Suggestion: Music.Weird Al Yankovic

The page for "Weird Al" Yankovic currently has a picture from Al's "classic" period, which was almost 20 years ago. Would anybody object to replacing it with with a picture of what he looks like now? I was thinking of either this or this.

We could still keep the old image in a "click here to see his "classic" look" note or something.

edited 19th May '18 8:12:30 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Opening.

I'm okay with either, to be honest.

I like 1.2 better for being... weirder?

I was leaning towards the second one myself, if only because it's a more interesting image than him just standing there.

1.2

I'll go with 1.2.

Alright, I'll go ahead and put up 1.2 unless somebody objects.

EDIT: Alright, switched it out.

edited 20th May '18 5:13:43 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Not that I'm disagreeing with the change but 1 weekend day and 6 voices is a little preemptive to be declaring a consensus.

I don't think changing an image for the sake of updating it to something newer is a legitimate reason to change an image. It's like saying old content isn't valid anymore.

Point, I can always revert it.

I just thought it should reflect what the guy actually looks like.

So we should have decomposed skeletons for people no longer alive?

Yep, nothing absurd about that.

I agree with OP's reasoning, keep the new image.

When a band's lineup changes, we change the picture to reflect that, that doesn't equate to anyone saying that the old lineup never happened. This is no different.

edited 22nd May '18 8:21:14 PM by Primis

I don't have an issue with the new image, although I dislike having the "classic" pic in the caption...I'd say either do a 2-panel showing a "then and now" or make an Image Links page with the classic pic and some screencaps from his videos.

That's not a policy we actually have, though.

What you are saying is that the newer one is more valid than the old, which is absurd.

Get rid of the extra image in the note. Otherwise

That's not what anyone is saying at all, and you know it. A stubborn refusal to acknowledge that content evolves over time is just as absurd as saying that old content is no longer valid, which again, no one is doing.

What exactly is it about his old look that could even be considered part of his content anyway? I thought his content was music and comedy. His glasses and hair weren't the reason he got popular, that's just what he happened to look like at the time.

edited 23rd May '18 9:59:12 AM by Primis

As far as I'm aware, we don't actually have any policy for creator pages. In practice, it seems to generally be "if they're alive, a relatively current picture, if they're dead, a picture that shows their most well-known look."

Since we're talking about a currently active performer, I think it makes sense to have a picture that isn't 20+ years old, especially since by this point he's had the new look for just as long as the "classic" one. Possibly even longer.

It's not a question of "validity'', it's a question of whether we want creator pages for active artists to be up to date.

To be fair, he did star in a a movie with that look, but on the flipside, he's way more visible now with way more frequent appearances on TV and in internet videos, so I'd think that most people would be more familiar with the new look at this point.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of having the old pic in the drop down either, but I feel like the change in look should be acknowledged somehow.

And on a side note: now that I look at it, the old picture is kinda grainy, so if nothing else we should try to find a higher-quality version.

edited 23rd May '18 10:54:02 PM by JapaneseTeeth

I'd like 1.1 with a note for the classic look.

If you're saying a new image is better than an old image, then yes, you call the old one less valid. The point isn't the word choice, since you're just arguing semantics at this point. No one's saying content doesn't evolve either. And you know, what exactly is it about his new look that could even be considered part of his content anyway? You're the one wanting to change the image, you're the one who has to answer that.

And the answer to that question is "no", if I didn't make myself clear enough. There's no benefit in having an updated image.

The policy I'm going by is if images are equal, we don't change it.

My personal take on it is that the purpose of a creator page is, overall, to inform the reader about the subject. As such having either a current picture, or having both a current picture and older one, gives them more accurate information about him.

I think what he means is that you seem to be using a different definition of "valid" than everyone else. The way I see it, a "valid" image is any one that could be used on the page, even if some of those might be better than others. For example, I think both the old image and the suggestions I made are all "valid" ones, but I think the old one isn't quite as good for the page because of its age. An invalid picture would be something like this, that's unrelated to his music and doesn't represent his stage persona.

edited 25th May '18 7:03:44 PM by JapaneseTeeth

FWIW, I'd be fine with having both looks as suggested in 13, possibly with the caption "then and now".

I came up with some "then and now" takes...thoughts?

I like 22.4 for the similarity in poses

That's my favorite of those.