Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mike Godwin

Mike Godwin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 14:32:58 (UTC)

Reason: This could prove a fairly problematic nomination, but the quality is high, the composition is compelling (a landscape portrait makes you look twice...) and the image is used well. As regulars here will probably know, I'm a big supporter of modern portraits, and I think this one would be a great addition to our gallery.
Articles in which this image appears: Mike Godwin, Godwin's law, Cyber Rights
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Lane Hartwell on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concluding that we should not feature this on the main page as per WP:SELF.

~~Oppose~~ Yes. It is a nice portrait. Perhaps it might be a nice addition to the FP gallery. But are we to have Wikipedia’s main page feature, for 24 straight hours, an image pertaining to an article about a living attorney and author? I can’t see that the portrait is sooooo darned excellent that it merits free advertising. Greg L (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to go on the main page, if it is deemed that it would be inappropriate- that's certainly been done before (nudity and "ew"-factor, for instance). However, there is certainly no precedent for it with regards to "advertising"- we feature lots of articles about video games, books, authors, musicians and so on. Equally, we have FPs of musicians- I don't really see how showing a picture of an academic author/high-flying attorney is going to leave us open to accusations of spamming. If the quality and EV are there, this should be promoted- your arguments are not really based on our criteria. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I half agree. Indeed, my reasoning is not founded on the FP criteria. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. And here’s the part where I half agree with you: You cited where FPs hadn’t been on the main page because of nudity and "ew"-factor, for instance. Yet, neither of those attributes are cited in the FP criteria as a basis for not putting the image on the main page. So “ew”-factor is an example where WP:COMMONSENSE steps in. I don’t see why “free advertising” for someone who is serving as general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation can’t be an equally valid basis for thinking it inappropriate for this to be on the main page. I don’t see the need to be needlessly constrained when it comes to doing The Right Thing.©™® I think this is a great portrait (though it looks more like the “academic”-type portraits more suitable for mathematicians and scientists). Greg L (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah- those are our criteria for getting pictures to featured status, not our criteria for getting things on the main page- that's down to Howcheng (talk · contribs), so that would be where our common sense "not really appropriate" thing would come in (in fact, we have a FP of Jimbo- I'm not sure if that one has/will see the light of day). I'm not overly concerned if it doesn't get its chance to shine- I'd much rather see a pretty mushroom, or one of the images to which I am more personally attached, but I do think it deserves its place as a FP. In short- you can oppose the use of this on the main page without opposing it for FP status, which is ultimately what this discussion is about. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very well. I love the picture. I think, however, it is impractical to have Support (full privileges) mixed with Support (conditionally, no main page) and Support (I hope Howcheng does the right thing); identifying a true consensus could prove elusive. If this nomination were re-cast only in terms of FP-status but no free advertising for a Web-published living attorney, I can certainly vote “support.” Greg L (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is precedent for keeping it from the main page: File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg was kept off, citing WP:SELF. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with proviso that is kept off main page per WP:SELF. Greg L (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your arguments convincing- I agree that this should be kept off the main page. (On another note, we should stop this agreeing thing before it kicks off. We don't want to set a trend.) J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: <smile> Greg L (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Despite the concerns about WP:SELF, Godwin also has EV for his famous law, and I think many netizens would be pleased to see the picture of its author. He is unevenly lit in this picture so only weak support. Fletcher (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Quality seems OK, but I'm not overly sold on it. Does anyone know what's on the whiteboard or whatever it is behind him? I can't help but be drawn to that, but does it have any relevance to him? --jjron (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't know; you could ask him, or perhaps the uploader (who I did notify about this discussion). It is a posed shot, but I don't think the photographer would have considered the contents of the noticeboard important. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was wondering if it was relevant, say like that famous Einstein portrait with the blackboard, as otherwise it's rather a distraction. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah- I'm afraid I simply don't know. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with no concerns about use. No preference for or against either version. I don't mind the lighting, I think it adds interest to this fine portrait. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see it kept off the main page, per above; but this is a fine portrait, certainly, so also happy to support. AGK 11:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 out of the necessary 5 supports. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]