Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Pics2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers the discussion on what picture to use in the infobox at Pope Benedict XVI.

Picture Vote

Image:Pope20Benedict20XVI.jpg i like this picture.

Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg more than this one.

Any votes/proposals to change it?

• 1.BANi 21:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• 2. i agree. 72.234.109.218 21:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• 3. Ditto. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• 4.Coojah 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I actually like the higher image more, but I tested it on the actual page, and it doesn't work as well with the current layout as I'd expected. For one thing, it clashes with the tan "Benedict XVI" header a lot more than the current image (which has much more red and gold, whereas this one is more black and white); can the color of that header be changed? The image seems to look a lot better if it's given a good amount of empty space around to allow it to be focused on; the infobox overwhelms it and diminishes its power greatly. If we don't end up putting it on the top, I think it would make a great addition to the page, since there are long spans of the page which don't have any images right now. But, on the other hand, if we do put it on the top, I don't think there's any good place on the page to move the image that's currently on the top, without sacrificing other good images or worsening the text/image layout. That's because it's an image of Ratzinger becoming Pope, and while there's no images of this event near the top of the page except this one, there are tons of them later in the page. The current balance of images based on subject matter works fairly well; this one would tip the scale unless we made more changes than just switching it to elsewhere in the article. So, until an adequate solution to those aesthetic and layout concerns appears, I'd advise adding the image to another portion of the article; not every good image has to be at the very top! Another option, of course, is to move that image to "Overview" and move the current Overview someplace lower; would that be an adequate compromise, pleasing both the big fans of the image and.. uh, me? Eheh. -Silence 23:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support A much nicer picture, it is. JG of Borg 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• I vote for the second picture.--Antonio Basto 18:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have a slight preference for the second picture, but am happy with either. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Top picture vote. --Elliskev 18:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• the Top picture is appropiate, as Benedict XVI has been in office for awhile (7-months). Showing him in White Robes, give a sense of incumbency. GoodDay 23:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In the bottom picture the pope is also wearing Papal robes. That crimson silk vestment above the White Robe and that State stole are all part of the Papal vestments. Only the pope wears that specific crimson silk vestment with that specific pectoral cross. It´s a solemn papal dress, not always used, and it is the dress with which new Popes are presented to the public. Also, that picture was released by the Vatican because it was the first picture of Pope Benedict XVI seated in a Throne. That picture seems to have been taken in the Sistine Chapel, during the homage of the Cardinals, just afer the new pope returned from the Dressing Room known as Camera Lacrimatoria, where he put his new robes for the first time. --Antonio Basto 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the top picture clearly has a consensus, and fits the standard look of papal infoboxes (pope in papal robes, not ecclesistical vestments) I've installed the top image in the infobox. BTW who the heck increased the image in the box to 250px??? That is not the standard size for the image in papal boxes. Images should go no larger than 200px. FearÉIREANN 02:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I just would like to point out, while accepting the decision, that, on the bottom picture, the pope is not on Mass vestments, but in a solemn form of Papal robes. If you go to the Pages of Popes John Paul II, Paul VI, John XXIII and so on, you will see that they are all portrayed wearing solemn crimson robes on top of the white ones, and not on the everyday plain white robe. --Antonio Basto 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In both pictures, the pope is not yet invested with the Fisherman´s Ring (both pictures having been taken before the Inauguration Mass). In both pictures, the jeweled Cardinal ring is visible. Since the idea is to portray a sense of incumbency, it would be good, if possible, to replace both pictures, placing as the first picture of the article one in which Pope Benedict already appeared invested with the Papal Ring. After all, he has been Pope for several months already.--Antonio Basto 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• The traditional dress for a pontiff is the one in which he wears the red mozzetta. However, I do agree that the top picture looks nicer than the one that shows pope Benedict with the mozzetta. I would like to keep that new picture until we find a higher quality picture were he is wearing the mozzetta. I actually have a nice one but it is a .bmp file :S. I agree with user Antonio basto regarding the pictures in other papal articles, in fact I uploaded the pictures of Pius XII, John Paul I and Pius X were they are wearing the mozzetta. I think this gives continuity to the papal articles.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bento vestes tradicionais.jpg What about the following picture, that I have recently uploaded?

