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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Is there any citation for this guy DJing with Juan Atkins, Derick May, and Kevin Saunderson, other than his own promotional materials and magazine fluff pieces? Some of the details he has given in articles (i.e. he was DJing in 'whorehouses' and 'strip clubs' with the Belleville Three? Especially after they where already international superstar DJs? What?) are highly dubious. I can find no reference of him performing with these guys, other than the assertion in pure promotional fluff. If someone doesn't provide some substantive information or argument to the contrary, I am going to delete that part.
Update:
Jimmy Edgar has performed with Juan Atkins and Derrick May many times in the past ten years, though prior to 2002 he appeared on a flyer as "Alan Toy", with Juan Atkins & Derrick in 2000. This show was a Technicolor Production party at St. Andrews Hall, in Detroit, Mi. He has also performed with Juan Atkins at Panacea during his residency called Weekly Agenda in 2002.
Hi czar - I noticed a few times you've changed the infobox picture to this live one here: File:Jimmy Edgar at Bang Face Weekender 2010 (4579409589) (2).jpg. Totally cool, I get attached to photos too, but I was hoping to find a better one for actually seeing his features, at least for the infobox. A photographer finally got back to me, with, ironically another picture with sunglasses, but it is more recent at least. I wanted to see if you'd agree with a switch to this one, or if I'm missing a criteria you're aiming for (live versus professional, maybe?). Earflaps (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all attached to any photo in particular. There are just a ton of vanity shots, which are fine for press releases but not for an encyclopedia. With the infobox, the idea is being able to see their face in some detail, not a silhouetted press shot. Live or posed doesn't matter. Other press shots are fine further down in the article as long as they relate to the content, but the infobox is primarily for identifying the subject. This said, I think the current infobox image does the best job of this from the images available. czar⨹22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I contacted the same photographer, and just got a version released that's both recent and where you can see his face; I understand you may prefer live photos over press photos, but in this case, I'm going to wp:be bold and go with the one where we can see his features. I wasn't sure if you wanted the other photo placed elsewhere on the page, maybe put in the infobx on the discography page, so I'll leave that up to your judgement. Earflaps (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can see half his face in the new shot. I don't care whether it's a press shot or a shot in his hotel room (wasn't live)—this is an encyclopedia and the image is supposed to be a portrait, not a vanity shot. I don't see how you can possibly argue that his "features" are more visible in this new shot. czar⨹23:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
? Well you can see his eyes for one. I can respect stubborn-ness, being stubborn myself, but could you perhaps direct to me to the guideline about infobox photos not being press photos? Earflaps (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean eye, in the singular. Again, it doesn't matter that it's a press shot. I've used tons of free-licensed press shots. What matters is that you can see his face, even if he's wearing sunglasses. Glamor shots that obscure the face are not intended as encyclopedic portraits. Here's a closer crop, if you prefer: File:Jimmy Edgar at Bang Face Weekender 2010 (crop).jpgczar⨹23:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, because the Beyonce page infobox has what could be termed a 'vanity' photo. I'll wait a few days for your response, but then I plan on reverting the photo to the one above (i.e. reverting your recent edit). I dislike edit wars, so if you could let me know if you plan on reverting my revert beforehand (preferably with an argument other than shadowing on the photo), then I can avoid conflict by finding a neutral third party to decide for us, or some other neutral method of consensus building if you prefer. Earflaps (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Update - missed your previous comment, will re-reply. Earflaps (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I can still contact the same photographer, would it perhaps solve a conflict if I see if there are any unshadowed pics from that photo session? Earflaps (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, an image with his face unobscured would be fine if you don't like the sunglasses on this one. (By the way, when an edit sticks for a period of time, it is said to have edit consensus to stay, as in the burden is on the new editor to show consensus has changed.) czar⨹00:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the edit logs, and since you're the only person batting for that interview photo (and you reverted several other people's attempts to change it), I don't think EditConsensus applies here, just you pushing a strong opinion. I'll get in touch with the photographer. Earflaps (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a simple request for your opinion! User:Czar and I (User:Earflaps) have agreed to disagree per the above conversation, and were hoping to drum up a wider consensus.
OPTION C
(different photo - note most are outdated)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Jimmy Edgar.
