Review
(criteria) |
 Question Isn't the most ideal illustrative photo of a tennisman while playing tennis? --Coyau (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Agree with Coyau. This picture does not "depict the subject well", IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- I'm not sure I agree. How many subscopes are possible for this man ? "Playing tennis", "Head shot" (Passing shot would have been better...;) ? OK. Then, why not Head shot of John Mc Enroe playing tennis ?Why not as TV-radio commentator (we have some). Should we have a scope or subscope for every situation ? John mc Enroe at swimming pool, John mc Enroe at barbecue... JmcE is a tennis player for History, IMO... So we must have a scope of John Mc Enroe, and the "best in scope" should be a picture when he plays tennis. The rest sounds artificial to me. Now, please consider this question with another notable person: Mr Obama (head shot) or Mr Obama (as president of the United States). Should we agree of such scopes ? And why not subscopes due to the age ? Remember a recent MVR: Mark Twain (head shot) or Mark Twain (juvenile specimen) ? We didn't do so... I think that the "scope" matter is complicated enough (everybody says this), we don't need to complicate it more. Well, only an opinion (sounds possibly confusing, but it is due to bad english, sorry. Je sais que je serais plus convaincant en français !)--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Scope changed from John McEnroe to John McEnroe (head shot) --MrPanyGoff 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- If there is some complication it is because of endless discussions here. In this case the things are so obvious that it doesn't need a discussion but just some clarification. The corner stone here is called Face Recognition which is the major thing if you want to know somebody. The encyclopedia is a source of information and when it comes to photos (especially of people) the Face Recognition is among the most important information which some can get from here. Me, you and thousands of people know well who is McEnroe but millions of people know just his name and the fact that he is a famous tennisman. These people enjoy images of tennismen playing but they need to get a Face Recognition out of here. The comparission with people like Mr Obama or Sarkozy ;) is not correct because their main activity gives us Face Recognition all of the time. There are some activiies (mostly sportsmen) where otherwise famous people are not recognizable by face that's why this online encylopedia gives the unique chance introducing the audience to their heroes. That's why we can use these specific and logical subscopes (not random as your somehow offencive barbecue suggestion). This allows presenting of second photo with the main activity - somеthing which is not needed when people like Mr Obama are nominated here. As additional examples I give these two comparisons of images of other two famous sportsmen: Alain Prost 1
 and Alain Prost 2  / Hermann Maier 1  and probably Hermann Maier 2  ! You know man, I like to watch skiing and I watched Hermann Maier many times but here for the first time I met him ;)--MrPanyGoff 10:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, for me this is the best photo of McEnroe in commons:
 . I nominated the portrait looking one because of the usual manner of presenting people here.--MrPanyGoff 10:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with Jebulon, a subscope is not necessary here. Note that there are some previous cases where the chosen VI for notable people hasn't been a portrait, but a shot in action or with the symbols of the activity he/she is mainly known for. Examples: 1 or 2. Fell free to nominate the image you find the most illustrative for the simple scope "John McEnroe". To me, subscopes for a people scope should be an exception duly legitimated—"Achilles (heel)" for example. --Myrabella (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think a subscope is merited since this image is used in 26 articles on 21 sister projects. It complements images of the subject playing, e.g., File:John_McEnroe_WTT.jpg used 31 times. Based on usage, this image is much more notable than most of my promoted images. I am inclined to agree with the initial opinion of MrPanyGoff that this is the best image in mainscope, also, but Coyau and Jebulon don't agree. One way forward is a MVR for mainscope and, subsequently, a subscope nomination for the runner up. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from John McEnroe (head shot) to John McEnroe --MrPanyGoff 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Back to the initial scope.--MrPanyGoff 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Best in Scope I think a portrait is best for mainscope; many of the photographs of the subject playing do not depict his features well. While subscopes for individuals may potentially be troublesome, I think the argument is compelling for a subscope for prominent individuals that are not well-depicted in images showing them engaged in their work. Besides athletes, subscopes may be warranted for actors and other performers. "Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects." Most articles on John McEnroe employ both a portrait and an action shot, e.g., en: John_McEnroe. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I withdraw my previous oppose vote; was put on because of the subscope. --Myrabella (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Idem.--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon. Are you holding your first previous oppose vote with the current scope (19-feb.: This picture does not "depict the subject well")? This question for the final votes counting. --Myrabella (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Myrabella. Yes I do. I support the other one, and still oppose here, per Coyau.--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores:
1. John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: +1
2. US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: +2
=>
File:John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: Declined.
File:US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
.png)
