Talk:Christian Mbulu

In April 2017

@ImprovedWikiImprovment and Helper201: I actually agree with Helper201 about this, both that it's helpful information to have and is not obvious, and also that it is frequent to list the dates here. Anyone disgrees? Naleksuh (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think a caption is totally pointless here. It is obvious an image of a man at the top of an article about a man will be an image of that man. Thats why TDKR never uses captions on the lead image. Captions are to add context where it isn't clear, they're not to state the obvious. IWI (chat) 21:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

On Donald Trump article, the first image (other than the one in the infobox) has the caption "Trump in New York City, 2008". Same can be said for many other images. Seems to be standard, and although it's obvious who it is in the image, the background is useful information, in a lot of articles and cases. Naleksuh (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In what way is the date the photo was taken obvious by looking at it? Helper201 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The date of the photo is irrelevant. It is obvious who the photo is of. Please look at a Very Good article like Ronald Reagan for example. IWI (chat) 21:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a habit editors have that is not good. Nobody is going to wonder who the photo is of and nobody is going to care when it was taken, unless it is a photo of the person a very long time ago. IWI (chat) 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is only irrelevant in your own opinion. The way people look and who they are changes through their lives. It only aids the reader to know when a photo is from. It in no way subtracts from someone’s knowledge or the informativeness or readability of the article or image. There is only an advantage to adding it and not any disadvantage. Helper201 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. You're essentially telling the reader nothing useful and it is totally redundant. IWI (chat) 21:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What you regard as helpful and redundant is completely subjective. You don't have authority to decide what is and is not important or helpful based just off of your own opinion. Helper201 (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your view is also the minority here. You are the only one supporting removing this whereas two people (myself and Naleksuh) both disagree with you. Helper201 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
Let others participate. Consensus is not a vote. IWI (chat) 21:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, there have not really been enough opinions. Only myself have voiced other than the two people initially involved in the revert. Naleksuh (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

From EN's MOS on the use of captions: In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject. Our own MOS also states to use captions to explain how the image relates to the article. I disagree that "nobody is going to care when (a photo) it was taken", and am personally of the view that having more information is generally not a bad thing. Of course, that doesn't mean that I think we should go around every article and start adding (or removing) captions en masse. It is noteworthy that neither MOS (be it simple or EN) mandates the use of captions, but neither of them prohibit the use of captions, either. Chenzw  Talk  22:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's why this is a difficult situation. I don't see how the caption has much point to it. The reader will surely know who the photo is of. IWI (chat) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point here. The caption, apart from stating the subject of the photo, also provided information on when the photo was taken. Chenzw  Talk  22:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand this. I don't see how that information is particularly important, unless the image was taken in the youth of the subject. IWI (chat) 22:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the MOS has anticipated that this would be one of the valid uses of captions, since MOS states the year (which a photo was taken) as one of the examples of information that can be provided in an image caption. Chenzw  Talk  22:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but is there a valid reason to create a caption for it? The image was taken in 2017 and he died this year. Did he look drastically different now from three years ago? I doubt it. It seems redundant to me. IWI (chat) 22:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Like what Helper201 pointed out above, I don't see any clear disadvantage in doing so. Chenzw  Talk  01:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
That's a fair point for sure, but I think it looks quite stupid to put "Christian Mbulu in 2017" under the image when it could just be left blank. IWI (chat) 01:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You are definitely entitled to that opinion, though 3 different editors have now disagreed with that view. Chenzw  Talk  01:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly consensus is to restore that. Out of good faith to the process I will do it personally. IWI (chat) 01:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's stupid to include a caption, even if it's just the person's name. I usually try to have a caption like "John Doe in 1983", at a minimum. It can be of interest to know when a photo was taken and where it was taken (either geographically or at what event). For example, in the case of Ronald Reagan, it could be interesting to know when the photo was taken so you could know if Reagan appeared that way toward the end of his life, during his presidency, during the time he was governor, or at some other time. I don't necessarily think we should fault people for not including captions, but I also don't think they should be removed if they are there. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I like to know when a picture is from. Without the date, a picture is of much less use to me.Kdammers (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, context for the photo like a date is always important. -Djsasso (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

But often the date on commons images isn’t actually the date it was taken. IWI (chat) 13:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Some cases common images do not have the actual date the photo was taken. They simply only put the date when the pic was uploaded. So it seems redundant to have a pic with a caption like: File:pic.jpg|thumb|right|120px|Pic. Its pointless. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously when you don't have a reliable date don't use it, year being the most relevant part of the date, there is sometimes other useful information, in the case of this photo the team the player was on when pictured. -Djsasso (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally like having the date in the caption for the same reason Auntof6 pointed out. People's appearances change throughout their lives, and some articles have just a single image on them. The infobox image is supposed to be the representative image of that person, often at the point in their lives during which they were most prominent. That caption can also give me a clue as to when the most important or relevant part of their lives would be in the article. It's not something that we should inherently be removing or retroactively adding though. ~Junedude433^talk 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)