Comment: Ig general I would go with either an iconic image or a recent photograph that portrayed the artist for an infobox. The other can be used in chronological context within the article. Given the option A or B, I would choose B. — billinghurstsDrewth11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Like AFD, number of votes matter, but the goal is consensus building, not a simple tally. Thank you ahead of time for your input. 10:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I Vote for B. I have met Jimmy a few times and I feel like he would want a professional updated press photo to represent him. He is a photographer and a visual artist as well as a musician, after all. Hipsterguy (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of these pictures is optimal, in particular because both obscure parts of his face. He wears dark glasses in the left picture, which hides his eyes, and in the right picture, almost the entire left half of his face is dark. I'd consider both of them temporary solutions until a better one can be procured. Chubbles (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion - I'll close the conversation sans my own personal opinion - I'll leave this here a few days, however, in case someone wants to add to the discussion or offer a different interpretation of consensus. General consensus seems to be that the page needs a photo sans obscuration (sunglasses/shadows), and both A and B are temporary options until a good, recent photo is obtained or found on flickr. Until that happens, the consensus between A and B was for B - the simplest of the rationales being that B is more recent by four years. I'd rather not venture into deciding whether a live performance/interview pic or a staged studio pic is preferable (though opinions were broached), as both have pros and cons. Earflaps (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is improper for the person who opens a request for comments to also declare consensus found and to close it themselves (which is why it doesn't make sense to say that the closure was without a personal opinion...) A three-day low-participation conversation on a low-traffic page is not enough time to form consensus, especially when it was described as chiefly publicized through summoning individuals to the page. Any so-called consensus here is lukewarm at best. No one has argued for a live photo, only for one that was not intended as a glamour shot, one that does not obscure the face. B obscures half of the face deliberately and is not encyclopedic as anything apart from a promotional photo. "A" could be a closer crop but if the sunglasses are seen as bad as the half-face obscured, it makes no sense to me, but so be it. That leaves the shot to the right, which does not obscure the face. If the publicist wants to propose a better shot that similarly does not obscure the face, let them. I'm operating under the assumption that you have asked for that explicitly and have instead received the aforementioned promotional/glamour shots. (Also the number of votes do not matter in AfD because AfD is "not a vote" and the comments should not be read as such.) czar⨹19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, it's my first consensus vote! I just got impatient I guess, and don't have ideas of timeline for something like this. I'm trying very hard to be civil and keep things as neutral as possible, but of course any recommendations to improve the conversation that are happily accepted (and you're free to bring in more people as well).
I'm a bit confused by your argument, but I'll just let other people respond first. About how I procured the photo, I'm always happy to offer private details to an administrator with OTRS privileges, who contacts me privately via email (though ping me on my talk page to let me know one has been sent). Though since I'd rather not hassle the same person again, for a better photo I'd rather just wait until one shows up on flickr.
Btw, I did ask for a non-obscuring photos after you rejected the first (the first one had sunglasses), and neither of us assumed the shadows would be a problem. Lots of infobox photos have people with a face turned left or right, so you only see half their face anyways. I've just always assumed people saw eyes as a key feature for recognizing someone, more than teeth. Earflaps (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I have OTRS so I can take a look if need be. I sent out some feelers on Flickr. I'll let you know if I hear anything back. czar⨹22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - to Czar, and this isn't meant to be snippy, I'm honestly just confused (and I think this may be the crux of our disagreement): when you say "is not encyclopedic as anything apart from a promotional photo," could you clarify what you mean? For visual artists like photographers and painters, hammy "glamour" shots or self-portraits are the norm (see dead examples like Salvador Dalí, Georgia_O'Keeffe, Osamu_Tezuka, Vincent_van_Gogh, André Breton). Living artists seem more split between recent and promo, perhaps because recent live photos are easier to get than press photos (and more relevant to the person's age), but still, within the art context, I can't detect any prejudice Wikipedia might hold against cheesy shots.
For "encyclopedic", see Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. The photo is not useful when 3/4 of it is dedicated to shadow for purposes of glamour. The standard is to pick the image most representative of the subject—the best free use image, if available—and not to change it unless there is significant improvement. The other pages you cited don't appear to have the same shadow issue in "B" (though I'd argue that Dali's current photo is clearly the weakest of the set and that O'Keeffe's was likely chosen for its provenance [Stieglitz] and not as the best version of her face). This said, I wouldn't feel any need to change those photos. Is the image to the right a suitable compromise if the sunglasses on "A" are unacceptable to you? czar⨹22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm done. To keep my Wiki world positive I only participate in discussions so long as, a) I am required to, or b) so long as it doesn't effect my mood in real life. Just snapped at a family member because all the madness of this discussion was buzzing my brain, so I apologize that I no longer have the patience needed. Perhaps someone else will take up residence on this talk page at some point, and be interested in splitting hairs further down the rabbit hole. Earflaps (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Jimmy Edgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Edgar. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Jimmy Edgar. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
_(2).jpg)
Comment: Ig general I would go with either an iconic image or a recent photograph that portrayed the artist for an infobox. The other can be used in chronological context within the article. Given the option A or B, I would choose B. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}