The said picture aleady features in the article, and it shows Pope Benedict XVI wearing the crimson velvet ermine trimmed mozzetta with state stole (the so called winter mozzetta, not seen arround since the times of Pope Paul VI). Another positive aspect is that the Pope is already invested with the Fisherman´s Ring. The only problem with this picture is that it is not taken against a neutral background (it was taken during a public appearence of the Pope, December 8th, 2005). Perhaps this picture could be retained as the top picture of the article until a better one is found for that position, and then it could be placed back in the middle of the text. --Antonio Basto 11:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have found it! A friend of mine who is a priest in Rome sent me this beutiful pic of the Pope wearing the mozzetta and his personalized stole, that has his very own coat of arms. Here is the pic.

File:PopeBenedict16th.jpg what do you think?

Excellent pictures, finally traditions are being revived! (Look suspiciuosly similar to some images of John XXIII though)--'s-Gravenhage 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we vote again?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's really a gorgeous pic, but I think the one we have up now is better for the top of the article. It's taken directly from the front, he's wearing the white robes, and it looks nice with the color scheme of the infobox. That's just me, though. --User:Jenmoa 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In my view, the plain white cassock is the problem, not the solution. The Wikipedia standard for the picture of a Pope in the opening of the article is to portray the Pontiff in choral dress (red mozzetta on top of white cassock -- which, in the protocol of Papal Vestment, is more solemn than the plain white cassock dress). Plus, the present top picture DOES NOT portray a sense of incumbency, because the pope is still wearing his ring of Cardinal. That picture was taken before the Innaugural Mass, when he was invested with the Fisherman's Ring, and the Cardinal-ring is clearly visible. For those reasons, I think that both the picture I uploaded and the last one posted by Coburn Pharr are better than the present top picture. --Antonio Basto 01:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that the top picture was changed. Also, someone uploaded a new picture, and placed next to one of the first paragraphs of the article. In my opinion, this new picture, that had not been discussed here, is best suited for the top place, because it meets all the criteria that I advocated above, and it has a slight advantage over Mr. Pharr's picture, due to the fact that this new picture portrays the Holy Father from a frontal angle. Shouldn't we change the places of those pictures? Here is the new picture above mentioned: File:BenedictoRamano.jpg If there is no opposition, I will go ahead make that change in two days time. --Antonio Basto 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Excellent new picture! I can't believe someone found such a great pic, the pope with the mozzetta, the stole and the fisherman's ring! Excellent pic!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Which one are we talking about? Personally I think the side profile, hands joined, image of him is far superior. I normally don't like profile pics but it is very well taken, it is contextual and the background is right. I don't like the most recent shot above. The background is awful (where did they take it? A portocabin?). It also makes him look seedy and sinister. I don't like the guy (at all) but putting in such poorly taken shot, with such a woeful background, and sinister-look (like a member of the Addams family), would be all wrong. Serves the guy right for scrapping the tiara and throne. At least the throne shot (a) made you look OK even if in reality you look like dug-up member of the Addams family, (b) guaranteed a standard background that would fit in a series. Now he is reduced to being the Portocabin Pope, and causing those who have to use his image all sorts of problems as they struggle to find the least-awful one available. The fact that his precedessor even in his last days as an actor knew how to pose for images, while the current guy seems to achieve a look that's a mixture of "oh look a firing squad" and "I'm your creepy uncle Ben", doesn't help. Good looking he ain't. He obviously was at the back of the queue when God was handling out attractiveness. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • While I agree completly with you statement, I don't think it's up to wikipedia to try to find a picture were he looks "less ugly". In the end, both pictures look extremely good because, again, the pope is wearing the clothing which he see in other papal articles. Both pictures look good, so, I have no problem with either of them. And, boy, he sure is ugly, but what the heck :)<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a dark background would be best, and I agree that the side profile is also a good picture. However, I was concerned solely with finding a picture that fits the Wikipedia standard for photos of Popes in the beggining of the article. And certainly, a frontal pic is always better. Both the side profile picture and the one immediately above are better than the previous top picture (plain white cassock), because the wikipedia standard is to portray the pope in solemn choral dress (i.e. wearing the crimson mozzetta above the white cassock). Also, the throne picture and the plain white cassock picture were not as good because the pope was not yet wearing the Fisherman´s Ring in them, the Cardinal ring being clearly visible in those photos. Based on those objective criteria, the two pictures immediately above are best suited, and the picture immediately above, although not taken against a dark background, is still taken against a neutral background and has the advantage of being a frontal portrait. I agree with Mr. Pharr that whether the Pope is nice looking or not shouldn´t matter. Popes do not need to be phisically nice-looking, and it is not Wikipedia´s role to make them seem so. One would have to agree, though, that Pope Benedict is better looking, in terms of phisical appearence, in his winter velvet ermine-trimmed mozzetta picture. Bottomline, the white cassock pic had to go, and at least now we have a good mozetta picture. However, I still like the pic immediately above best, because the Fisherman´s Ring is clearly visible, and because it is a frontal shot. --Antonio Basto 13:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Both pictures are OK, but I like the frontal pic better, because it clearly shows his face (ugly as it is). The one I uploaded has parts of his face in shadows. My vote is that we switch the positions of the shots in the article. Frontal shot first and then in the overview section we put the one I uploaded.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was one of those involved in choosing the pictures (and in reverting ones with copyright issues, etc) on papal pages. In fact there are no set of rigid rules that we follow. The only thing those of us followed in selecting images on papal and other pages were

