only by deleting the image requires dealing with the use of many such images in many other articles' infoboxes. For examples, as I've noted previously, Tywin Lannister has an image of Charles Dance in the infobox, and the article text mentions nothing about Dance's appearance, even though the character is more than once described in the books as bald. While that doesn't mean we don't need to add that to the article, I don't see why that would require removing the image, and you'd certainly be sailing into some stiff headwinds if you did.
    Granted, I would also qualify this as not dispositive of our current discussion since here we are dealing with multiple visual adaptations, none of which I think could be said to be the one most identified with the character in the public mind yet, so I'm amenable to the idea of using some freely licensed fan art (as long as there are no copyrightable elements) or (better yet) coming up with an AI depiction based on the descriptions of Atreides from the book that I've quoted above. But as a general rule we seem not to have held FUC 8 to be a bar to the use of a non-free depiction of a fictional character in an infobox of an article about that character. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did find an illustration by artist John Schoenherr on the Dune FANDOM article for Paul, showing him with hooks and riding a sandworm. If the illustration passes all requirements, I'd like to propose that we use that image as the infobox image, then relegate any live-action screenshots to the "in other media" section of this page. WuTang94 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's from [8]. I also think it's a decent alt, he's doing something very Dune-ey. It's of course non-free like the others, so we have to see how the non-free discussion ends first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it could be any character ... we don't see anything to indicate he's the character described in the books. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check the book, the (uncropped) pic has a caption, saying it's him. Also, he's holding maker-hooks and using a thumper, waiting for a sandworm, so not quite any character. But, an issue for the next discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said, I am not very familiar with the Duniverse, but I do think that simply possessing those items alone is not enough to distinguish the character as Paul Atreides. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely meets all of the NFCC except #8. Unfortunately as we've seen several times at DRV, NFCC#8 is written very broadly. It allows editors to opine that because an image doesn't enhance their understanding, the same image can't enhance anyone's understanding. Personally I don't need an image of Timothee Chalamet in costume to make sense of the article. But then I'm a 53-year-old bloke who reads fluently, watches this and most other science fiction films avidly, and knows the books well, or at least the readable ones by Frank Herbert. (The continuations by others are execrable.)
    The thing is that we have readers with a wide range of experience levels, literacy levels, English skills, and impairments. I can well imagine that a very visual person who hasn't read the books, or who can't read them, might well need a picture of Timothee Chalamet in costume to make sense what this article's about. For that person, NFCC#8 is passed.
    There's a spread, on Wikipedia, between the people who're concerned to use free content as much as possible and keep the fair use stuff to an absolute minimum ("free content maximalists") on the one hand, and the people who just want to get an encyclopaedia written and are happy to use any fair and lawful means to do it ("encyclopaedia writers") on the other. I personally tend towards the latter view, so I'll go with: no.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox images of TV and film characters are usually non-free for obvious reasons and I don't think anyone is claiming they should be otherwise. The reason I'm (fighting a losing battle) opposing this, is because it's not only about the character from that one very recent film, and there is little reference to them or their appearance in the article, which NFCC8 requires. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have long treated this as a de facto whitelist item, where the text in the article specific to the image wouldn't be necessary. There are, I think, many images of generally unremarkable yet copyrighted book covers that have no sourced commentary in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? Where does NFCC#8 say anything about referring to their appearance in the article? On my screen, NFCC#8 reads:

    Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

    That's all it says.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, usually, when a non-free image is somewhere other than the infobox, it's accepted that to satisfy FUC 8 there needs to be reliably sourced non-trivial commentary on that particular image in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, another of Wikipedia's lovely undocumented rules.  :)—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's documented: See WP:NFC#CS, further down the same page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't say there needs to be reliably sourced non-trivial coverage of the image. It says reliably-sourced non-trivial coverage of the image is one of the ways NFCC#8 can be met, and that's not the same thing at all.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I think it should make a distinction between infobox/lead use and non-infobox/non-lead use ... in the latter case I have never seen anyone successfully argue that FUC 8 was met without some sort of accompanying text. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From experience at DRV, I expect the fair use maximalists won't accept any other ways to pass NFCC#8 expect the ones specifically listed in the policy, so we would get to a situation where people think there must be content about that image in the article. The way forward should likely be to have a RFC to clarify NFCC#8 because as this discussion shows, it's written broadly enough to drive a truck through.—S Marshall T/C 13:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC8 hasn't changed for 16 years, and it is there precisely to stop people plastering articles with non-free images where they aren't absolutely needed - the latter being the important word. Minimal use should mean precisely that, or NFCC isn't being met anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's extremely unlikely that NFCC#8 would be changed because of its links to Foundation policy. I'm not proposing to change the wording. I'm considering starting a discussion about how the community should interpret the wording that's already there.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are also now at the point, as I've asserted more than once in this RfC, where AI images can fill in some of the gap that NFCC 8 covers. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely oppose using any art we generate ourselves, through AI or through more traditional means. It feels rather pointless imo to illustrate a subject with an image that is not produced out of the subject's literary or cinematic history. In my view, we might as well be searching through the thousands of public domain portrait paintings we have for someone who fits the same description, and we obviously wouldn't do that. If we cannot agree on whether TO have an image in the infobox, we can simply not have one. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've used this one ... we're using it right now on another page, in fact
    We have used freely licensed fan art, including very recently this image of Atreides, in many situations (and this is more common on other-language wikis, as I've noted above). The question is not where the image originates, it's "can a free image reasonably communicate the same information"? In this case, it is the appearance of a character that is reasonably communicated by renditions like this that can be done under a free license (since naturally occurring human facial features cannot be copyrighted, and I don't see any attire here that matches anything specific to the franchise). Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not equate an internal page with an article, and other-language wikis have their own best practices on a variety of things that we don't mirror because we have our own set of practices. The origin of a fanart image is less a nonfree consideration for me and more a matter of encyclopedic value. Like, why should I take this image as an authoritative representation of this subject? Even if it is an attempt at interpreting the features as described in the original work, why should we grant this particular interpretation authority simply on the basis that it is nonfree?
    If illustrating the character is central to communicating and identifying the subject, then an image from the production or the illustrated printed works would meet NFCC. If no free image exists and it is felt that the nonfree images do not pass the rationale muster, then we use none. "Can a free image reasonably communicate the same information", I feel like it only can if it's an image that is closely associated with the subject, its works, or other tradition surrounding the subject. Otherwise, as I said, it's no functionally different to me than looking for a painting of a historical figure who happens to meet the description. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Like, why should I take this image as an authoritative representation of this subject?" Because you recognize that you're not the main character and that determination is a matter of consensus among at least several editors? Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a rhetorical I and more from the viewpoint of a (or, if you will, my) capacity as a reader of the encyclopedia. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were pretty clearly using that phrase in the context of their argument, not indicating their word is law. ARZ100 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - Per reasons outlined prior, personally struggle to understand reasoning regarding failure to meet criteria #8. There's substantial sourced material discussing the performances in the film adaptions so photos of the characters as portrayed clearly adds useful contextual aid to understand visually what is being discussed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - There is no free equivalent of Paul Atreides. 84 Atreides, miniseries Atreides, fanart, book art, etc. are all not free. There doesn't exist a free image of him. 2021 Atreides, even only 3 years after his inception, is by far the most recognizable form of the character, clearly succeeding on policy 8. It will be minimally used, placed correctly, and meets content standards. This should be resolved by now. Bristledidiot (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2024
While, as I have previously indicated, I have no objection to the use of Chalamet's likeness under FUC 8 if consensus favors it, it is incorrect legally (and therefore for our policy) to say that "no free image is possible", even fan art such as the image I posted above.

Commons itself has a page about this, which has sections noting the limitations on literary copyright in asserting visual depictions are derivative works, and that faces, real or not, cannot be copyrighted.

