Jump to content

Talk:Northernlion

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

Primary sources used

[edit]

An article at this stage mostly relying on primary sources would fail AFC, i.e. won't pass. Secondary sources and/or tertiary sources are also needed. --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Hey, I just added several new sources to the draft to balance out the large amount of primary sources, such as Paste, Tubefilter, VentureBeat, Dot Esports and PC Games - most of which are reliable according to WP:VG/RS and/or other discussions. I also added sources from Polygon, VG247 and TechRadar a couple months ago, and removed poorly used self-published sources as well. I feel between the Polygon, Tubefilter, TechRadar and PC Games sources, there's enough significant coverage of him to meet the notability guidelines. Although there are still primary sources present in the draft, I think they're fairly okay to use per WP:PRIMARYCARE as they're mostly used for statements about himself, from himself. Otherwise, I think this should come close to passing AfC. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the draft is ready, then please press the "Resubmit" button.... and continue improving the draft if willing. Just don't try to remove comments/reasons for prior rejections. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that soon, thanks. I might submit within a week or so, but I also want to see if a couple more sources exist about him as well. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

[edit]

Unless it's an available photograph, I don't think this article needs a lead image. Photographs of Northernlion are easily found through Google as well as on his Youtube channel, which is linked on this article. As per MOS:LEADIMAGE, an image isn't necessary. While it's fun, I don't think a drawing is helpful for the article. Nyonyatwelve (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-2 121.162.1.137 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and photographs of every other person that has a wikipedia page can be found easily on google as well. i think its silly to not have a photo for Northernlion but Brad Pitt has a ton of photos on his page, when you could just as easily find pictures of him on Google. -2 2600:1700:7238:400:407:3ECE:16D6:32CC (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just -2 a Wikipedia post 2600:100B:B1C0:9C68:8C47:3E06:F4F9:B12 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how prominent Northernlion's face is in his content, I think having an image enhances the article. Assuming an unencumbered image is not available, I think the sketch is better than nothing. 66.194.72.62 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably wrong in remembering but I think screenshots of content creators from their channels aren't allowed EnbyEditor (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-2 2403:580E:456:0:4959:E0F:3907:7A64 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request to a copyright holder of an image featuring this content creator. Hopefully, in due time, I acquire permission and this debacle can be put to rest. Acesmahic (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Acesmahic, much appreciated. Nyonyatwelve (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

@Lordslabyrinth Which reddit post and video/stream is that image from? Because it's probably not copyright free. KnowDeath (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reddit post you got this from. There is no indication it is copyright-free, the image is probably from a copyrighted stream or video. KnowDeath (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KnowDeath, you need to stop vandalising the article, if a more famous person (Max Stirner) is allowed a sketch as the wiki image, then the sketch for NorthernLion should be allowed until a better copyright-free alternative is found. 87.241.88.55 (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles do something doesn't mean that this article should, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Northernlion article has been getting only slightly less views than the Max Stirner article (Comparison) this year, so Stirner isn't that much more famous on Wikipedia. That sketch of Stirner has been used to represent him for long time and in scholarly works, unlike this sketch of Northernlion. KnowDeath (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the article use a sketch of Northernlion or no image until a copyright-free alternative is found?

[edit]

