# Talk:Jack Buchanan


### Jack Buchanan
I have no ambitions for this article so far as FAC is concerned (too few full-length published sources available for that) but I'm thinking of putting it up for GA, and comments and suggestions for improvement will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 11:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

SC
Comments to follow soon(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Tim riley would like the use of the {{upscaled images}} template to be raised on the talk page before the template is added to the article, so here's a thread. (I tagged it today without realising I'd already tagged it back in July, and it looks like the AI imagery wasn't noticed during August's GA review.)
This article currently goes against Wikipedia's manual of style at MOS:AIUPSCALE in its use of four upscaled versions of historical images of Buchanan and his co-stars. The MOS says that Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.
Is there a reason why these upscaled images are considered preferable to the original print versions? Belbury (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not Tim riley but Wikipedia who would like the use of your template to be discussed on the talk page. You might care to read the instructions on the template page. If you can point to any detail in which the present images are inferior rather than superior to the printed press versions they can be replaced. Otherwise your intervention is unhelpful. I have again removed the template defacing the article page pending consensus here. Tim riley talk 09:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was going to say it was the editor who documented {{upscaled images}} who would like me to discuss this, but it turns out that that editor was me! I assume I was copying the documentation of {{AI-generated}} (which is about subjective suspicion of AI writing), but this template is phrased objectively: the images have been AI upscaled, as you accept. I'll update the documentation.
I don't think you should be removing the template, if you agree that the images are upscaled.
I can't compare the images to the originals as I can only find paywalled copies of Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News online from a quick search. But from the crop of one of the Trix sisters to the right, it's an odd look and the AI is clearly filling the eyes and teeth from its training data, rather than showing us what she would have genuinely looked like if the Illustrated News had had a higher print quality. The mix of blurriness and focus (because the AI has only been trained to enhance facial features and hair around the face, and not to modify anything else) is in general a confusing aesthetic. We shouldn't present this to the reader as an authentic 1921 magazine photo of Trix, when it's not that. --Belbury (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not know about the requirement to identify IA-enhanced images in image captions and am happy to comply. I agree that AI often mucks up people's eyes, but I don't think it does here or I'd have stuck with the grainy originals. You can see all the source newspapers via the Wikimedia library. I hope other editors will offer an opinion here. Tim riley talk 10:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The large tag at the top of the page is not a constructive step and should not be re-added. Many of the images we have on Commons have been edited, either by AI, by automated programmes, or by human intervention. Some may have been doctored by news agencies or photographers prior to publication, yet we don't downgrade other articles with such crass steps. The guideline has been noted (and it's just a guideline, not one of the ten commandments), but it's not beneficial to readers to have such a tag at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
That's certainly true. The last image the wizards in our Photo Workshop improved at my request was improved, they said, with the aid of AI – shock, horror! I have no quarrel with the MoS guideline, which Belbury has quoted rather selectively: it begins "AI upscaling software should generally not be used" (my italics), and I generally don't. Let us see if any other editors have views. Tim riley talk 11:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I selected to quote the subsequent and more specific MOS statement of Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. since these are historical images. Belbury (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat.  Tagging the article is not necessary or constructive and should not be re-added.  I also agree that this guideline should be applied with some common sense.  If you have a better image, please post it to the Talk page for discussion.  All images are historical, because they were taken in the past. I believe it would be unconstructive to use the grainy newspaper originals of these images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

When illustrating biographies, I'd say that newspaper originals were always preferable. With a grainy newsprint photo, some information is lost, but the reader understands what they're looking at, and appreciates that it's not a perfect photo. Where that same grainy photo is AI upscaled, all of that information is still lost: the AI can't accurately bring back what somebody looked like in front of the camera that day, it can only offer best guesses based on its training data.
By smoothing out the grain, the reader is denied a clue that they're looking at a low quality image. They may think (per the image crop at right) that Wikipedia is showing them a sharp 1921 press photo showing exactly what Jack Buchanan looked like in his heyday. But it's to some extent an AI's generic rendering based on 20th century American men's eyes and mouths from its training data. --Belbury (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Your personal opinion is noted, but it is a balance and personal taste: de gustibus and all that. It's still no excuse for a disruptive banner being plastered across the top of a page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
As Belbury has evidently taken it upon him/herself to write the procedure without consultation with anyone else (here) I think there is room for some improvement in his/her approach. Comments there and here welcome. Tim riley talk 17:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I note Hawkeye7's comment on the tag: a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Me too. That comment is from a much respected editor. We all seem to be up against a one-person crusade here. Tim riley talk 18:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Came here because this discussion was linked to in the discussion on the template page. Would it be possible for someone who has access to the original, non-upscaled images to share a link to them here? Without the originals, we can't verify the accuracy of the upscaled versions. MOS:AIUPSCALE states that upscaled versions of historical images should never be used. It might be appropriate to make a common-sense exception to the MOS, but not without a good reason. In its current state the article is misinforming our readers as the images are captioned with captions like "Buchanan, 1929" when in fact these are not original 1929 images. If we are going to disregard the MOS here, at minimum we must accurately caption the images as upscaled and provide a means for readers to view the originals (for example by linking them in the pages for each individual image). -- LWG talk 22:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't post a link to the originals as they are behind a paywall. (I mistakenly said the source - the BNA - was accessible via the Wikimedia Library, but now I check I remember it is a personal subscription). I'd have no quarrel with adding a health warning to the image captions: better that than using the fuzzy originals, I think. Tim riley talk 16:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Since File:To-night's the night.jpg is a cover image I've been able to find the original at this britishonlinearchives.com URL.
Most of the grainy texture has been removed by the AI. James appears much the same in both pictures, although I'm not sure what's going on with her upper eyelids in either of them; in the original she has some kind of mark across both, which the AI has emphasised as if it were a sharply painted line or fold of skin. Grossmith's teeth have been enlarged and straightened by the AI. Most strikingly, though, where the original magazine cover shows Grossmith giving James a slightly shifty and leering glance (as may befit the character he is portraying here), the AI has redrawn his eyes to instead be looking past her a little glassily. Belbury (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
It occurs to me that I can upload the old press images to the existing image pages so that colleagues can then say whether they object to or approve of the enhanced images. I'll do that in the next few days. Tim riley talk 17:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Now done that for three images. If there is a consensus to keep them they can remain in place. Tim riley talk 06:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling up the originals. The embedded crops earlier in the thread are now displaying those original versions rather than the upscaled outputs, and it's clear that the details of Buchanan and Trix's eyes and mouths really aren't very discernable in the source material, and that the AI had to invent a lot of detail to fill them in. I think these originals are more appropriate images for the article. --Belbury (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, and think we would be better sticking to the enhanced versions originally in place, but of course I'll go with the consensus, and I hope the other editors who have commented here will chip in again: User:SchroCat, User:Ssilvers and User:LWG. Tim riley talk 10:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I also disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Me too.  The enhanced versions are far better for illustrating the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)