This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The image of a doll is appropriate illustration, not peacocking. Please replace. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the edit summary for this edit. The image was deemed inappropriate because, "This is not a picture of the article subject," not because it was peacocking. The peacocking mentioned was the word "prominent" in the lede as well as calling the subject "an important figure" in the legend, both of which are blatant peacocking. Agricolae (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which are cited in the quote about her being an expert. Please replace, and the image too. It doesn't need to be of the article subject. Related material will do fine. You are limiting the artistic expression of the community. Please replace now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purposes of images on Wikipedia are to illustrate and inform. That means you don't add a picture just because it makes nice decoration. We can assume that readers are familiar with what a doll looks like and do not need reminded. The positioning of this image also meant it appeared where most biographies have a picture of the subject. So having a closeup of a doll's face there just looked silly.
The problem with peacocking, even cited peacocking, is they are "empty" adjectives that tend towards being opinion. Leads should keep to actual facts. What would be far better if the lead contains facts that demonstrate her expertise and prominence, rather than just having words that tell the reader how important she is without divulging anything useful. The reader will already understand she is notable, otherwise she wouldn't have an article. But in what way? What makes her an expert on dolls? How is she a "prominent" socialite? If these are just opinions, whose opinions? If this is all explained in following sections, then let them do the explaining. The lead doesn't need to talk up the subject.
(e/c) Please see WP:PEACOCK, where it explains that rather than calling someone "important" or "prominent" (or as you did in another article, "notable"), you provide the information that makes it obvious that they are important or prominent (or notable) without having to say so. Agricolae (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her prominency is obvious in the article if you would care to read it. The sources say she was an expert on dolls, she was the editor of a prominent Doll magazine. Barbie is featured in the article and hence is entirely appropriate, not silly at all in context. I am replacing it if you are simply going to ignore logic. Again, please read my articles instead of making me have to repeat myself. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the entire point of WP:PEA - if her prominence is obvious from the article, then you don't need to gild the lily by explicitly stating that she is prominent. The picture, though, is still a problem. The article does not 'feature' Barbie - in the only mention of Barbie, the subject is commenting about the competitors, making Barbie very tangential to the subject. With an image of a trademarked product, there should be a strong linkage with the subject in order to justify using the image, and I don't see that here. Agricolae (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see a very strong, very obvious linkage between a doll and a doll collector. Please replace. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some doll, maybe, but there are particular problems using images of proprietary material (Barbie is not just any doll) when it is only being used as decoration, not to provide insight. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For once, you have made a correct statement. Barbie is not just any doll. She is a leading brand of doll that has an important history that Beauregard has commented on, saying in the article ""glitzy lifestyle ... devoid of social responsibility, a precursor of the disco consciousness of the 1970s." The image perfectly matches with the piece and is the best illustration possible for the page. Please find a better one with a half-decent argument to support it and I might consider it replaceable. Otherwise you are arguing against the freedom of artistic expression and constraining creativity with made-up dogma. And don't come at me with any of your "proprietary material" nonsense. If it is on Wikicommons, it's public domain, so no more Mumbo-Jumbo please.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The very sentence in the article containing that quote makes it abundantly clear that Houston-Montgomery was describing OTHER DOLLS, NOT BARBIE with that quote. Barbie has no business being the featured image on this page, no matter what color text one uses. Agricolae (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD - when an editor inserts something and two other editors object, just reinserting it again and again is not a productive way forward. Please also see WP:IMAGE LEAD. One might just as well argue that we should put a picture of Andy Warhol there just because she knew him. It is misleading and uninformative decoration, nothing more. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why don't we go with guidelines and point out that Details Magazine is more noteworthy? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
