Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Railway
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 17:15:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- high quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- The Railway, Édouard Manet
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Édouard Manet
- Support as nominator --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice solid scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Bellus Delphina talk 12:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment — I like Monet's Train in the snow better — much more moody and evocative, IMO. Sca (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- We're not really here to judge the quality of the artwork. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aesthetics should be a prime criterion for FP choices. Sca (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't. We're an encyclopedia, not a pretty picture repository. Even if they were, this a notable painting by Manet. Who cares if you don't like it? Would you oppose an article at FAC because it was about a musician you don't care for? A politician you dislike? J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say I don't like Manet. I just don't think the work in question is very interesting visually. Others may differ.
- In my view, TFP's are a different case from other Main Page categories, in that the image — not any particular bit of information about it — is the message. I get tired of TFPs of subjects that IMO lack aesthetic appeal, such as today's Tachina praeceps. Sca (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aesthetic appeal is explicitly not a part of the criteria. "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- A multi-megapixel scan of an artwork, faithful to that artwork, has extremely high encyclopedic value... especially where that artwork has its own article. Thus, Nocturne in Black and Gold is just as featureable as the Mona Lisa.
- Notable photographs are similar. Same as with notable photographs. Just look at Situation Room. Again, please read the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I disagree with the policy, at least with respect to the visual arts. WP is not only an encyclopedia, it's an information medium in cyberspace that must compete to some degree with other media. Sca (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- You disagree with the criteria? Then try and start a discussion to change them. As for Wikipedia as an information medium, that's obviously what such high quality scans are for: getting the information out there "... which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." (FP? 3, bullet one). If we just wanted the pictures for articles, why would we ask for such high resolution? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Allow me to point out that I never said I opposed this FP nomination. Sca (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I never said you did, did I? But your comment is, essentially, "I would have opposed if...". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire. I don't oppose it. What happened was, the title, The Railway, reminded me of Monet's Train in the snow, one of my favorites. The discussion of criteria that ensued was not my original intention. Sca (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I never said you did, did I? But your comment is, essentially, "I would have opposed if...". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Allow me to point out that I never said I opposed this FP nomination. Sca (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- You disagree with the criteria? Then try and start a discussion to change them. As for Wikipedia as an information medium, that's obviously what such high quality scans are for: getting the information out there "... which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." (FP? 3, bullet one). If we just wanted the pictures for articles, why would we ask for such high resolution? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I disagree with the policy, at least with respect to the visual arts. WP is not only an encyclopedia, it's an information medium in cyberspace that must compete to some degree with other media. Sca (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't. We're an encyclopedia, not a pretty picture repository. Even if they were, this a notable painting by Manet. Who cares if you don't like it? Would you oppose an article at FAC because it was about a musician you don't care for? A politician you dislike? J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aesthetics should be a prime criterion for FP choices. Sca (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- We're not really here to judge the quality of the artwork. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support. A real asset. If we've lost anything, it's millimetres, as can be seen here. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 10:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow, that resolution! If only all the featured paintings could be this good! Mattximus (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Even though it was just said, WOW on the resolution, very impressive.-Godot13 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Edouard Manet - Le Chemin de fer - Google Art Project.jpg --Jujutacular (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)