Wikipedia talk:Unusual biographical images

Good Articles and images

Per the lead of this essay: "Good articles" are required to have an image (unless it is impossible to obtain one).

Per WP:GACR6 footnote 6: The presence of media is not a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided. This has been part of the GA criteria since April 2018 (diff).

Suggest altering the lead to reflect this. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That's just unfortunate, slightly confusing language. A Good article nominee must meet all six criteria to be passed. Please look at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (look for the part: "If any of the criteria are not met, the reviewer has two options: ..."): if the article can have an image ("Illustrated, if possible"), it must have an image, or it can't become a GA. It's "not a requirement" when the requirement is impossible to meet due to unavailability of media, but if media is available, then it is, in fact, a criterion that needs to be fulfilled for a pass, i.e., a requirement. It is only not an absolute requirement.

Please see Special:Diff/1282472743. —Alalch E. 16:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"Amateur photographers hope to fix Wikipedia's 'terrible' pictures" (BBC)

The BBC recently published an article that may be of interest to editors who find themselves here. The article features a version of the Emil Wakim photograph used at the top of our Project page, as well as the photo of the footballer Kyle Bartley I've just added to the relevant section. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Specific criteria for inclusion: (not defined)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: As far as I can tell, this lovely little project essay does not specifically define "Normal" or "Fine". Part of the interest of this gallery is to show not only poor quality images that we hope can be upgraded (see BBC article mentioned above), but also to highlight the breadth of unusual images (i.e., Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards), and sometimes light-hearted, odd, or amusing images (i.e., Biographical images that are unusual but also highly justified) that are used in this encyclopaedia. "Unusual" means quite different things to different folks (depending on context, culture, and personal preference), as such, your recent spate of deletions seems a bit heavy-handed (to me, at least). If any of the images are offensive, I apologise. If any are truly inappropriate, perhaps we could discuss them here prior to future removal. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
 Note: Restored images. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: Removed images. The onus is on you to get consensus for your addition after the addition has been disputed -- I agree that these are weak examples that do not strongly connect with the language of the essay. File:Joe Colombo (1969).jpg is an image of reasonable quality showing what the man looked like, and there's nothing unusual about it (the pipe does not make the image unusual); File:Francis Greenway Portrait.jpg is a nicely drawn historic drawing showing what this person of history looked like, and the wear and tear is expected for an object of that age; File:Stig Lindberg.jpg shows him interacting with his work, and is of reasonable quality, he looks like himself in it, the pose isn't weird, smiling is normal, and the image is overall pretty good and just fine for a lead image; File:Stolzl bauhaus ausweis.jpg is a Bauhaus Studentenausweis and is a historical document of great relevance for a person notable for playing a "fundamental role in the development of the Bauhaus school's weaving workshop", and the portrait photo is nice and clear enough; File:Gaetanina Calvi.jpg is borderline ... I consider it a weak example because there is nothing unusual about the image for the era that the subject lived in, and the subject is young in it, but not a child.—Alalch E. 15:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've clearly misunderstood the scope and purpose of your project. I do apologise. One question before I head off to other less controversial tasks: apart from one being from 1913 and the other 1988, what's the difference between a Gaetanina Calvi yearbook photo and a Tupac Shakur yearbook photo? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that the Tupac yearbook photo should be in either, as it's also a weak example. Tupac really looks like Tupac in it, and he's a teen in the photo, but he died aged 25 and his appearance didn't drastically change. —Alalch E. 17:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Switching to permalinks

I think that we should add permalinks to captions instead of just linking to the article, to serve as proof that the image was really used as a lead image. —Alalch E. 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense as one outcome of publishing this collection of images will be the eventual improvement of at least some of them. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If you give an example of precisely how this should be done (i.e., what the wikitext looks like), I am happy to add links when I see that they are needed. I notice that quite a few of the examples we have in these galleries have already been improved or updated. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that a "UBI" listed image which is improved directly in Wikidata will appear in the enwiki article via {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} (e.g., Robert Rive). In such cases, the exact point in time when the image was replaced with a better image may be more difficult to indicate (using WP:PERMLINK or otherwise). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Susan Kare

@Alalch E.: You removed Susan Kare with the comment weak example, unfair to the subject to include. This seems inaccurate, contrary to the spirit of this project, and highly subjective. Am I missing something (again)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It's an okay and usable image. She looks like herself. In an absence of a more obvious reason, the only reason why the image could be assumed to be stated to be "unusual" is that she looks old relative to most photos you get when you google Susan Kare. And that isn't okay. —Alalch E. 09:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