Should the article use a sketch of Northernlion or no image until a copyright-free alternative is found? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sketch in question
To clarify, the sketch in question is File:Northernlion.jpg. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No image until a copyright-free photograph is found. The sketch currently present in the infobox is of amateur quality and does not help the reader in distinctly recognizing the subject of the article. It looks just like any other bald man with glasses out there. Until an image of encyclopedic quality can be found, the image currently used subtracts from the reader's understanding of the subject in my opinion. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found an image with copyright permissions and added it. Refer to my other talk page post. Acesmahic (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image until a copyright-free alternative is found - I agree with Ixtal's points. The sketch doesn't even look finished. It doesn't contain any distinctive facial features. KnowDeath (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards using the sketch. It is decent. It looks as finished as a sketch is going to get, which is obviously not as detailed as a photograph. It looks just like any other bald man with glasses out there. – sure, but only because the subject is a generic-looking bald man with glasses. It doesn't contain any distinctive facial features. – I disagree, the sketch accurately represents the shape of his nose, glasses, chin, and the outline of his stubble. To me, the only downside is that it kinda looks like a facial composite. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ixtal No sketch until copyright free alternative found. I believe most people in favour of the sketch are fans of the streamer that believe it would be "funny" if the lead image was a humorous sketch. Drlel3030 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had never seen this streamer before being notified of this RfC and I don't find the sketch "humorous". I am mildly annoyed that you would insinuate either. Toadspike [Talk] 21:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they're accusing you, I think they're referring to the IP users (such as 103.106.88.239 and 87.241.88.55) editing the page. The reason at least I think the sketch is being added for joke purposes is because of tweets like 1, 2, 3,4. KnowDeath (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though some users argue that the sketch is "low-quality", art isn't something you can quantify. Wikipedias goal is to inform, even by using a sketch in lack of a better alternative, is helping people recognizing the subject. It’s also worth noting that encyclopedic quality doesn’t necessarily mean high artistic polish—it means clarity, relevance, and helpfulness to the reader. Until a better free alternative surfaces, the sketch offers a neutral, non-promotional, and unobtrusive representation. Removing it entirely leaves the article visually incomplete, especially for a living person who is a public figure largely known through video. A sketch is better than no image at all. 87.241.88.55 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the sketch per Toadspike. Sketch is better than no image. Sketch looks okay and I do not see what the others mean by it looking degrading. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No To quote MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. I would very well count an amateur sketch of Northernlion, captured with a camera instead of a scanner as low quality. There is precident for this, for expample, we do not use this image to depict JonTron. Including this image would add little to the article, and detract from its encyclopedic goals. CitrusHemlock 18:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality for that JonTron image is wayyyy worse. This picture, albeit indeed way less ideal than a scan, is still not too dark or too low-res. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image until a copyright-free photograph is found. Agree with Ixtal. The image is low quality and doesn't look like the person it's trying to depict (it could be any bald guy wearing a headset). Not to mention, this user-created image can be considered a form of WP:Original research. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding any image can be considered OR.
    Anyways, has anyone tried contacting NorthernLion for a free image yet? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding any image can be considered OR. Please explain what you mean by that? Some1 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For any image, you would have to do original research that it depicts the subject or otherwise is linked to the article. (I get that you dispute that it looks like the subject here though.) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what OR's scope extends to, Aaron Liu. OR refers to (as applicable in this case) material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. If the image is identified in its source as depicting the subject (e.g. this source identifying Bjoern Seibert in this image) it is not original research. So don't say For any image, you would have to do original research as that is patently incorrect. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 09:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every image, then, but still the plurality of them. Most images do not have such identification. For example, File:Mario Vargas Llosa (retouched).jpg, currently the first (and only) portrait on the front page. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Sketch for consideration. I have uploaded an alternative sketch to wikimedia commons. Thoughts? I would be really happy if we could have a properly licensed photo of Mr Lion. I am not able to find one till now. Even if the concensus is such that no lead image be placed, I am happy as I hope and believe this discussion will lead to more people being aware of the lack of a photo of Mr Lion ergo leading to someone sharing such an image. DavidOfThe (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sketch #2
