Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A collection of paintings of that strange wild man who roamed the fields of Provence

===A collection of paintings of that strange wild man who roamed the fields of Provence=== Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015  at 10:29:05 (UTC)

To my mind that strange wild man who roamed the fields of Provence was not only the world’s greatest artist, but also one of the greatest men who ever lived.
 * Reason:Paintings of series of wheat-fields and related topics from in the article in -Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series). All paintings are figuring in the article. A series of 16 paintings from  the renowned Dutch painter, van Gogh. Van Gogh's brushstrokes in staccato are especially suited to depict the straws of the wheat field, giving them a special look and life....
 * Articles in which this image appears:Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Vincent van Gogh


 * Support as co-nominator – The Herald : here I am 10:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as co-nominator – Atsme &#9775;  Consult  18:42, 13 January 2015
 * Support as co-nominator – CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a lovely grouping of the Van Gogh Wheat Fields. Every painting here is excellent in its own right!    WordSeventeen (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Why not? Sca (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have a question. Does the fact that these are being nominated as a group mean that the images can never be used separately? Just curious. CorinneSD (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - With it having three nominators, that makes it 3/5th of the way towards promotion. I don't think that's all that fair. GamerPro64  21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why isn't that fair? It was a collaboration, working together to achieve a shared goal. We are sharing it, we would all have supported it anyway.  The only difference is that we get credited all. It probably will not be a standard, but it was a lot of messing around to get this nomination together. Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get hypothetical then. What if there's a set made and it has five nominators? You might as well promote it on the spot.  GamerPro64  23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeh..We had that in our mind. Check this out..--The Herald : here I am 06:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With four supporters now aside from the nominators, it's a moot point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheat Fields with Reaper, Auvers - Google Art Project.jpg (focus was clearly missed; van Gogh was never that flat) and File:Wheat stacks in Provence.jpg (considerable noise and blurriness). Support everything else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment No problem, removed them. Those two pictures are gone now. Hafspajen (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Rreagan007 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment per GamerPro64, and I wasn't aware there was an FP star give-a-way.--Godot13 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this all of the series? If not, why not? Surely, to be promoted as a coherent set, this would need all of them? J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it will take over 30 paintings. - The Herald (here I am) 13:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This nomination seemingly isn't so much a set as a smattering of pictures from a set. I'm struggling to get my head around the nomination, and the fact we have people supporting some of the pictures and opposing others just adds to the complication. We also have to ask if people are really going to spend the time assessing the EV and quality of each individual image. (I also share some worries about the many nominators.) J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * '''1) The opposed one are no longer in the nomination. They are REMOVED, so ain't nobody get confused about that one, se comment above.


