Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cedric Villani in his office 2015 n1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2015 at 14:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment --C'est dommage, la MaP est sur la barbe, pas sur les yeux. Sting (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Too distracting background.--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)- Medium69, Per the title "Cedric Villani in his office", this is an environmental portrait where the background is as much a key element as the person. If anything, we aren't seeing enough of the office, and the blackboard is blank. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had not seen it that way; you are right. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Medium69, Per the title "Cedric Villani in his office", this is an environmental portrait where the background is as much a key element as the person. If anything, we aren't seeing enough of the office, and the blackboard is blank. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per Colin's comments, and this one's sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I like this--LivioAndronico (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Preferred. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support ISO 1.600? Impressive! --Code (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support A very good portrait. I prefer this version. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose too tight at top. Vignetting--Lmbuga (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Spider… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment For me this isn't a alternative but another shot! LivioAndronico (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Not an alternative, but another shot. please nominate separately.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Jebulon: : And if they were nominated separately and both had enough votes for promotion, you'd be OK with both becoming FP? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- We have at least three FP of the Neuschwanstein Castle taken from the same point of view...--Jebulon (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not taken in the same hour on the same day by the same photographer with the same camera. Please, Jebulon, take this to the FP talk page and get some consensus for your view, which seems to be in the minority. I would rather, however, that nominations were created with just one photo that the nominator believed at the time to be the finest. Let's get some rules defined, rather than arguing on every nomination about what "alternative" means. It absolutely is an alternative. The question is whether we think it is acceptable, and that should be settled by consensus rather than disrupting individual nominations. -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I personaly take several pictures (at least 4 or more) and chose the best when I nominate(d) here, I think everybody could do the same. Otherwise, I will nominate here ad absurdum all the pictures-of-the-same-place-taken-by-me-at-the-same-time-with-the-same-camera as alternatives. I have a superb collection of boring landscapes to submit. Or series seen in QIC. Please be serious and help in making FPC a bit more strong.--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well I agree with you, Jebulon, that we should not nominate multiple images when creating the nomination. So on that count, I think the nomination of two images here is wrong. The nominator should seriously consider which they think is best (and ask for opinions prior to nomination if not sure). But we should establish that rule by consensus on FP talk if we expect people to respect it. For after-nomination alternatives, that come as a result of review comments, I don't see how "I prefer your head/shoulders portrait" is any different to "I prefer if cropped to just head/shoulders". I mean, Diliff could create a dozen crops of his megapixel cathedrals and nominate them all at once for us to pick between if he wanted to, just as someone could bore us with a dozen slightly different frames taken of the same subject. So the potential for disruption is there no matter what one's definition is. Let's take this to FP talk. Nobody wants a weak FPC or to allow people to bend the rules in their favour. We could simply ban alternatives altogether. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral Makes him look appear a bit too close to the viewer. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support --Tremonist (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{o}} too tight at top. Vignetting--Lmbuga (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Mistake, sorry--Lmbuga (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 10:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
The chosen alternative is: File:Cedric Villani in his office 2015 n1.jpg