She is 71. It's a bad photo that could and should be improved. By including it here, the odds of that happening go up. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
PS: You could try to contact her or her agents and see if they would be willing to help (per WP:PICYOU). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

She is 71. Yes, that is my point. She looks like herself in the photo, and the photo is not unusual. It's not a high-quality image, but it isn't a representation of any of the points made in the essay. —Alalch E. 10:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, your point was unfair to the subject to include. My point is low in visual quality (out of focus, poor lighting and colour saturation), a non-facial angle (odd profile shot), and a strange facial expression that makes the subject hard to recognise. Are these not the sorts of issues that this project seeks to address? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You did not understand my concern: It is not unusual for an image to be low quality. The only reason why the image could be assumed to be stated to be "unusual" is that she looks old relative to most photos you get when you google Susan Kare. And it is unfair to the subject to create this implied message (the message that there is something wrong/odd with the way she looks in the image) by including the image in this essay. The essay is not about low quality images of living people. It's about the unusual images. Sometimes the extremely low quality is the unusual factor. This is more like medium low quality, which is not unusual. Therefore, this image is not valid illustration for the essay. Not a strong example of any of the points made in the essay. Edit: The angle is profile and not at all a non-facial angle, and the facial expression is normal; not great, but normal.—Alalch E. 13:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Your repeated removal of my contribution(s) implies that you are the owner of this page and its gallery of example images, alas. Moreover, the rational that (in your view) Susan Kare looks old relative to most photos you get when you google her lacks justification (in my view). The essay is, amongst other things, most definitely about low quality images of living people – and more importantly (again, in my view), how one might actually improve them so that we end up with fewer questionable biographical photos! Nowhere does it discuss what is fair or unfair to the subject (nor, I might add, is there the slightest hint of implicit ageism in the inclusion of the photo here – a page that gets far less traffic than the actual article where the photo can be found). It's a bad photo. Let's try to get it fixed by any and all means (per WP:1Q), instead of wasting time edit-warring behind the scenes. With this in mind, please put it back. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I gave an explanation why it's a weak example as illustration of what the essay argues, and this essay is not a catalogue of all images of people that need to be better, it's for the worst, absurdly bad images that should have never have been added to an article in the first place, or images that are one degree removed from that, and which we can perhaps live with, but improving them is a top priority. This image of Kare is several degrees removed from "terrible, do not use". It is quite usable. I additionally provided a rationale relating to WP:BLP about how adding this image in this context potentially suggests that there is something wrong with how the subject appears in it, when the subject appears normal in it, and that it can lead to an undesirable and problematic message. BLP extends over the entire project. Living people need to be treated sensitively in every respect, and we need to be proactively sensitive. I do not agree with adding the image. The onus is on you for your idea of a change to he accepted as a contribution in the narrower sense of a change that makes a page better. Adding the image does not make the page better, and my having this opinion and participating in dispute resolution in no way suggests that I'm behaving as an OWNer. Suggestions: 3O, DRN... —Alalch E. 18:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree with adding the image. Well, why not remove it from the article itself then (rather than from an esoteric and obscure project page)? Feel free to 3O and/or DRN to as you wish. Or, better still, how about activities that lead to actually improving Wikipedia with better images of important BLPs such as Kare (see curtesy link below)? Our dear readers are surely not spending there precious time here, and I've overspent mine too. I tried. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe that it should be removed from the article, because it is not problematic in that context and is significantly better than nothing, again in that context. In it, it's just a low quality image. But when you install it in this hall of fame of unusual (terrible, absurdly bad, hilariously inappropriate) images, and the image is not that class of a problem, it causes people to get thoughts and they will get the wrong thoughts. This is because the image does not function well as a conveyor of a clear message that an illustration of particular points the essay would need to convey. So, depending on context, I would agree to include it (in the article) or exclude it (here). I think that this was a fine discussion to have, like the previous one, and I appreciate your time and point of view. Best, —Alalch E. 19:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The photo used in our article about Susan's brother Jordin Kare may also meet the criteria for inclusion this project. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: A concerted effort to improve the Susan Kare article is underway. With this in mind, I'm going to add both Kare and her brother Jordin (Academia section). Please see Talk page of the article itself, which explains my reasoning more succinctly than our discussion above. Again, I'm not claiming that the current image falls into the realm of terrible, do not use (in which case, we would just remove it), only that it is fair to say that it could be better. With a bit of luck, the {{Improve images}} template will catch the eye of someone with access to the subject, and the article will be improved. It costs nothing and may get us something. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are thousands of biographical images that could be better, and we wouldn't be adding them to the essay. The essay should include only the strongest illustrative examples that relate to the text. —Alalch E. 01:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: In your last revert you state:

I deeply appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, but before you were trying to accomplish that, this essay was clear on that the purpose of the images constituting the gallery is that they illustrate the systemic problem described, and this image fails as illustration because it isn't bad enough to be seen as "unusual" -- there are thousands like it

I appreciate your understanding.