• legal status
• quality

Context never arose. If a better picture of Paul VI arose, and in it he was just wearing a white cassock, that one would be used. It just so happened by chance that the images with clearest legal status and of the best quality were ones that showed popes in choral dress but that was by accident, not design. If better images are found that are legal and show them differently then they will be inserted. In many of the pages there have been a whole series of images used, including throne shots, blessing shots, profile shots, white cassock, choral dress, with the ring, without the ring. The bottom line has been is the quality of the shot and its legality, not what the pope is wearing. (We have used side profiles of Pius XII, for example, white cassocks of John XXIII, partially side profiles of John Paul I, etc.)

Having looked at the new image in location I have to say it really is so appallingly bad it beggars belief. It is worse than my worse fear when seen in context. No way can that substandard image stay. In terms of quality of image the side profile is the best by miles. If a straight profile is insisted upon, then the white cassock shot would do. But that new one is too appalling for words. It has got to go into the nearest bin (and the photographer's camera confiscated!). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I propose the following, then: lets keep it as it is for a few weeks, say, till the end of this year, and see if we can find a better picture that meets all the criteria we are looking for. While it is true that other pictures have been used before for other popes that do not meet the choral dress criteria, I stronglybelieve that the present coincidence of having several of the most recent popes dressed in the same way (choral dress) should not be spoiled if there is an alterative. For instance, if, on several articles about presidents of the United States, the official portrait was used for opening the article, or, if in several articles on British monarchs, a portrait of them in Coronation robes were used, I would advocate keeping the same pattern. The "coincidence" we now have on the top pictures of Papal articles is good as a standard, and we should try to preserve it. --Antonio Basto 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

File:PapaBenedettoXVI.jpg- what about this picture?

• Well, that pic has the pope in his choir dress, but, I think the one we have now is better. The reason is that the baove picture shows the pope in a blessing stance but you can clearly see the microphone and his aids at his side, so, I think the one we have now is better.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)