Talk:Yves-François Blanchet

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yves-François Blanchet. 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:

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

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) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

To prevent an edit war from going furthur, I propose the following two options for the new infobox photo. I believe option 1 is more suitable as the lack of a smile gives a more neutrel look. It is also of higher resolution. The previous 2009 photo is very outdated and should no longer be used as the main photo.

Option 1: No smile
Option 2: Smile
Current

PascalHD (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1 - If we're going to change the image? Better to have look of seriousness. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Third one is a bit old, and Option 2 just looks kind of... funny, for lack of a better term. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 2: Either of the new images is fine. The current image (Option 3) is ancient. A new photo is badly needed, particularly for articles like 2019 Canadian federal election, 2021 Canadian federal election and 45th Canadian federal election. That said, these new photos seem to have been taken from TVA's youtube channel. Are they really, copyright free? If not this whole discussion is for naught.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darryl Kerrigan There are many smaller media organizations that publish their YouTube content under an Open License. Many celebrity photos are uploaded this way. As it is published by the company on an official channel, the Copyright would belong to the company and they have the right to publish under that license. Now, this would only apply to anything they (TVA) themselves create, not the other external copyrighted content (Images or videos) that may appear on their show. That's why I would avoid uploading the videos themselves, but screenshots of studio interviews of this manner should be okay. PascalHD (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Sorry, didn't notice the "Creative Commons Attribution license" note on the video at first. Do we know if the CC License covers derivative works, ie cropping etc? Have we made the appropriate attribution. If so, we should be in the clear.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the one attached to the video is suitable. Allowing to share and adapt. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en PascalHD (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: I also prefer option 1 Lilactree201 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you could weigh in the option 1 source file has been nominated for deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yves-François_Blanchet_Entrevue_no_smile.png Lilactree201 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilactree201 I saw that. Made my comments there. PascalHD (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PascalHD Thank you. Lilactree201 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 over 2 if changed, but more clarification requested on why any change would be needed at all. Wikipedia does not have any rule that our images of people necessarily always have to be recent — the rule is that the photo has to be Blanchet, not that it has to have been taken within the past two to three years. Comparing the 2009 image to the more current ones, I'm not seeing any particular evidence that his appearance has changed enough to claim that a 2009 photo would be "unrepresentative" in a 2020s context — it's unquestionably still the same guy. I mean, I suppose if Blanchet had come out as transgender in the intervening years and was now presenting as a woman named Yvette-Françoise, then there'd be a useful claim that the old photo was a problem — but if the entire argument hinges on "he wears glasses now", then that just isn't sufficiently important to actually be worth editwarring over, because wearing glasses isn't contextually significant to the election process at all. This is reminding me of the time somebody tried to editwar over claims that since Belinda Stronach had dyed her hair, it behooved Wikipedia to move heaven and earth to scrub all photos of her as a blonde and replace them all with photos of her as a brunette — and the time that somebody claimed that we had to rush into action to replace all clean-shaven photos of Justin Trudeau with new bearded photos just because he grew out the whiskers for a while during the pandemic. But that's still just not the way it works: the rule is that the photo has to be of the person, not that it has to date from any particular time period or suddenly becomes a problem due to minor changes in the person's physical appearance. So why is updating the photo important, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue there is value in having a more recent photograph of a person, especially a politician. It more accurately reflects their current appearance, and it is better for the reader. Sure, there is no rule on the books saying we have to use a recent one, but there isn't one that says we can't either. I see why you feel this way, as edit wars are incredibly unproductive. Changing an infobox photo frequently for very small changes over a month would seem unreasonable. But the current photo from 2009 is 15 years old - A lot of time has passed. From what I have seen on this site over the years, it is an unwritten rule you should use recent photographs of people if available. Not always, for example the POTUS (Joe Biden), as official portraits were issued and they should be used. But Canadian politicians don't unfortunately, so we resort to scouring the internet for free images. If the day ever came where the Government issued official portraits that were compatible with the Commons, I think we would agree to use the most recent portrait at all times, and not change to some random Flickr photo. I do not see any harm in using a new image in this case. It is better to stay ahead and up to date than fall behind. PascalHD (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 because the 2009 photo is 15 years old, which is way way way too old for a federal parliamentary party leader. Absolutely not option 2, it looks like a quick forced smile he gave to the television camera when they say his name to introduce him quickly. JM (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any point using the 2009 photo as a thumb elsewhere in the article?[edit]

Blanchet in 2009.

We could use this photo elsewhere in the article if doing so is useful. That said, the section about his life circa 2009 still has the infobox next to it (extends that far down), so including it there pushes it into the electoral history section. Not sure that makes any sense.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an uncropped version that can be placed in the article PascalHD (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is a reason to use an additional image, you are right that the uncropped version is likely better.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yves-François_Blanchet&oldid=1205567663"