With this in mind, please stop. If you wish to express your opinion on what this essay is/is not about, or what ultimate purpose it may/may not serve, please busy yourself removing photos from other sections (e.g., try "Sports" and "Poiitics", where 30-40% of the photos shown are demonstrably the same as the Kare photo qualitatively. The Kare photo is currently being used as part of a larger attempt to secure better images and improve this encyclopaedia, so please put it back where it was. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you please stop. You are edit warring against the most basic editing principles to enforce your desired state of the page. You want to add the image, and do not want to obtain consensus for your idea. I have given substantive objections, and you cannot enforce your preferred state over those objections. You are supposed to participate in consensus formation. I have said enough on this. It is your turn to attract more participation, either to this discussion, or start a new discussion that may gain wider participation. You can also use WP:3O. —Alalch E. 10:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The essay text says These unusual biographical images may be low in visual quality, taken from afar, a non-facial angle [...], of which low in visual quality and a non-facial angle clearly describe our unusual (and unfortunate) Kare photo. It appears to me that you have misunderstood my intent (and perhaps the text itself). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I already said above: The angle is profile and not at all a non-facial angle, and the facial expression is normal; not great, but normal. About quality, I have said: Sometimes the extremely low quality is the unusual factor. This is more like medium low quality, which is not unusual. I have started a discussion at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images.—Alalch E. 11:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Let's see what other folks have to say. Also, for the record, this is not (by my way of thinking at least) a "dispute" as you have called it in your BLPN description. It is a difference of opinion & perhaps a difference of interpretation of the text of WP:UBI. Nothing more. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

• I came from WP:BLPN. Can you both succinctly clarify the positions? What is unclear to me is whether this photo is special among other similar ones, or whether this photo is just an arbitrary example illustrating "Unusual biographical images", when we could have used any number of other photos as an example.

To me, File:SusanKare2019photo.jpg looks like a typical social media phone pic. It is not a photo that would circulate in the pre-social media era, but totally the norm for published photography in the last 25 years. I agree that it would be preferable to have a photos which better capture anyone's distinctive facial features, but we are well into the time when personal rather than professional photos are commonplace and when people who care can with ease get different photos of themselves out into media circulation. This photo is fine for illustrating a biography.

I see that the photos here on this page's gallery mostly have in common the casual look of social media photos. Calling these photos "unusual" is not the right word, because these are actually the most usual sorts of photos of people. The unusual thing happening here is since social media, 90% of journalism and photography jobs are gone, and now most published and read media comes from amateurs. I am supportive of creating a collection of such photos, but I am not in support of labeling these photos as unusual or undesirable. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is a completely normal image? A bit less than ideal given it is a profile shot but not unusual by any means or in need of removal or replacement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a completely normal image. For context and recompense, I added a more appropriate gallery entry. Enjoy that uncanny valley. JFHJr (㊟) 05:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• I also came from WP:BLPN. This image seems to be perfectly average and doesn't illustrated particularly well any of the points made in the essay. It's not very good, it's not especially bad. There are ample photographs on the essay already that are better examples of "unusual". So adding it seems to accomplish little except make the essay longer. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Please see discussion below. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Curtesy link

There is a conversation on Wikipedia talk:A picture of you that may be of interest to editors who are interested in improving biographical images. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Possible moves --> "highly justified"

A few of the photos in Sports/Other seem like they could be moved to the "highly justified" section (e.g., Evgeny Kuznetsov and Ilya Zakharov, who are divers pictured executing dives; Stephanie McMahon, who is a fourth-generation wrestling promoter [and] member of the McMahon family pictured in a wrestling ring; and perhaps, by the same logic, Dexter Lumis and possibly Erislandy Lara). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think most of those are included because they are of poor quality. Of course it makes sense for a wrestler to be pictured in the ring, but the Dexter Lumis picture is just especially grainy and taken from a distance. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the photos used in this page ...