 * 2) See user talk User talk:Godot13.
 * 3) Even Godot use to nominate even bigger sets, by the way, like this one that had 42 pictures and nobody complained, eh? Here at Featured picture candidates/U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, 1789–1902 (set), so it that one could be a set, so what's the point opposing it? And here ALL PICTURES are a set because they ALL figure in the same article, - namely Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series), all share the SAME theme and ALL made by the same artist, namely van Gogh. Also our idea and the work with these images had ameliorated the article and updated the images in it- so it became a much better one. Isn't wikipedia about collaboration, sharing ideas, developing together and developing the encyclopedia? Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hafspajen - You are publicly pulling me into a discussion I was trying to avoid. This is not about the size of the set, though the organizing principle is a bit loose. Does this set represent an image of every single Van Gosh painting involving a wheatfield? If not, that is how it differs from my sets, which were absolutely complete. That is my understand of a set. Not that you select images that are all relevant, rather you select all the images and make them relevant. If this works, you have a FP set, if it doesn't, you don't have a sucessful set. The nominating process that occurred (open invitations to anyone who wants to pick up a bunch of stars) makes a mockery of the FP system.--Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you perceive it this way. As I said already I don't mind sharing them. But since some people protested, it will probably not happen any more this kind of giant noms that often. But I think it is still fully valid if two or three people work together, one finds an image, the other one uploades it, they wrote an article on it and so on. As I said it will probably will not happen any more, but those who were invited they were invited - to work too. But it was great fun, Herald had the idea and I rather don't want to make those people sad that signed up. I almost never mind sharing my noms ... because it makes people engaged, involved, because they get engaged in the FP process, they became interested. Because it is a cooperative project. Feel free to suggest rules for the co-noms and I will be happy to follow.  I guess it is kinda sad thing going on like this. Who do you want to remove? Poor Corinne who only had 5 nominations? She is of no threat for anyone. Or Atsme who only had one single star? You can't really remove me because I worked hard and Herald because it was his idea.  Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates.--Godot13 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind taking my name off as a nominator if that will help promote the images. I have a question: two images have been removed because of quality issues. If better quality images for those two paintings are found, couldn't they be re-added? Would that make it more of a set? CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Also, I don't think it's quite fair that you make this about "sharing" or not sharing. Clearly, based on comments above, the idea was to present this nomination as a done deal with the five+ votes locked up as co-nominators. I don't want to remove anyone, but when you bring that up in the context of how few FP nominations that others have, I think you're missing the point. My background is in academia, where publishing papers with co-authors is a big part of the focus. That is probably why I have a strong reaction to handing out co-nom positions unless they've been earned. Please do not confuse that with not wanting to share. Unrelated to the nominator situation, I'm sorry to say that with all the crap I took last year about sets and what's required, this is not a complete set, so per J Milburn, I have to Oppose. This is based entirely on the set issue, nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godot13 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2015‎
 * YES; I think it is. I think it is being generous or not. I with that I am ready to WITHDRAW this nom from my part and I am out of this LOW_LEVEL discussion. Do whatever you want. I AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED WITH YOU GUYS OPPOSING IT for the reasons you brought up. And MY background is in academia as well. You don't seems to realize that we need good faith editors on the project, that we have rules agaist biting newbies (Atsme), that the project is indeed collaborative, that we need editors wo participate and above all where would I have been today if I didn't got help from Crisco and all the other editors under my years on Wiki? Nowhere. It may be that some have this lone -wolf mentality but I DON*T MIND sharing and this is exactly what I still think. You everyone who are against this go ahead and close the nom and chuck it.  Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the reasons we brought up? Sets which can be completed (e.g., the number of banknotes in a specified series, restored constellation star charts, the number of paintings by a famous artist on a given subject) and have an established total number (or scope) are incomplete unless all are represented. Perhaps smaller sets are possible with a modified scope. Exceptions might exist for objects that were known to have been produced, but are unknown to exist. Please remember, I am a proponent of well constructed image sets and want to see them flourish. But is has to be a real set, not handpicked example that represents part of a set. I think we all want more good faith editors on the FP project. Mentor them. What was learned here? Provide a signature as a co-nom and pick up lots of stars. Rules against biting newbies? First off, I don't think I've bitten anyone (if I am missing something, anyone please point it out to me), and I've never even referred to Atsme or contacted them. It is clear that you are upset about this, but please, stop and think about what you are saying.--Godot13 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WELL; you have bitten ME enough. I am out of here. Have fun. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ???--Godot13 (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * * NOMINATION WITHDRAWN FROM MY SIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISCUSSION ON Featured picture candidates/A collection of paintings of that strange wild man who roamed the fields of Provence - I an not paticipating in this low-level project any more. The others may decide for themselfes. Good luck with that lone-wolf Wikicup. Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to say a few things. First, it is clear that there were two different objections to this nomination. The first one that User:GamerPro64 raised was that if a group of five editors makes a group nomination, and five votes are needed to promote an image, the promotion is kind of a foregone conclusion. GamerPro64 said that was "not fair". There was a little discussion on that issue, and then the second main objection arose, namely, that this group of Van Gogh images is not a complete set. However, I believe that GamerPro64's statement that a nomination by a group of five is not fair began an emotional reaction that the second issue only fanned. I think it should be understood that the nominators did not have instant promotion in mind when we nominated this group of images. I'm not sure why User:Hafspajen and User:The Herald decided to do a co-nomination, inviting some of their fellow editors to join in, or why they decided to nominate a large group of images. I'm new to this, so I was just glad to join in. (I don't know much about photographic image quality, but I'm glad to learn. By participating in WP FP, I have been learning, and I'd like to learn more. I do, however, have a degree in Fine Arts, so I can say something about the images.)


 * One good thing that has come out of this is the discussion on the FP talk page about establishing rules for group nominations that would require more votes in relation to the number of co-nominators. I think one reason User:Hafspajen has become so upset is that there has been some implication that the co-nominators did not make this nomination in a good faith spirit, and were engineering a foregone promotion, which is definitely not the case. Also, it seems that there have been no established rules for sets of images. So we're dealing with two new issues, co-nominations by more than two editors, and what constitutes a set of images, both raised by this co-nomination.


 * Regarding User:Godot13's mention of his/her experience publishing papers with co-authors in a university setting, where each co-author is expected to earn the right to have his or her name on the publication by completing some research, I think there is a difference here at FP. While WP articles are written carefully so as to ensure that statements are based on reliable sources, this FP nominations process is both less rigorous than academic publishing and is open to editors who may be new to this process. Godot 13, you wrote, "That is probably why I have a strong reaction to handing out co-nom positions unless they've been earned." I don't understand how you think editors are supposed to earn a star. Perhaps you mean finding or uploading a quality image, and then nominating it. But if two editors work together to nominate an image, how can you evaluate what each editor did? And the same with three editors. WP is all about collaboration. Why would you discourage a group of editors who has worked together on something by objecting that "because there are so many of you, I can't figure out what work you have done, so you don't all deserve a star." You also wrote, "Provide a signature as a co-nom and pick up lots of stars." Earning another star is not important to me. What is important to me is just participating in the process of selecting quality images of great art or photographs. Would you ideally like to limit participation at FP to editors who have a background in photography or a degree in art history? Just as editors are not required to demonstrate their credentials before making edits to articles, editors with a variety of backgrounds and skill levels have been allowed to nominate and vote on FP images. Just as in general editing on WP, editors who participate here can learn. The more one participates, the more one learns. Hafspajen has actually been very generous in teaching me and others about images; I have learned a lot, and I hope to learn more. Hafspajen got me interested in participating on FP nominations.


