Talk:Harry Bosch

Spoiler warning

Maybe a spoiler warning would be appropriate...? It contains several details from the stories of the books. 83.145.61.253 22:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I was just reading it over and I thought one should go in as well, even before seeing your comment here on the talk page. So I added one. --Hunter85014 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

3 years ago you 2 left comments, yet today i just read about one of the main characters being killed off :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.242.206 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Black Echo (the first of the Harry Bosch novels) is from the late 1980s, not from 1992. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.225 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. CapnZapp (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Timeline discrepancy?

Having read several of these novels, I'm confused about the status of the daughter Maddie. In "City of Bones" (2002), it says that Bosch has no children. Yet in "Nine Dragons" (2009) he has a teenage daughter. Can anyone clear up this apparent discrepancy? Lazyzee (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The daughter was conceived during Angels Flight (1999), and her existence wasn't revealed to Bosch until Lost Light (2003). --67.180.106.165 (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is still the problem that if she was conceived in 1999, was born in 2000 than she is only 9 years old in 2009--not 13. Even if she was born late 1999, she would still only be 10 years old and not 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.68.100.9 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Image improvement requested

The current infobox pic is kind of washed out with poor lightning, and parts of the face is obscured. I'm sure a better screen shot can be procured. CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done – CapnZapp Maybe it can, but not on my telly / not easily. For the moment, I have lifted the exposure on the existing one, and hope you like the change. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with CapnZapp that a better image is needed. The face is obscured, and I'm not sure everyone wants or needs to see him sucking on a cigarette. Though he's seen smoking in the pilot, the character has since quit, same as the books. There is also a possible copyright flag on the currrent image. I tired adding a different image, but Korny O'Near, has since reverted, and it seems they want to current image so bad they are willing to edit war to keep it. - wolf 18:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Do two reverts count as an edit war? Anyway, a photo of Titus Welliver in character as Harry Bosch is clearly more relevant to this article than a photo of Welliver out of character. Even the fact that he's sucking on a cigarette is useful information. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please find a better image, better lit and where facial features aren't obscured (such as by a hand). It is kind of hard to recognize the character/actor from this picture alone. PS. Personally I have no opinion on fictional characters' nicotine habits. If given the choice between three pictures: a picture of the actor in character, a picture where Welliver is doing press (or similar) for the show, and a general unrelated Welliver pic, I'd choose the picture with quality, that displays how the character looks like, unlike the current one. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: are you saying a well-lit photo of actor Titus Welliver will give readers a better sense of what Harry Bosch looks like than a screenshot of Welliver in character as Bosch, with makeup, clothes, etc.? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Do two reverts count as an edit war?" - Are you saying you'll stop at two?

"Anyway, a photo of Titus Welliver in character as Harry Bosch is clearly more relevant to this article than a photo of Welliver out of character." - First off, I hope you realize they're the same person. Second, there is nothing in the current photo to show that it's specically a scene from Bosch. It could be from any show or movie Welliver has been in. If it wasn't such a tight frame and instead had more visual cues from the show, that would help. Oh, and maybe not having half his obscured would be a big help as well. Not sure why you're so dead set on this image, it's just a screen shot... almost any screen shot of him from the show would be better. Meanwhile, I added an image where you can actually see the guy's face! It's certainly more helpful than the current image, whether he's in character or not.

"Even the fact that he's sucking on a cigarette is useful information." - Lolz! No... it's not. - wolf 21:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm of course not dead set on this particular screen shot, but it's obvious that an image of Welliver-as-Bosch is more relevant, and informative, than image of Welliver-as-himself. Even if the two images were almost exactly the same, only the former would tell people how Bosch appears on the show. But they're not the same: Welliver wears different clothes on the show, his hair style is different, his expression is different, even his hair color is a little different. And of course, he's smoking on the show, and not in real life. But if there's an even better image from Bosch, that would be better. (Not that I think there's anything particularly wrong with this one.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, a picture of him smoking doesn't inform the reader about this character. He smoked early in the show, then quit. It's not as if it had any impact on the character during the series, nor did it play any part of any storyline in the series. Smoking is not even mentioned anywhere in the article. Therefore, it's not worth retaining this image, just because he's seen smoking in it, as opposed to an image where the reader can actually see the guy's entire face.

