Talk:Patrick Troughton

message: User:Rodericksilly has continually removed the main image from the page for the reason that it is "low-quality". I believe that this is not a valid reason to remove images from a biography article, especially since the image in question is in the public domain. When I asked this user to stop removing images on their talk page, they deleted my message. I'm requesting comments on whether an image should be included in the header, even if it is low-resolution. Note that a fair-use image cannot be used in place of the public domain image per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You could upload a version of the image that is a bit more zoomed out. It doesn't lead to a higher quality image in itself, but it makes the graininess less apparent. For instance, this is what the image looks like at 50%.  could I get your thoughts on this too? ReneeWrites (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

text: This is the image that was in the infobox for several years, until a few days ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That image cannot be used now that there is a public domain image, per WP:FREER. Free images should be used when at all possible. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FREER also mentions that the free media replacing it has to be of "acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", which is I think the crux of the issue. One editor prefers to have no image at all over having a low-quality one. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view the image is clearly of high enough quality to illustrate the subject, making it of sufficient quality for the encyclopedic purpose. It's not a high-definition image, but it accurately illustrates the subject with enough quality to be useful. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Patrick Troughton is dead and we can and should depict him in the role he is known for, the Second Doctor. Someone like you did something similar to the Darla Hood article not long ago and replaced a shot of Ms. Hood from her Our Gang days (which what she is famous for) with a shot of her as an adult from an obscure film simply because the latter was PD. 180.150.38.124 (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm simply trying to make sure the page follows Wikipedia rules, not sure how that's "Wikilawyering". I'm not "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" or anything like that. The rules are very clear in how they should be applied. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

text:  The previous picture doesn't even "depict him in the role he is known for", so I've no idea what you're referring to. Seems like the user who made the change at Darla Hood made the right call too, since that's definitely relevant to WP:FREER. I agree with Di on this one; the free equivalent should replace the non-free one. (Side note: this may be relevant.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for image 

message: There's a couple of things in the lead that I think may be a little superfluous. 
It is true that Troughton was "classically trained for the stage but became known for his roles in television and film", but is that not true of most actors of his generation? The lead also mentions that many of Troughton's television performances between 1947 and 1971 are lost. Similarly, this is true of most TV actors in Britain during this period. Personally, I feel these statements may not be needed. There's also the mention that Troughton was "loved by audiences for his versatility in roles", I was wondering if this might need some rewording as it seems the "loved by audiences" bit is not supported in the text?
Finally, I feel maybe a sentence listing a few other notable Troughton roles might be good. Obviously Doctor Who dwarfs everything but I think perhaps The Omen and The Box of Delights might be worth mentioning in the lead.
Apologies for being nitpicky but I wouldn't want to edit it without saying something here as I can see this is a labour of love. Humbledaisy (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello
I have tried placing the years and episode amount that Troughton did for DW. However, it has been revoked. My reason for placing them all together was to make his infoox look neat instead of having repeats of "Doctor Who - Second Doctor" continually reappearing. Can we come to some sort of arrangment. JackWhovian (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting a discussion. Listing Troughton's Doctor Who appearances separately seems more logical to me, not only for the chronology of his filmography, but also the nature of his appearances (main cast from 1966–69, guest star from 1972–73, then 'starring' in 1983 and 1985). Since this is only four of almost 200 television appearances, I don't think combining them looks much neater, and separating them seems to make more sense (to me). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who years in filmography