Talk:Richard Blumenthal
Script error: No such module "Message box". Template:Contentious topics/talk notice
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Blumenthal Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Annual readership Script error: No such module "Message box". User:MiszaBot/config Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Template:Section sizes
New lead image
Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. People keep reverting the update I make to this page without reasons, but let's try to establish some consensus around using a more recent image of the senator as the lead. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @CompleteAnonymity : The photograph is dated 2023. That seems very recent. I personally do not see the reason why one would need the freshest possible photo if the one shown is a clear and dated. That would be what the man looked like then. So? This always confuses me when I see people bring this up.
- Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote Wordreader - I ended up changing the lead image as no one had responded to this talk in a month, and figured that the established precedent covered the updated image, which you've now seen! Cheers! CompleteAnonymity (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- You reverted my edit on Richard Blumenthal for the new lead images, but they are low in resolution but I understand why you are changing it. But I would suggest hopefully finding a picture that is newer than the official portraits, but comparable in resolution to the official portrait. Thanks! Jetwindy (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the test for photos is:
- 1. Is it current (from their current elected term)
- 2. Is it sufficiently legible as the politician (it's not unclear)
- 3. Is it high enough resolution
- I understand that you are most focused on issue #3, while I'm giving equal weight to all three. In any case, we should try to reach consensus here rather than edit warring over the infobox image. If we can get a lot of input I'm happy to go with the consensus decision.
- Since my edit was the first one, I don't see why we should change it in the meantime (until we reach consesnus). CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think a move that could neutral this is just putting up the regular official portrait. Although old, it'll prevent arguments against most people. Then when consensus in reached, we can edit the lead image to the ones wanted by Wikipedians. Jetwindy (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the test for photos is:
- You reverted my edit on Richard Blumenthal for the new lead images, but they are low in resolution but I understand why you are changing it. But I would suggest hopefully finding a picture that is newer than the official portraits, but comparable in resolution to the official portrait. Thanks! Jetwindy (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote Wordreader - I ended up changing the lead image as no one had responded to this talk in a month, and figured that the established precedent covered the updated image, which you've now seen! Cheers! CompleteAnonymity (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)