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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man 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.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Hello, @Surtsicna and @GusGusBrus, I'm opening this discussion after GusgusBrus reached out to the encyclopedia's Discord in English and brought my attention to the image he had added. I agree that we should avoid, as much as possible, modern and fantasized representations of historical figures and instead prefer representations that are as contemporary as possible, possibly even created or approved by the figures themselves, such as coins minted during their reign, for example. However, I also understand the need, when possible, to add images of the figures when they exist.
In this particular case, I came across the skull of Sigurd, which was preserved for some time by the University of Oslo before being reburied in 1957, it seems. I think it would be interesting to add this image, given that it is the only one on Commons (aside from 19th-century modern representations that don't seem to have much to do with the figure, apart from projecting later or different elements onto his historical image). Additionally, it would actually represent Sigurd, as it would literally be him. Of course, it is a skull, but I don't see this as a barrier to including it in the infobox, since it is indeed him, and it could even lead to a discussion in the text about the circumstances of the skull's exhumation, etc., while drawing the reader's attention to a lesser-known aspect of Norwegian history and Sigurd's legacy (exhumation of his skull, etc).
That is a very interesting proposal, AgisdeSparte. It literally is Sigurd yet I am not sure if it meets MOS:LEADIMAGE criteria: a skull is not what the readers expect to see in the infobox, not to mention the point about shock value. I am definitely in favor of including the skull photo but I believe it is best placed in the Death section. In any case it is better than the fanciful drawing even in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should include both. The portrait in the infobox and the skull in his death section. Are both of you happy with that? GusGusBrus (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think I am happy with the romanticized 19th-century drawing in the infobox. Nothing we would ever consider a high quality reliable source would contain such a depiction. It belongs in a Legacy section. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that for alot of things? Most military battles for example only has a painting from the 1800s-1900s in the infobox. Such is common when it comes to articles relating to history, military conflicts etc. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GusGusBrus @Surtsicna Overall, I felt that the suggestion of having the picture of the skull in the 'Death' section was a good idea. I am sorry, I won't be interacting anymore with the second editor here, so I let you, and other editors, solve the matters between yourselves. So at least for that, we all seem to agree. Have a good one, both of you, on your WP edits, best regards, AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the skull being in the "Death" section, but i just feel like "No need for fanciful depictions in the lead" isnt a good reasoning why it shouldnt be in the infobox. It is common to do with historical kings, battles etc on Wikipedia. Since there isnt any contemporary depictions (as far as im concerned) and the skull might not be fit for the infobox, there shouldnt be any problem with it. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that there is a clear norm in historical biographies is to avoid modern "fantasy" depictions. About military history articles I don't know. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there being no contemporary images does not mean that a non-contemporary image should be in the infobox. A lead image is not required. See MOS:LEADIMAGE. It is also not about contemporary images but about images used in reliable sources. See below. Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is indeed a clear norm, confirmed in discussions such as this RfC on images in papal infoboxes, and it seems quite obvious to me at least. If that is not enough, there is also the Manual of Style, which says: "Lead images should ... be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." (MOS:LEADIMAGE) An obscure 19th-century drawing is not something one can find in high-quality reference works, is therefore not what our readers expect to see, and is therefore not something we should have as the lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
