Talk:Battle of the Hellespont

Fantasy illustrations are bad

It is outright misleading to any reader to illustrate a battle that happened 2000 years ago with a snippet from a tapestry 1600 years later. The 17th century perception of an ancient battle is about as informative as a drawing for Warhammer is of medieval warfare. There's nothing in the image that is even remotely accurate in illustrating tactics, weapons, equipment or even a contemporary idea of a naval battle.

It is irresponsible to use these types of images unless you place them in a proper context. Placing them smack at the top and in the ''infobox'' conveys the idea that it somehow representative of something other than what the 17th century. Images like these should not be actively forced on articles just to make them look prettier. Peter ^Isotalo 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The idea of taking something to the talk page when an edit is challenged, is that discussion takes place BEFORE any changes are again made to the status quo ante. You seem to have acted in bad faith, and, as an apparently long-standing editor, you have little excuse for not knowing the basic etiquette here. As such, I'm sure that anything I might say would be merely wasted effort. Well done!. Urselius (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You reverted by saying that the article needs at least one image and that I should take it to the talkpage.

I specified my reason and then moved up the map as the infobox image and removed the 17th century fantasy interpretation of the battle.

What are you objecting to here? Peter ^Isotalo 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm objecting to your high-handed actions. You did not engage in dialogue before imposing your view on the article. Stating something on a talk page, then editing without reference to anyone else's input is not dialogue.

There are plenty of articles on Classical subjects that have images of Renaissance and Post-Renaissance artwork that are artistic interpretations - just look at Battle of the Milvian Bridge - so there is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia. In regard to the image itself, well it shows oared war galleys in battle and includes a quite accurate representation of a Classical Period bronze ship's ram. All these elements are appropriate to the subject of the article. Urselius (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Image added for ease of reference

I'm actually objecting on the basis of WP:POV here. Hence my insistence on removing what I feel is misleading and irrelevant content.

The image shows something that's basically like an ancient naval ram on two ships, but the placement is all wrong; the ram was always under the waterline. The ship foundering on the left, though, does not have a ram, but rather some kind of ram bow. That's something you'd have on a trade vessel not intended for war, like an actuaria.

The rest of the image is really just a Baroque riot of color intended as an impressive decoration. Again, it really is a bit like illustrating a medieval battle with the cover of a Warhammer battle painting; busy, colorful, maybe even pretty to some, but not intended to portray the realism of battle. I don't know as much about Roman armor and infantry equipment, but I'd hazard a guess that the weapons and armor are probably a mix of completely different eras.

Pointing to images in other articles is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. The infobox image in Battle of the Milvian Bridge is not ideal either, but it's not what we're discussing. MOS:PERTINENCE says that an image should "be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". If there was a section of this article that discussed the significance of the battle in 17th century art, I would have no objection. But as the primary illustration of the battle, it's not informative and even outright misleading. I should not be included without proper contextual information. Peter ^Isotalo 10:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone resorting to "WP:Bollox" has lost the argument and has run out of logic. Urselius (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)