Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/La bohéme
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 19:27:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- A fine poster, advertising the music score, contemporaneous with the first productions, with art by the same person as designed the costumes for the première (hence, I presume, the date: The opera premièred early 1896, but a lead time would get 1895 for the art easily.
- Articles in which this image appears
- La bohème
- FP category for this image
- WP:FP/THEATRE
- Creator
- Adolfo Hohenstein, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
OpposeDoes not add significantly to article. Need poster for First Performance in Italy/the one in the infobox. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say a major, major opera can have one FP per Act. And many have (see Aida). The only requirement for an FP in the line of what you propose is that the article is robust enough to hold them, and that they aren't redundant to each other - each shows something differently valuable. Otherwise, we're in a situation where we're basically saying every image but the first in an article should never be improved.
- If we go by your requirement, why should anyone **ever** improve anythng but the main image of an article? Why bother photographing juveniale birds? Why would I put 10 hours into restoring any image but the lead?
- That requirement leads to terrible mediocrity. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I get all this. Is this performance in France particularly significant? I would argue that an image of a juvenile bird could qualify as "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to article", but I would normally nominate the infobox image first. Many of my "second in article" nominations fail here e.g. the panther chameleon current nomination which I suggest adds hugely to the article, but voters here disagee. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- To paraphrase Bammesk's reasoned oppose vote below. An image of an early performance in Italy, has more EV than a later performance in France. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Allow me to clear up a misconception: This is from the first production worldwide, by the costume and prop designer for the first production, and predates the first production in France by three years (and the first production worldwide by a couple months). The Ricordi publishing company was basically Puccini's patron. I presume Italian versions of this same advertisement exist, but Italian libraries are pretty, er... locked down to us. It's by the same exact artist, and same timeframe as the poster at the start of the article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Oppose struck. I normally support the image that adds most value to an article (I thought we all did) and I'd be interested how Bammesk sees this issue, comparing his oppose of my nom of the reptile. I think we should be consistent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- How I see what issue?! Bammesk (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I was referring to your comment 'the one in the infobox has more EV', which is what I'm arguing here (though not opposing). 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- About the reptile nom: my quote is "a full body photo, like the one in the infobox, has more EV." [1] It has more EV not because it is in the infobox, it has more EV because it is a full body photo. By saying "like the one in the infobox", I meant "such as" that photo, I meant to point you to it. I used commas, one on each side, to isolate it as an example photo. The comment's rationale was "a full body shot .... has more EV". And I inserted an example in the dotted lines. I elaborate more in the reptile nom. Bammesk (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I don't think we should be falling out over this. The community here is generally very mutually supportive. I'm going to take a short break and see you all later. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- About the reptile nom: my quote is "a full body photo, like the one in the infobox, has more EV." [1] It has more EV not because it is in the infobox, it has more EV because it is a full body photo. By saying "like the one in the infobox", I meant "such as" that photo, I meant to point you to it. I used commas, one on each side, to isolate it as an example photo. The comment's rationale was "a full body shot .... has more EV". And I inserted an example in the dotted lines. I elaborate more in the reptile nom. Bammesk (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I was referring to your comment 'the one in the infobox has more EV', which is what I'm arguing here (though not opposing). 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- How I see what issue?! Bammesk (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Oppose struck. I normally support the image that adds most value to an article (I thought we all did) and I'd be interested how Bammesk sees this issue, comparing his oppose of my nom of the reptile. I think we should be consistent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Allow me to clear up a misconception: This is from the first production worldwide, by the costume and prop designer for the first production, and predates the first production in France by three years (and the first production worldwide by a couple months). The Ricordi publishing company was basically Puccini's patron. I presume Italian versions of this same advertisement exist, but Italian libraries are pretty, er... locked down to us. It's by the same exact artist, and same timeframe as the poster at the start of the article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Promoted File:Advertisement for the music score of La Bohème, 1895.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)