Aren't unusual by any stretch of the imagination, they're just badly taken photos. I think examples of photos that are just badly taken should be removed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You raise an important question about the purpose of this project page itself. There are several types of images included here (broadly: badly taken photos, as you point out; odd or otherwise unusual images; and those in the highly justified section – which one might say is the primary reason for the existence of the page). The Susdan Kare discussion (above) is actually somewhat of a Trojan Horse that leads right through the gates and directly to your observation (poor Susan, who has become something of a Straw Woman in this matter, even to the point of – what is, in my view – a somewhat canvass-y and pointless BLPN). The parallel use of this project as a curated gallery of flagrant examples of photos that would benefit from improvement (see WP:1Q), and linking that purpose to other benificial projects such as WP:PICYOU and the extended use of the {{Improve images}} template, seems like a positive extension of its value to Wikipedia (also strengthening any eventual argument pertaining to the justification of this page's existence). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Question to TarnishedPath

This is a question specifically directed to User:TarnishedPath, posted here for visibility. Please let TarnishedPath reply first.

@TarnishedPath: Please read this essay: User:Alalch E./Essay, title to be determined, and then answer (feel free to interpolate):

• Have you read the essay?
• Do you think it is expressing a particular viewpoint (yes/no--no particular viewpoint can be discerned)?
• If the answer to the previous question is "no", stop at that question, and if it is "yes", proceed: Briefly describe this viewpoint.
• Do you agree with the viewpoint?
• Does it argue the viewpoint clearly and coherently (even if you disagree)?
• Could it benefit from more illustration in order to be more effective at arguing what it is arguing?
• If the answer to the previous question is yes: Can you suggest any images that you believe would serve well as such illustration?

Note that the essay does not include the word "unusual".—Alalch E. 23:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E., just had a read. I don't think it's expressing a certain viewpoint as such, but expressing that editors in generally think that a picture of the subject, no matter how bad, is better than no picture. On wording though, I would replace "almost never agree" with "rarely agree". See Talk:Yasuke/Archive 10#RfC on Infobox Image for a recent RFC on the infobox image, where myself and a few others argued for no infobox image as an example of it occuring. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think that, perhaps, it might still express a viewpoint that there is a problem insofar as certain images illustrating biographies are believed to be acceptable when they really aren't, and that it might be better to simply keep some biographies without an image until a suitable image can be found? It is uncertain how widespread this view is, but editors removing an image from a biography because it is too useless as illustration is something that happens, albeit rarely. —Alalch E. 00:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E., sorry for the late reply. As I wasn't following this discussion, I didn't see the follow up question and have only just seen it now when pinged below.

Answering your question, in general I would probably err toward any photo over no photo, as long as MOS:PERTINENCE is adhered to. Notably MOS:IMAGEQUALITY states Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; video stills; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. There is a lot of wiggle room between professionally taken photos and poor quality images. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Oh no worries, and thanks for the reply. The thing here is that User:Alalch E./Essay, title to be determined actually attempts to argue for no photo when the available file that is considered for adding is not fit for purpose based on MOS:IMAGES, because there's something fundamentally wrong with it (such as File:Lou Hedley 9 10 2023.jpg and File:Emil Wakim November 3, 2024.jpg). It additionally argues seeing some images a priority for finding or creating a better alternative, at the very least, if the image is tolerated. While these may not be viewpoints universally held in the community, essays can contain viewpoints of only a group of editors. So, given that, to return to the set of questions: Does User:Alalch E./Essay, title to be determined argue these viewpoints clearly and coherently (even if you disagree)? —Alalch E. 23:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree taht both of those images you provided examples of are inappropriate for usage in articles, even if there is nothing better. In regards to your essay, I'll have to read it again after work. I'll let you know. If I don't comment again in a couple of days, ping me. TarnishedPath^talk 00:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Question for Alalch E.

