Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black Tape for a Blue Girl
Black Tape for a Blue Girl edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 23:51:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another stunning portrait of a band from Kyle Cassidy. Black Tape for a Blue Girl are a hugely important and well-known band in the right circles (and one I really need to rediscover). EV is obvious, quality is fantastic. There's also a .tiff version.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Black Tape for a Blue Girl, Athan Maroulis, Sam Rosenthal
- FP category for this image
- People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Kyle Cassidy
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The EV of a posed publicity photo of a band seems a bit weak to me (I doubt that they they record and perform music while standing still with their hair and clothes neatly arranged) and while the photo is of good quality, it's not outstanding by any measure. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Popular music is all about image. What do you want, candid shots? Surely, a large part of making a good portrait is setting it up as intended? For what it's worth, though, search YouTube for some performances; they aren't the worst dressed of bands. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the photo to have strong EV it needs to show the band doing the thing for which got them into the encyclopedia - eg, recording or playing music. Standing in formation in a studio isn't their claim to fame. That's just my view though, so there's no reason to get defensive. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to weigh in on that, without judgment towards the image yet. Standing around in formation is part of how bands build their fame and image. That's certainly encyclopedic. Look at a couple of famous acts: The Beatles had their hair, Lady Gaga has eccentric costumes. Cowtowner (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the photo to have strong EV it needs to show the band doing the thing for which got them into the encyclopedia - eg, recording or playing music. Standing in formation in a studio isn't their claim to fame. That's just my view though, so there's no reason to get defensive. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Popular music is all about image. What do you want, candid shots? Surely, a large part of making a good portrait is setting it up as intended? For what it's worth, though, search YouTube for some performances; they aren't the worst dressed of bands. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support'. Nick-D, "not outstanding by any measure", what on earth are you talking about, this is an exceptional piece of photography. I can't fathom how someone with even a scintilla of an artistic eye could not see that. As for the TIFF version, upload a PNG version to preserve the lossless. — raekyt 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This is an eye-catching image. But I think we’re heading down spam-road with this one. Wikipedia is not Craigslist and this sort of thing seems to have pushed too far into violating WP:SOAP. I voted “support” on the below, Ego Likeness band nom because the image is quite unique rather than the trite, U2-esque mood I find this one to have. Also, the other band is giving their music away. Greg L (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- If thats a concern you can support with a condition that it be restricted from POTD... remember FPC isn't strictly linked to POTD... we can say not to use an image on the front page but still recognize it as a featured picture. — raekyt 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. But with only 16 pictures in the “ain’t going to POTD”-file, I’m reticent to begin splitting hairs like this so we start adding to that short list on a regular basis. We are presently on that road with the WWII pictures of people being shot and rows of dead bodies, below. Also, I have concerns that introducing a vote variable like “give it it’s gold star but no POTD” will be a bit like having nominations with two or more edits tossed into the mix: it’s hard to discern a consensus. “Featured Picture” means we think it ought to be a “Featured Picture of the Day”. I suggest we just “do the right thing” here. Whatever that is, it will be by consensus. And with rare exception, like the topless model that Howcheng refuses to use, the consensus results here seem to be correct for the most part. I mean, just how hard can it be for a professional band to go pay $1200 for a professional photo shoot, make it available to Wikipedia, and see them advertised for a day? I think we need to shut the door on that sort of thing unless there are unusual circumstances.
The only thing that is unusual about this photo is it just barely meets our resolution requirements. I find that odd. If I were them, I’d make a bazillion-pixel picture available. That’s what some business consultant from Australia did. He’s one of those “Fall backwards into the arms of your coworkers – do you feel the magic?”-type inspirational guys and paid one of our admins to write an article about him. Of course, that got the admin’s tail features burned off and the consultant’s Wikipedia article AfD’d. But his picture!. It has so much resolution (here’s the image) I could literally count the whiskers on his upper lip. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- This wasn't provided by the band to advertise themselves, this was provided by the photographer in an attempt to improve our coverage on Wikipedia. I think your concerns about spam are a little misguided- this is no different than featuring a Wikipedian-made photograph of a person or a band. Again, this is hardly the most ridiculously commercial band... J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about the spam concerns being misguided. WP isn't supposed to be for promotion, but if we had to avoid doing anything that might promote something as a side effect we'd never be able to do anything. Every time we use a book for a reference it has the possible side effect of promoting sales of that book, but that that doesn't mean we shouldn't use books as references. But I do have an issue with the EV in this case. Unlike the Ego Likeness nom, I can't tell that these guys aren't Christian rock without reading the article.--RDBury (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting you: but if we had to avoid doing anything that might promote something as a side effect we'd never be able to do anything. See “Banana”, below. J Milburn sure glommed onto a work-around for that concern. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. And not only “Banana”. We also have Clematis, The Ambassadors, The Arnolfini Portrait, Special Purpose Insertion Extraction training, Ngorongoro crater, Tarangire Warthog, and Cattle Round-up. This page, today, is chock full of subjects where the subject matter has no vested financial interest to see itself advertised. Having an article on this band is one thing; providing free advertising by having this picture one-day appear as “Today’s Featured Picture” on the Main Page violates, IMO, WP:SOAP and would just encourage more of this sort of thing.