The former says, in relevant part:

The legal situation can get much more complicated where the fan art drawing is a representation based solely on the descriptive text of a literary work such as a novel. Although the novel's author will have literary copyright in the actual words used, the US courts, in particular, have been rather reluctant to uphold broad copyright protection for characters within the novel. Although literary characters are clearly creative, they are often seen by the courts as being no more than abstract ideas that are too generic to attract independent copyright protection ... The courts in England have been even more reluctant to accept character copyrights based on literary works, and the general view is that English law does not recognise the concept of copyright in literary fictional characters at all.

The latter adds "Movie-derived fan art often includes drawings of an actor in character. There is no copyright in an individual's likeness, e.g. in their natural facial features, and if the fan art drawing is a wholly new creative representation showing the actor’s natural likeness plus some non-creative allusion to the original work, it can be accepted."

So, even a drawing or AI image that is recognizably of Chalamet or McLachlan could be accepted as long as it doesn't show anything that is unique to the book or movie's copyright (i.e. a recognizable portion of those black water-retention suits). I have gone to the lengths I have to say this because I think that all things being told, a freely-licensed depiction might be the ideal solution here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's eliminate the fan art part of this discussion now. Copyright is not the issue there. Fan art is akin to editor POV, it is one random person/artist's depiction of a character or fictional element, and from a creative standpoint is not a definitive depiction of a fictional topic for Wikipedia purposes.— TAnthonyTalk 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then you can't say that McLachlan or Chalamet are "definitive" depictions, either. And in the absence of a definitive depiction, policy and indeed the five pillars strongly compel the use of a free image, whatever its source, so long as it can be agreed to depict the character as the text of the novel describes him.
Last night, for reasons entirely unrelated to this discussion, I chanced across the Daisy Buchanan article. We have her (a character from a single work, not used in any other original works) represented by a still of Lois Wilson from the 1926 silent film version.
Now, this is hardly the definitive Daisy ... few of us have bothered to seek out that first film version, and I'd say that if I remember correctly Daisy is described as blonde, at least by implication, hence Mia Farrow and Carey Mulligan taking the part in the two more recent adaptations. But, it's a free image, so we seem to have used it in the infobox (it's also the earliest visualization, which seems to count for some people). Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get in the weeds over MacLachlan vs. Chalamet right now, what I mean is that official adaptations of a work may vary, but they can be considered representative of the work because they are universally recognized as such. I can draw a dark-haired twink in a wetsuit, but no one would or should consider that a representation of Paul Atreides that is appropriate to illustrate an encylopedia entry, despite my excellent art skills and familiarity with the topic.— TAnthonyTalk 20:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TAnthony I would. Please draw such an image so that I can support adding it to the article. I am sure it will be excellent and highly appropriate to illustrate the topic. If Mark Zug could create highly relevant and fitting illustrations for the Dune CCG, other illustrators can create fitting illustrations for other purposes. I do not want this image that is currently used irrespective of its NFCC status and want another, more representative, image. There is a physical description of the character in the book. —Alalch E. 02:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a violation because this is essentially the same as cover art as covered in WP:NFCI #1, which talks about visual identification to go with critical commentary of the topic. If anything, there is an even stronger case for visual identification of fictional characters. Seeing a book cover or a film poster is very light identification to grant readers, where the design can vary across media and time and so forth. Visually identifying a fictional character for getting into encyclopedic coverage of said character is even more helpful to readers. To show this character as played by Chalamet is the highest possible visual identification that can be provided for this character at this time. That said, I think we can do better with such an image, showing a full-body view that includes the Fremen outfit. In addition, it should be possible to find commentary in association with Chalamet's portrayal and appearance and physique, like Villeneuve saying, "There’s a deep intelligence in the eyes, and he has an old soul. When you talk with Tim, you get the impression that he's lived many lives. Yet he looks so young on camera. So that contrast of someone who has a lot of experience but is in the middle of his teenage years is Paul." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it should be possible to find commentary ..." Then go find some in a reliable source and add it to the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – This is the best image that is available, no free alt exists, case closed. (User:ToNeverFindTheMets) 1 April 2024
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification of infobox image change proposal at Lady Jessica

[edit]

Hi, I'm notifying editors who may he interested in participating in the discussion at Talk:Lady_Jessica#Proposed_infobox_image_change. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Atreides&oldid=1233799116"