Meta-discussion about how to organize the talk page, concerning certain refactoring efforts (do not read, basically)—Alalch E. 00:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a question specifically directed to User:Alalch E., posted here for visibility – although other opinions are of course most welcome. @Alalch E.: Do you believe that this is more readable than this? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC) You are disputing my edit made in Special:Diff/1294820002 where I provided the rationale WP:TPO -- WP:SHOWN -- WP:RTP: same talk topic, avoid split discussion. "Avoid split discussion" refers to my demoting one new l2 talk section to l3 (and it's one l3 subsection to l4) and grouping it under the more substantial l2 section linked from BLPN, because it's the same talk topic. Having two l2 sections on the same topic, especially where one is linked from a noticeboard and one isn't means that people may during the same period leave comments in one while not being aware of the other. The linked portions of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines enable editors to address this by adjusting headings. This is called Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. At WP:BLPN: You yourself confirmed that the talk threads are about the same thing in Special:Diff/1294699635/1294700946, when you edited my comment at BLPN (and editing WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS is not permitted, while changing headings to refactor talk pages, if needed, is permitted), inserting the link to the other heading. (Disagreeing with this change to my comment, and as I started the BLPN discussion especially with the idea that responding editors would read the talk content I originally linked to, i.e., that they would start reading from the "Susan Kare" heading, I restored my comment to its original and intended state in Special:Diff/1294821630, with the edit summary: rm extraneous link, same talk topic; undo change of text in my comment) Back here: You reverted my talk-page refactoring in Special:Diff/1294844704, with the edit summary format to indicate separate topics, and chronological order (per previous (subsequent edit: Special:Diff/1294847680). You additionally took the previously l3 subsection out of its original l2 thread and made it into its own l2. I reverted that in Special:Diff/1294895103 with the edit summary: undo baseless revert; prevent a split discussion WP:TPO -- WP:SHOWN -- WP:REFACTOR. I considered it baseless because if I say "same talk topic, avoid split discussion", and link to the relevant guideline, and you say "format to indicate separate topics", you have bypassed my rationale and reverted my edit without explaining why you disagree with it and why the guideline does not apply. "I say black and you say white" without an explanation is a baseless revert. You reverted my revert in Special:Diff/1295054352 with the edit summary WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate"; per WP:RTP "Improving the clarity and readability of a page". Those are exactly the same shortcuts I had used (WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN = WP:SHOWN) so this was more of "I say black and you say white" fighting behavior on your part. You reverted and simply copied the same shortcuts that I used to explain my edit, without explaining how they mean the opposite of what I believe them to mean. Therefore, I reverted the revert of the revert with the edit summary that is exactly what I did and you baselessly reverted. You then reverted again in Special:Diff/1295063020, saying Question to TarnishedPath" and "A lot of the photos used in this page ..." are separate topics; this is verging on Wikipedia:Harassment, I respectfully ask that you moderate your implicit ownership. In your edit summary, you accused me of harassment, which was bullshit, and I reverted in Special:Diff/1295063459 with edit summary bullshit. I stand by my edits. If you feel like you need help regarding this, talk to other editors. —Alalch E. 10:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC) @Alalch E.: It occurs to me that notwithstanding the length and complexity of your response, you did not actually answer my question: which version of the Talk page is more readily comprehensible to a reader who may not possess the same level of mastery of details that you do (this or this)? To be clear: you have introduced a separate topic and asked a specific question addressed to one individual editor. As such, I simply thought it might be helpful to clearly identify it as such. No hidden agenda or ulterior motive, nor any implicit judgement of your value as an editor. You then insisted that it would "split" the thread to put this (separate) matter elsewhere. Because? You "already said" so. Foolish of me, I should have know better. Were it not an utter waste of other people's valuable time (this is, after all, the Talk page of a somewhat obscure Project page, not a high-profile WP:VITAL article), I might suggest that you seek a third opinion or another BLPN (or perhaps an upgrade to a DRN). This would, of course, require a modicum of civility, which seems to be in short supply here. Perhaps you'd like to just sling a few more expletives instead and call it a day? The "Susan Kare" thread is a jumbled mess (including this part, which should be elsewhere). Those who are not familiar with its various sub-sub-threads and related parallel discussions might find it hard to follow the main thread or unpick the knot (let alone find the alternate version of the Project page text that you seem to be proposing in your message to TarnishedPath). Trying to help out by making the text more readily accessible and easier to read (especially in light of the fact that editors have been invited here from the Talk page of a Mainspace article about the subject herself) is not "disputing [your] edit", it is attempting to make our collective work more productive. Again, my reasoning was that both your sub-sub-thread (about another, rather different version of the project page itself), and TarnishedPath's astute observations (about what should/should not be included in UBI) might actually attract additional thoughtful consideration and response if only they weren't buried in a gnarled mess of knotted threads. Can't we do better than this? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC) @Cl3phact0: I am going to restore the sections to how you prefer them (both "A lot of the photos used in this page ..." and "Question to TarnishedPath" as separate l2s), and I suggest separating this meta-discussion out into its own l2 and collapsing it with a note that it was a meta-discussion about how to organize the talk page. Would you agree to that? Yes, I believe that we can do better, and I hope that in the future we will collaborate more successfully. —Alalch E. 16:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC) I'm not sure I fully grasp the nuance without actually seeing the amendments, but it sounds like what we are suggesting is very nearly the same. Please just have a go at it (if you can spare the time) and I'll jump in if I think additional tweaks might help. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC) @Alalch E.:  Works for me, thank you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Resolved -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)