Besides, the “dark, gloomy, curiously-alienating, solemn” shot of a band is a trite, thoroughly copied, and overused stunt from the 80s. Yuck. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- ??? Not to hijack the thread, but I nominated the clematis because it's the lead image of the article and meets criteria, I believe we have featured images that appear on stubs and certainly have plant images. --I'ḏ♥One 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- We would feature the article if it was high enough quality, we should be willing to feature a picture if it's high enough quality. Like I said, this image was not given to us by the band, so suggesting they have nefarious intentions is simply misguided. As for featuring this "just encourag[ing] more of this sort of thing"- I think that's a pretty solid argument in favour of promoting this. You don't want to encourage the release of high quality publicity photos? What on Earth do you want? That's what I spend a lot of my Wikimedia-hours dealing with, and is some of the work of which I am most proud... J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I’ve seen that argument of “If a picture appears in an article then it is a valid candidate for FPC” before. I am wholly unpersuaded by that line of reasoning as it strikes me as an absolutism. Many absolutisms fail to properly deal with the shades of gray that comprise real life.
The “good for article means good for FPC” reasoning is easy to refute. Plenty of times before on these pages, I have pointed to articles containing images that simply have no business whatsoever on the Main Page as “Today’s Featured Picture” (where, with very rare exception, these all end up one day). I shouldn’t have to again provide links to demonstrate the clear-cut reality that FP-candiates are subject to different hurdles than when they are simply added to an article.
In this case, the distinction is over issue of WP:SOAP. If readers want to seek out the article on this band, it is great that—once there—they can see an image that adds EV to the subject by illustrating it. That is an entirely different thing from pasting their image onto the Main Page for a day.
Ideological certitude is one of the great weaknesses of mankind.
It is the tool of bad leaders; its allure, the refuge of weak minds.Greg L (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- And many people have explained to you many times why your main page-based arguments hold no water. We judge images based on our criteria, not based on potential by-products of promotion. To give an example I have given before, we would laugh at anyone who opposed an image of a mushroom on the basis that they didn't want to see it on Portal:Fungi. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we will just have to agree to disagree (again) about this publicity shot. Bye. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's hardly becoming that you will sit there and present argument after argument, often with flowery language, and happily compare those who disagree with you to absolutists, then just say "well, I disagree" when someone presents a counter-argument. It's not even about this image any more. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well… I do that when arguments seem circuitous and pointless. But, like one man’s “freedom fighter” is another’s “terrorist,” I suppose my “this is circuitous and going nowhere” is your “Ah HAAA! I got you now with my Unassailable Mother Of All Arguments®™©.” You know; the run-for-your-life MOAB of debate. I wasn’t exactly seeing it myself. With that in mind, if it will make you feel any better, why not call me a “fuckhead” and be done with it on this thread? Just remember that’s Mister Fuckhead to you. ;-) Greg L (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's hardly becoming that you will sit there and present argument after argument, often with flowery language, and happily compare those who disagree with you to absolutists, then just say "well, I disagree" when someone presents a counter-argument. It's not even about this image any more. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we will just have to agree to disagree (again) about this publicity shot. Bye. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- And many people have explained to you many times why your main page-based arguments hold no water. We judge images based on our criteria, not based on potential by-products of promotion. To give an example I have given before, we would laugh at anyone who opposed an image of a mushroom on the basis that they didn't want to see it on Portal:Fungi. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I’ve seen that argument of “If a picture appears in an article then it is a valid candidate for FPC” before. I am wholly unpersuaded by that line of reasoning as it strikes me as an absolutism. Many absolutisms fail to properly deal with the shades of gray that comprise real life.