You say he's wearing a suit and his hair is shorter. So what? a) The difference in hair between the two images is negligible, b) his hair is the same as the second iamge at times onscreen anyway, c) he doesn't always wear a suit, (he's not Luther, for example) he also wears casual clothing in the series, and d) I believe he wears a leather jacket on screen at times as well. Other than that, there is nothing in the first image to help inform readers him. It's too close cropped, there's nothing in the background, like; a police car, the squad room, a crime scene, his unique home-on-stilts, or other characters in the series. The image could just as easily be Welliver from another role or IRL.

You've now had two different editors tell you that the image should be changed because his face is obscured in the current one, but as you know, consensus isn't a vote, but about the quality of the arguments supporting a particular position. Between the two images, the article is better served with the second image. But if you are so dead-set against it, then find another that is better than either image, surely you agree that would serve the article even better, no? - wolf 23:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, even if the two images were almost exactly the same, the one of him playing Bosch would be quite a bit more informative, because otherwise readers would have no idea what he looks like on the show. Maybe on the show, he's bald and wears t-shirts? The photo of the actor himself tells us very little. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, let's not get distracted. The topic at hand is that the current image is poor, and needs replacing. Specifically: please find an image where you can clearly see the actor/character's face. Everything else is secondary, and at most a matter of personal preference should we ever have several images to choose from that meets this basic requirement. But we can resume these discussions if and when we get to that point. CapnZapp (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we've established that, unless there are major technical issues, a photo of Welliver-as-Bosch is always better than a photo of Welliver as himself. But I really don't see any problems with the current photo - it just looks like a regular still from a TV show. The lighting is fine, and his face is barely obscured at all - his hand covers maybe half his chin and 1/4 of one cheek. It's obvious who this is - both actor and, to some extent, character. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's why WP has consensus to help decide these issues. - wolf 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that for character articles it is preferable to have the actor-as-character file in stead of the actor-as-themselves file, especially when it is being used in the infobox to depict the character itself. Since the actor-as-character file is a fair use file and per WP:BRD, it should stay as the image until a consensus is formed and so it is not deleted from Wikipedia as being orphaned. If a consensus can not be formed here, then the file(s) should be taken to WP:FFD to see if a consensus can be formed there. Aspects (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it's nice to have an actor-in-character image, but it helps if you can actually see their entire face... - wolf 02:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just a hand covering a total of maybe 5% of his face - I don't think it's causing readers to lose any information. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Setting the bar for inclusion at not losing readers information is pitifully low. If the current pic was acceptable or adequate, none of this talk section would have happened. You don't want to find a better one? Fine. But please don't stand in the way when and if one is found, and please don't oppose actually good pictures just because they might not meet the requirement of being in the role. (Here's a picture of an actor-not-in-the-role: "Daniel Craig, seen here at a Royal Navy event in 2021, reprises his role as Detective Benoit Blanc." CapnZapp (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's true, it's actually quite rare to see movie or TV stills on Wikipedia, presumably due to copyright issues. But on those rare occasions when copyright is judged not to be a problem, movie and TV stills are great to see. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

renewed search for a good picture

The current picture isn't good, and I'm removing it until we can find a replacement.

This way, the current picture won't be left standing just because we can't agree on which pic to use.

Let's start fresh, with no picture. Any pictures where Wellivers face can be clearly seen are welcome. CapnZapp (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like everybody to note that the cigarette-and-hand picture was non-free: it was a television screenshot. Normally, finding images is a compromise because only free pictures are considered. Retaining such a poor image would be done only with the argument "it's the only pic we got".

In this case, as long as we keep agreeing non-free images are fair game, it will be easy to screenshot Welliver where his face can be clearly seen. CapnZapp (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a candidate from Michael Connelly's blog. Welliver is dressed as Bosch, his hand doesn't obscure his face, and the pic can be cropped if desired. (It's a behind the scenes pic from S2) CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm pinging you User:Lamro on the assumption you genuinely thought you were fixing a mistake without seeing this talk section. If you have no opinion on what picture to use, please undo your restoration until discussion has finished. If you do have an opinion, let's discuss! For instance, what do you think about using the above-linked image as a source for a new header pic? CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No objections to suggested pic? Good. Uploading now (File:Detectives_Harry_Bosch_and_Jerry_Edgar.jpg) and cropping to File:Detective_Harry_Bosch.jpg. CapnZapp (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)