Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2012 at 01:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Man sleeping on a sidewalk
This image is excellent, among the best I've seen for a long time. That is why, in drawing attention to it, it could trigger multiple legal problems for the firm of beer. the fundamental problem is that COMMONS assume risk. And I love COMMONS. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great argument (and I appreciate your selfless contributions to the Commons); but we have to protect our right to fight against the evil. If we can’t fight to protect the common people what is the meaning in protecting the Commons. I’m happy if this type of works can do some harm to such brands that filled their pockets with stolen money of the poor and ignorant. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose...And the wooden mast(?), at left, is disturbing (composition issue).--Jebulon (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Opposition removed with the pole...--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus, well, you and other opposed because the name of the file was misleading... here it is not, a man taking a nap... @Jebulon, pole removed... I really don´t have a problem with opposes, just as long as they are done within the criteria of this forum. There are clear guidelines about the parameters for featurable pictures and I believe this has several that make it a viable candidate. A pretty picture? Definitely not. A valuable image that clearly illustrates a social problem? Definitely yes. Acceptable photographic technique? I say yes, but my opinion there may be tainted, so I leave that up to the community. To oppose on grounds or principles outside the established criteria is like punishing a soccer player according to violations of basketball. Otherwise, the whole issue is a joke. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valuable image that clearly illustrates a social problem? Definitely yes. Dear Tomascastelazo, I strongly disagree. Where do you see that this man is drunk ? And how do you can assume that if this man is drunk, it is due to abuse of "Corona" beer ? In my opinion, and it is not a drama (you know I like your style of pictures), nothing is "clear" here. Could smell like an (efficient) intellectual manipulation, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Jebulon, I agreed that the original title was perhaps misleading, so I changed the name of the file to something inequivocal: the man is sleeping on the sidewalk. Nowhere do I say that the man is drunk, only that he is sleeping on the sidewalk. Now, to state that the man is not on some sort of social/economic/health problem would be foolish. A picture is a thousand words, and this picture speaks for thousands and thousands of people around the world, in similar conditions. We citizens of the western world see this problem and refuse to deal with it, proof of it is that it exists everywhere, if we were to spend a fraction of our military money on improving these conditions, maybe this picture would not happen. The real obscenity is not this man or this picture, it is that despite all the resources that we have, we allow this to happen. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- A high quality documentary photo leaving space for individual interpretation. This should be featured. However, some users here are afraid of their or others' individual interpretations. Therefore, I am not sure, whether Commons is "advanced" enough in these terms or rather promotes landscapes and animals. We will see... Nevertheless, a great one! --Taraxacum (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. It is a pity that Commons only accept ugly bugs (like mine), sculptures of the dead and boring landscapes. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Jebulon, can there be a true story in photography? Any photograph at most will only tell a partial truth, but is the rest untrue? What is true or untrue about this photograph? In photography, the instant that the camera clicks, will only capture partial reality, and tell a story, and at the same time will leave out elements that may contradict the story... The questions here that must be answered are: does it contribute to the graphic description of human behaviour? Of substance abuse? Is it a good photograph from the technical perspective such as exposure, composition, etc.? If we are to question the validity of the illustration intentions of every photograph, how many would we have? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The above template is out of line for it is not based on the image violating any of the guideliness and expresses only the personal opinion of Yikrazuul. Since I cannot remove the template, I request that an administrator look into this issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ximonic (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am unclear as to the objection on basis of representing truth. This image depicts a truth. I have no doubt in my mind there are many people sleeping on the streets after drinking themselves into a stupor on beer (even Corona beer). 131.137.245.206 14:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This re-nomination does not fall within our guidelines, compare FPC talk page. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No problem with the motif, since the man is not identifiable. But I don't see enough WOW and encyclopedic usefulness for an FP though... - A.Savin 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Honestly, this is cheap way to create emotional photo. Everyone has a story but misery always seems to be more photogenic... at least to wealthy people like most of us are I assume (when one can afford a DSLR, an Internet connection, and has time to contribute, I believe his essential needs are satisfied). Many could shot this, but not everyone dare intruding into people's intimacy and sharing to the world like that. That said, the composition is nice. And the face is barely identifiable (if identifiable at all). All this for a neutral ;-) (lots of blabbering for nothing in the end...) - Benh (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment And given that there can be cheap critiques despite the capacity to offer an objective photographic and intellectual opinion, the question is, does this picture illustrate a social phenomena or not, aligned with the objectives and scope of Commons? Does this photograph have artistic, technical, descriptive and photographic merit? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it does. I talked about composition as a reason for neutral instead of oppose. I mainly mention ethical issues here as downsides (but they are much better summarized by Colin in his deletion request). I wouldn't even dare pointing my lens at him. And when I have nice picture of people, I think twice before even uploading. You can't really talk about objective opinions, which by definition are subjective... I gave mine and I think I took the time to justify it. - Benh (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Malice or not, the process has been tampered with. Your comment below is irrelevant to this process and editorializes your oppose, (your oppose is fine if done within the scope of this forum). However, venting and linking two issues here is inappropriate, corrupting this process. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As others have commented, the filename change has merely moved an explicit insult (that an identifiable man is drunk, and Corona are part of the general problem) to an implicit one that is blatant given the framing and ironic small-print on the advert. Whether this new file is troublesome enough to get deleted is uncertain, as the deletion review of the first is still underway and by no means unanimous. So the issues remain, and these issues significantly lower its value to the project (which is a criterion) in my opinion. Colin (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment How can good faith be assumed now that after many hours of pointing out that the linking of the two files basically result on tampering with both the FPC process and the DR process and the redirect has not been removed? Compromising the integrity and honesty of this forum is a high price to pay for wanting to see a picture removed from Commons. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, who exactly are you acusing of "Compromising the integrity and honesty of this forum". With hindsight, uploading a duplicate file with a different name, while the deletion review is underway, has resulted in problems. I don't believe you did this to game the system (as some accuse) nor do I believe the resulting cock-up with redirects was a "dirty" act as you accuse. Why are you complaining on this forum (I'm no admin, for example, so there's nothing I can do to help) rather than asking another admin to review that admin's edits and camly request the redirect/delete be undone. If there's a consensus that this FPC has been damaged by the mistake, then we can run a fresh one once the deletion review has finished. At present File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg is deleted and is a redirect page. So it can't possibly become an FP. What are you going to do about that? Colin (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is irrelevant as to who. The fact of the mater is whomever it was screwed the photographer over. The intent was to upload a new file with a less contentious name but instead that file gets deleted and re-directed to the contentious one. I would suggest the author simply request a file name change as opposed to adding a new file. 131.137.245.209 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ Colin: Whoever deleted the file and redirected it, conscious or not, crossed two different unrelated processes. Whether it has done good or bad it is impossible to tell, but it seems to serve the interests of wanting the original file deleted, and damaging the chances of nomination of this image. One clear result is that both separate processes have been tampered with, losing the objectivity and the integrity of both processes. This vote is corrupted, and doing nothing, being quiet about it is being an accomplice of such corruption. Too bad. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only person who is "doing nothing, being quiet about it" is, effectively, you! You're moaning here to folk who can do absolutely nothing about it and are getting tired of your continued accusations of bad faith actions. I've tried contacting the admin who did the delete/redirect. You haven't. I've suggested you contact some other admin but you haven't. This is your nomination and these are your files. If you want something done about the problems, go find someone who can help. And I warn you that an admin might view your continued bad-faith accusations very poorly. Colin (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Colin, it was you that started the whole mess with your DR, the redirect of this file serves the purpose of the DR (which by the way the trend is to keep). A lot of the players from this forum jumped over to that one and viceversa, contaminating each process. As simple as that. This vote was tampered with any way you want to look at it. I brought it to the attention of the public because I believe that these issues have to see the public light. Objectivity was lost here. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question -- I'm breaking the self-imposed interaction ban with Tomascastelazo to ask a candid question: why wasn't the file renamed yet in accordance with the uploader's request? I'm trying hard to assume good faith but if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Caesar's wife must be above suspiction! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Alvesgaspar. I restored the file and suppressed the redirect. Yann (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Man_sleeping_on_a_sidewalk.jpg&oldid=76895352"