- We would feature the article if it was high enough quality, we should be willing to feature a picture if it's high enough quality. Like I said, this image was not given to us by the band, so suggesting they have nefarious intentions is simply misguided. As for featuring this "just encourag[ing] more of this sort of thing"- I think that's a pretty solid argument in favour of promoting this. You don't want to encourage the release of high quality publicity photos? What on Earth do you want? That's what I spend a lot of my Wikimedia-hours dealing with, and is some of the work of which I am most proud... J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- ??? Not to hijack the thread, but I nominated the clematis because it's the lead image of the article and meets criteria, I believe we have featured images that appear on stubs and certainly have plant images. --I'ḏ♥One 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting you: but if we had to avoid doing anything that might promote something as a side effect we'd never be able to do anything. See “Banana”, below. J Milburn sure glommed onto a work-around for that concern. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about the spam concerns being misguided. WP isn't supposed to be for promotion, but if we had to avoid doing anything that might promote something as a side effect we'd never be able to do anything. Every time we use a book for a reference it has the possible side effect of promoting sales of that book, but that that doesn't mean we shouldn't use books as references. But I do have an issue with the EV in this case. Unlike the Ego Likeness nom, I can't tell that these guys aren't Christian rock without reading the article.--RDBury (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- This wasn't provided by the band to advertise themselves, this was provided by the photographer in an attempt to improve our coverage on Wikipedia. I think your concerns about spam are a little misguided- this is no different than featuring a Wikipedian-made photograph of a person or a band. Again, this is hardly the most ridiculously commercial band... J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. But with only 16 pictures in the “ain’t going to POTD”-file, I’m reticent to begin splitting hairs like this so we start adding to that short list on a regular basis. We are presently on that road with the WWII pictures of people being shot and rows of dead bodies, below. Also, I have concerns that introducing a vote variable like “give it it’s gold star but no POTD” will be a bit like having nominations with two or more edits tossed into the mix: it’s hard to discern a consensus. “Featured Picture” means we think it ought to be a “Featured Picture of the Day”. I suggest we just “do the right thing” here. Whatever that is, it will be by consensus. And with rare exception, like the topless model that Howcheng refuses to use, the consensus results here seem to be correct for the most part. I mean, just how hard can it be for a professional band to go pay $1200 for a professional photo shoot, make it available to Wikipedia, and see them advertised for a day? I think we need to shut the door on that sort of thing unless there are unusual circumstances.
- If thats a concern you can support with a condition that it be restricted from POTD... remember FPC isn't strictly linked to POTD... we can say not to use an image on the front page but still recognize it as a featured picture. — raekyt 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is nice that this publicity shot is freely licensed. But the resolution is way too low to consider it among Wikipedia's best images. --Dschwen 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It's too dark. Gut Monk (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and have ‘em smile next time too. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're complaining because a publicity photo of a darkwave band is dark and gloomy? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No; not at all. I thought the irony to be self-evident but should have put a ;-) at the end of that to drive home the point. Sorry. I was pointing out that the publicity photo clearly came out exactly as it ought to have and that an objection about it being too dark is like complaining about a lack of color in an Ansel Adams landscape. It’s the same for the expressions on these band member faces; (Photographer: “Hey darkwave band members, let’s not have *frowny* faces… SMILE! Sing with me now: ♬♩ I’m a little teapot…♬♩”). I knew I shouldn’t have chimed in like that.
Even though that 80s U2-like style album artwork is trite today, I still do find it eye-catching. But I also think the bar for novelty and eye-catching has to be darn high for publicity shots of existing bands to steer clear of WP:SOAP. The one with the guy and the apple: now that is something quite different. This shot (“Well… we can also look brooding as if we are disaffected philosophers trapped in a world of absurd conformity and lack of introspection, *just* like U2”) doesn’t. Greg L (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No; not at all. I thought the irony to be self-evident but should have put a ;-) at the end of that to drive home the point. Sorry. I was pointing out that the publicity photo clearly came out exactly as it ought to have and that an objection about it being too dark is like complaining about a lack of color in an Ansel Adams landscape. It’s the same for the expressions on these band member faces; (Photographer: “Hey darkwave band members, let’s not have *frowny* faces… SMILE! Sing with me now: ♬♩ I’m a little teapot…♬♩”). I knew I shouldn’t have chimed in like that.
- You're complaining because a publicity photo of a darkwave band is dark and gloomy? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and have ‘em smile next time too. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)