Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Patrick Rothfuss

Patrick Rothfuss
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2014  at 21:40:41 (UTC)
 * Reason:A portrait with oodles of character from Kyle Cassidy, a noted photographer. As it happens, we already had a good portrait of Rothfuss when I uploaded this one, but Cassidy tells me that Rothfuss wasn't a fan.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Patrick Rothfuss
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
 * Creator:Kyle Cassidy


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Slightly average composition (too tight at the top IMO) but otherwise, plenty of character as mentioned already. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — I was fascinated to read that Patrick Rothfuss "lives in a house." I can say the same! Sca (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support although I echo Diliff's concerns. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- What's with the halo around the head? Sanyambahga (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's an intentional brightening of the area around the head for 'artistic effect'. I don't particularly like it, but nor does it spoil the portrait IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I suspect it deliberate darkening of the concrete wall leaving only natural lighter background around the head. Not sure why this darkening has yellowed the background on the right side. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose I am in much the same mind as on this.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like a better pic. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the responses here, I've contested 's change and reverted back to the old photo (meaning that this FPC is no longer in the article). It is quite possible that Patrick Rothfuss doesn't like that image, and I'm glad that he's decided to release another one under a free license, but there seems to be a number of concerns with the candidate picture.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The concerns with the candidate picture are artistic in nature, namely the intentional 'vignette' and a tight crop. These are not technical concerns and not something that bring into question the legitimacy of the image... Remember that opposing a picture here doesn't mean opposing its use in the article, it means opposing it being featured. I don't think the image you reverted back to is better in any case. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Diliff (and I have reverted you). The combination of the startled look and the fact Mr. Rothfuss is looking away from the text on the old image make it less than ideal, and the fact he himself doesn't like the image is another good reason to prefer this one. Of course, you don't have to pretend it's worse than the previous image to offer a good faith oppose. J Milburn (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not pretending anything. To me, this image is worse than the one that was there before. From an encyclopedic value standpoint, I find this image much less worthwhile. The badly executed pseudo-religious iconography thing makes me loathe to see the image in use in an article.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just plain offensive. There's no need to attack the photographer just because he's not here. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, I'll assume you are meaning to actually present an argument, so here's why I feel your argument doesn't hold water: I can't see any attempt at any "pseudo-religious iconography" in this image, so I am unclear what you feel is badly executed. What I see is a portrait with charm and character, with lighting carefully used to draw the viewer to the subject's face. Others are unsure about that lighting choice, and that seems like a fair concern to have, but it's not a concern I share. As for the other picture: I find the expression less than ideal, and, while the size and good and the background appropriate, I get the impression that the subject was surprised by the photographer. Again, the fact that the subject is less than happy with that image (something which, in the case of a BLP, we have to consider) and the fact that this image faces the text (which is, whatever other users choose to believe, actually mentioned in the MOS) also serve to suggest that it's less than ideal. That one would not have a chance at FPC, yet there have been several users supporting this one here. That, surely, should give you a reason to pause before supporting the use of your preferred image in the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Neither image is perfect but I prefer the other as it seems fresher (if I can use that word), less staged and composed more appropriately. The looking at text bit is less than convincing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You call my policy-based argument "less than convincing", but expect us to accept your assertion that one image is "fresher"? Pull the other one. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't stuff a guideline in my face as policy. I might have given you the courtesy of explaining myself better if you had asked, but as usual people would rather attack than seek understanding. Moreover, I don't care what you accept, but you will have to accept the oppose :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Guideline, policy, who cares? You're just making empty, wishy-washy claims, that's the point. I don't need your "courtesy", I don't need your vague accusations of violence, and I certainly don't "have to" accept anything from you- you've opposed, for dubious reasons. Fine- whatever helps you sleep at night. But don't accuse me of using crappy reasoning when I'm not. That's what I object to. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what you are doing is trying to invalidate legitimate complaints through high school debate tactics. You are taking this way too personal and I suspect it is because of your relationship to those who provided it. Regardless, even if we get past which image is better I would offer neither is worthy of FP status. In this case you have been presented with concerns over the composition, the lighting, the dullness and the stiff pose. I could go on. However, the point is these reasons are indeed at the root of the rationale for the opposes. They aren't dubious reasons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can I fail to take it personally when you're accusing me of "high school debate tactics"? That is about as dismissive as it comes. You have made it personal by dismissing my comments in the flippant way that you have (repeatedly). I'm sure that there are perfectly good reasons to oppose this image, and I'm not going to be upset if people are opposing for those reasons (and, if useful, I'm happy to discuss those reasons). I have made quite clear what it is that I object to (your dismissive comments towards me, and another user's dismissive comments towards the image's creator) and neither of these things are people opposing this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull the other one... Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think that you need to take a step back, and cease commenting on this FPC. Your responses to Saffron Blaze and myself are completely out of line, and, as Saffron said, you are taking this way too personally. I'm not going to engage with you any further on this, and I suggest that Saffron do the same, because at this point the window for constructive discussion seems to be shut.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Human, all too human. Sca (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in my view on Sven's comment is welcome to check his talk page. I agree that there is no chance of any further constructive discussion, and I think the people responsible knew precisely what they were doing. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You attacked two good faith opposes in a confrontational way and now act hurt that they stood their ground. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 22:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)