  • "weak yes" I don't see pictures as necessary, but there are a lot worse pictures on wikipedia. I don't see the picture as fun or funny. Historical figures especially have pictures that are unclear or were made 100 years after their deaths. I compared this with photos online, and it seems a good enough likeness. DrGlef (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? No Way This is an encyclopedia, not a True Crime magazine. - Roxy the dog 09:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image until a copyright-free photograph is found. Per Ixtal and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somewhat similar discussion: Talk:Barbara_Teller_Ornelas#Image_removed Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Cartoon portraits Some1 (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scrolling through those discussions, they were focused on drawings or cartoons of vastly worse quality, to the point where they could be considered BLP violations. This is clearly not the case here. Toadspike [Talk] 08:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably these sketches are not copyright-free, as knowing how NL presents himself on streams (that it, nearly head first, but looking slightly down from camera), these are clear derivative works of those stream images rather than something that is novel. So that's already making this a non-starter. Masem (t) 12:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this "pose" really a protectible element? I doubt that meets the threshold of originality. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Masem (potential copyright issue), Ixtal (poor-ish quality), Some1 (vagueness associated with it being "any bald guy wearing a headset") and Roxy the Dog (tabloidesque self-indulgence). As others have said, it's also firmly WP:OR, being merely an interpretation of the idiosyncratic facial qualities of the person depicted. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image until a copyright-free photograph is found. Totally amateurish, and serves no useful illustrative purpose. Generic bald guy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image - The requirement for an image isn't so strong that we need to use a bad image. It's no different than how we would reject "poor prose is better than no prose". Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image. I don’t think a sketch adds anything of value to the article. A photo is not required, and I think using a sketch detracts from the page and draws unneeded attention. It doesn’t really pass WP:IMAGELEAD as I don’t think an informal sketch is an appropriate representation of the subject. cyberdog958Talk 02:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the claims that the image is not recognizable as the subject, I have only a passing familiarity with the streamer but when scrolling the BLP noticeboard, the first thing I thought when seeing the image, before reading the text or caption, was "Hey, that's Northernlion, funny seeing him here." I don't think that "any bald guy wearing a headset" is a very accurate representation. Nebman227 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary - What exactly does "unless absolutely necessary" mean if not "there's no alternative"? We also use postage stamp-sized blurry photos of the subject looking away if [absolutely necessary / there's no alternative]. The only reason I'm not on the side of "support including even though it's bad" is because it's an obvious derivative work of this photo and thus needs to be deleted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think that it's a derivative of that image specifically? KnowDeath (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It feel like it would be a pretty large coincidence if it wasn’t. Every detail of the sketch is identical in the photo. The facial expression, headphone shape, headphone wire, the jacket collar, the microphone at the bottom, and even the shirt pattern is the exact same in both. cyberdog958Talk 13:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about sketch #2? (Also, I wouldn't be surprised if these are the only headphones he uses to stream. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The second sketch is a bit rougher in style than the first and I don’t see that it could be considered derivative of anything specific. I still stand by my !vote above, though, and don’t think any informal sketch is a good representation as a lead image. cyberdog958Talk 13:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The facial expression is just a resting face, there's no reason he would change his headphone and mic much, and the shirt is one he commonly wears. KnowDeath (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image. The sketch would detract from the article page. I'm thinking that a photo is not really needed for the article content, it's not commemorating a significant event or illustrating some point that would be hard without an image, so having nothing is fine and certainly seems better than a sketch. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Toadspike and others. I think sketches are fine and used in many places where there aren't photographs of a subject, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere in the world. I don't follow any of the oppose arguments: It looks just like any other bald man with glasses out there from Ixtal and it could be any bald guy wearing a headset from Some1 don't seem to be correct as I and other editors here found the sketch immediately recognizable. I also think it's worth considering that an image of a streamer has more encyclopedic value than in most other biographies: the article's subject is notable particularly as and because of his 2D representation on a computer screen. A faithful illustration, however artistically inelegant, is an important part of representing an online video personality in the encyclopedia. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image until a free photo is found. Images aren't necessary and it's not such a big deal that we have to resort to making drawings of living people. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Late to the party a bit, but I see no reason why this basically unfinished sketch needs to be on the page, nor a deadline for doing so. I'd even say a fully colored, photo-realistic painting isn't entirely necessary, and would just prefer if he himself offered a free Creative Commons image of himself, like CaptainSparklez did several years ago. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image added with permission; subject to review

[edit]

I have added an image with email permission and forwarded it the Wikimedia permissions team. It is now subject to review; so please do not remove on the basis of lack of permission. Acesmahic (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame Northernlion's face is in shadow, and the photo clearly needs cropping, since it draws far too much attention to the two other individuals. Better than nothing, but I'd recommend trying to find a clearer image if possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cropped version is better than no picture. An email has been received at VRTS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with a VRTS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. @Acesmahic If this pic survives, consider uploading a separate crop so Commons have both, see separate pics at Category:Aron D'Souza as an example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northernlion&oldid=1291869389"