File talk:Corbin Bernsen.jpg

From IfD

 * archived from Memory Alpha:Images for deletion

Spring cleaning time, use 'em or lose 'em. --Alan 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP on the Corbin Bernsen image. Why in creation was a good, clear, cited, licensed used-with-permission image of the actor removed from the actor's page and replaced with an image of the character the actor played?– Watching...listening... 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that is what we do here. Screencaps rule. He appeared as a character with no prosthetics. --Alan 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (Delete). I don't see the use of those actor images when we have screencaps. Also "Maybe people are interested to see what they look today" is no excuse, just do a google image search or check the wikipedia article. --Jörg 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I have no chance in hell of winning on this. But I will say it anyway. The page is about the actor, not the character. Therefore an image of the actor, out of costume and character should be on the page, not the actor's character. This has nothing to do with "what they look look like now." And since when did this sudden insistence on screencaps over actor images start? MA has a plethora of actor images on actor pages that have been here for years. I have seen no policy guidelines on this. This sounds to me like a personal preference, which is not fair.– Watching...listening... 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the Bernsen image - I agree with Eyes Only. Why NOT use a nice image we have of the actor? Sure, when we don't have a good image, use a screenshot.  But having one certainly improves the article in my opinion. Jorg, with respect, your argument is pretty weak.  If we followed that logic, we wouldn't have actor pages at all: people could just go onto wikipedia or IMDB. But we do, so what's the harm of having a real-life image? – Cleanse talk 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. We have a clear, visual reference of "the actor" in the screencap, who is not hidden behind prosthetics, hoods, makeup, whaterver. And what your argument is the opposite of what keeps image content from getting out of hand, "when we don't have a good screenshot, use an image". --Alan 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really scared of MA being flooded by...images of the subjects of its articles. A few (and it'll only be a few) more images is NOT going to break the wiki.
 * Some people obviously appreciate images of the actor outside of their Trek appearance, making them not redundant.– Cleanse 06:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Mr Watching and Mr Cleanse 100%. The article is not about Q2, it's about Corbin Bernsen, so why not have a picture of Corbin Bernsen on it. I don't understand the problem with having an up to date image of the actor on the actor's page. Seems like a no-brainer to me. – Bertaut talk 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said in the past, we are not Wikipedia. I have no issue whatsoever with such images when we've only seen the actor behind prosthetics.  I don't see the point in an updated image when the person was seen on screen in their "normal" guise.  I mean, heck, if we're doing this, we should find a picture of James Doohan's ashes, since that's the most updated image of them available. -- Sulfur 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Sulphur, we should have an image of James Doohan's ashes. --Bp 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gees, thanks for ignoring our arguments. None of us EVER said that we NEED a pic "as they look now". This was already stressed in Eyes Only's second post. But hey, if we've got a recent image, by all means let's use it. Please explain how properly cited, licensed images of an article's subject hurt the wiki. Really.
 * Responding to your strawman: we do have several images of James Doohan, including one close to his death. According to you guys, this should be deleted and replaced with Scotty pics. But believe it or not, the article it's in isn't about Scotty, it's about James Doohan. As I cannot stress enough, the article is about the actor, not his character.
 * The whole "we're not wikipedia" argument is silly here because BOTH MA and WP cover actors. So, according to you guys, the text can be like WP (plus Trek connections), but images can't. That's rather choosy application of the rule. Or we can take the rule as it is IMHO intended to apply: to ensure in-universe articles aren't overloaded with non-canon real world material more suited to wikipedia.
 * And for the last time, if we have a good image, let's use it.– Cleanse 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "We're not Wikipedia." That is not the point. I am going to repeat myself here. The point is that you have an article about an actor who appeared in Star Trek as whatever character. Therefore, for the sake of completeness and propriety, the article should carry an image of the actor, outside of character. As Seven of Nine would say, the fact that the actor was not in prosthetics is irrelevant. The article is about the actor, not the character the actor played.– Watching...listening... 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting argument that I've seen done about a half dozen times. Originally, it seems to date back to the storage space problem that is no longer an issue. Throwing that aside, there are still some pros and cons. On the one hand, it's nice for production personnel to have images of said personnel on that page. On the other hand, it makes things a lot easier if we (as Alan said) "keep image content from getting out of hand." Relegating the actor images to the "big names" as well as those prosthetically hidden is one way we've done this.
 * As I'm of the "old guard," I don't see a problem with having the Q2 image on Corbin Bernsen's page. Tossing any metaphysical argument aside, that IS the actor Bernsen in the image and no one else. I know this image is properly licensed, but we should also note that limiting images in this way helps alleviate tons of potential copyright problems. We've had a problem in the past with people pulling actor's images off of the web and just posting them here with no hint of permission.
 * Regarding the James Doohan hypocrisy: While I don't see any non-DVD extras (which we shouldn't limit) image of Doohan on the site (it might've been edited in the last couple weeks), I think a double standard can apply in certain cases to those who are big "Trek" stars (like Doohan, or Shatner, or Dorn, or even Morga) or otherwise can't obtain a clear image. Of course, that's always arguable.
 * To conclude, images have usually come from: screencaps, DVD extras, and authorized behind-the-scenes sources. Anything else is generally pretty iffy in their use or necessity.--Tim Thomason 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with EyesOnly --- Jaz 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless there is a major space problem here, and it is licensed, I don't see a big problem with having that image on Bernsen's page, as it is about him.  I largely agree with Eyes Only and Cleanse's arguments.--31dot 00:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * end of archived version

The above discussion doesn't really seem resolved either way (5/5), so it might have been a little premature to just remove the deletion suggestion - also, to just remove the whole discussion itself instead of archiving it somewhere, as I just did above.

Anyway, this discussion seems to reiterate what was stated here: Forum:Replacing unfree images - may be worth looking into it again, and eventually have another deletion suggestion round later. -- Cid Highwind 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Permission
The following is a verbatim copy of the email reply from the copyright owner of the image, Mr. Ronald Douglas, authorizing the use of this image on MA, in response to my emailed request to use the image.

From: Ron & Claire Douglas 

To:

Subject: RE: Your Images

Date:	 Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:30:51 -0800

Go for it, just send me the links when you are done.

Ron

Ron & Claire Douglas http://home.pacbell.net/rad-cnd/

– Watching... listening... 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)