 * Finally, I think that in response to this co-nomination, some editors did not acknowledge the good faith spirit in which Hafspajen and The Herald gathered the images and organized the co-nomination. No one can deny that this is a spectacular group of images. A little less criticism and a few gentler, more constructive suggestions might have avoided Hafs' taking the opposition personally and becoming upset. CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I do something wrong? I honestly did not expect stuff to escalate to this. GamerPro64  23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GamerPro64 - IMO, you did nothing wrong. You spoke your mind. @User:CorinneSD- I did acknowledge Hafs in the discussion on my talk page. My error was in not also acknowledging The Herald (but it was a conversation between Hafs and me). I am well aware of the difference between academia and Wikipedia. I was not attacking Hafs (as, I think, the discussion on my talk page shows) but rather was having some shots taken at me for being a voice of opposition. The two issues are rather separate. There will always be judgement call involved in what constitutes a set, but completeness within a given scope has (I believe) never been questioned. That is my issue with this set: it is incomplete. About the number of nominators- when a hypothetical question is posed about having five co-nominators, and such an FPC then being promoted on the spot, the response was "Oh yeh..We had that in our mind", it does raise an eyebrow (see the discussion linked to this quote) and mysteriously one of the co-nominator's signatures is dated before the nomination was made . I'm not assuming bad faith, just that the nom was not handled well. When I speak my mind (and keeping it on my talk page was my first choice), inferences to a lack of generosity are followed by references to the WikiCup, which end with comments about being a "lone-wolf" and some references to ego... and I was being critical?--Godot13 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you quoted me as saying "because there are so many of you, I can't figure out what work you have done, so you don't all deserve a star.", could you please refresh my memory as to when and where I said that?--Godot13 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * O day untowardly turned! Well then. I TAKE ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY ON MY HEAD (BEING THE IDEA'S PROMOTER) AND REQUEST HAFS TO COME BACK, PLEASE J Milburn, I can't possibly find still why you are opposing the nomination. Is it just because you can't possibly find all the wheat-field pictures OR you hate to have credit of the noms to diverge and go to many? It was me and Hafs who were actually involved in it in the beginning and then we thought to include Atsme (whom I have adopted unofficially) and CorinneSD, a Van-goh fan. Thay accepted the nomination AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PAINTINGS and said a green signal. Does it mean that we should never think new ideas? Certainly not. Godot, Hafs only want to give an example to J Milburn that it is not the first time you have huge sets and nothing else. Hafs, just think over the issue by keeping calm. - The Herald (here I am) 09:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Herald, you appear to be confused. I don't give two shits about a large number of FP "credits" going to lots of people- I have never said that. (My concern with the multiple nominators - which, to clarify, was a small concern, and not the reason I opposed this nomination; I added it in brackets as an afterthought on my comment - is the possibility of people planning ahead and trying to push nominations through by getting together a lot of supporters before a nomination has even begun. I have no view on whether that happened here or not, and, indeed, it's not particularly important- it remains a worry nonetheless. ) The reason I opposed this nomination was that this does not actually seem to be a full or coherent set, and there does seem to be the legitimate possibility that some images are worthy or promotion while others aren't; the fact that someone opposed some of the images reinforces that view, while the fact that these were subsequently removed from the "set" (with very little fanfare) reinforces the view that this is not really a coherent set, but just an assortment ("collection") of pictures relating to a particular topic. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was NOT OVERREACTING. I am calm enough to know what I am doing. If I am not allowed to share this nomination with Herald, and  I am not interested to have any of it myself. In that case  I am withdrawing each and every nomination from this process and I quit from this process. I am not participating any more if this is the way you want it. In that case all this is just worthless and no point in participating in it further.  I don't feel I did anything wrong either. You spoke your mind, I do so to. .Hafspajen (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Also, I don't think it's quite fair that you make this about 'sharing' or not sharing. Clearly, based on comments above, the idea was to present this nomination as a done deal with the five+ votes locked up as co-nominators. I don't want to remove anyone, but when you bring that up in the context of how few FP nominations that others have, I think you're missing the point. My background is in academia, where publishing papers with co-authors is a big part of the focus. That is probably why I have a strong reaction to handing out co-nom positions unless they've been earned. Please do not confuse that with not wanting to share. Unrelated to the nominator situation, I'm sorry to say that with all the crap I took last year about sets and what's required, this is not a complete set, so per J Milburn, I have to Oppose. This is based entirely on the set issue, nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godot13 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2015‎"
 * Note: copying 's comment below, which was included in the section I hatted, as a vote was recorded (my apologies for not noticing it). SagaciousPhil  - Chat 17:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)