Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stade Français playing Racing Club de France

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 11:21:04 (UTC)

Original – Stade Français playing Racing Club de France from a 1906 calendar

Reason: A fine example of early-20th-century sporting artwork. First nomination failed to reach quorum, with no issues raised.
Articles in which this image appears: Stade Français, Racing 92, Georges Scott, Pierre Guillemin
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport, probably?
Creator: Georges Scott restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just find (and I suspect, given the last nomination, some people feel the same) that the picture itself is pretty uninspiring. I'm also not convinced that there's oodles of EV. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like we have a huge amount of early football pictures to choose from. Football history is a legitimate subject. . Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course football history is a legitimate subject, and I'll take your word for it that we don't have a lot of early football pictures to choose from. But that's not really the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with the above, but I will vote this way. I don't really see the EV as well. There is no page for the painting, and the pages it is found in do not make too much sense. If you want to illustrate the rugby team, a photograph would be more relevant. It is also in a player's page, but the image doesn't specify which player is him. I don't see what is gained by having (a rather bland) painting instead of a clear photograph, sorry. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: You're presuming the existence of photographs, though, which probably don't exist. 1906 is probably way too early for cameras to do action shots, so, you're basically voting this down because you'd rather have something thatcannot possibly exist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For which page specifically? I offered different reasons why this image doesn't really offer EV in any of the pages it's currently found. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)+[reply]

It's the only illustration of historic uniform in Stade Français, for example. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're moving the target. Do you want this to be judged as an action shot or as an image of a historic uniform? We could surely have a much, much better image for showing historic uniform, and I'm not sure we urgently need an action shot... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not: It's valuable on many fronts, and I cannot possibly fathom your response. We don't have colour photographs of the uniform from this period. Obviously. We don't have documentation of the state of the fields, of historic rugby football, or a number of other things, except for this image - and yet it somehow lacks EV. Even if this image is just a nice historic illustration, it gives a lot of incidental information about what rugby was like at the time, and is thus valuable; that it's fairly unique in doing so makes it more so, not less. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and, especially in this case, there's a lot of incidental information in this image that a thousand words will never convey. For example, that one could wear a non-uniform cap; the depiction of a tackle; the shoes; the state of the field; the rugby ball; the colours of the uniforms; the style of them, seen from a variety of angles - all these are useful for anchoring a reader. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments above. I've mulled it over, and I'm not convinced. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I've reached the conclusion I have, and I'm not the only person who has reached a similar conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree; harrying opposers (and borderline twisting my words- I have neither claimed nor insinuated that football history is not a legitimate topic) just comes across as a chilling technique. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, that was rude. I just don't understand the idea that historic imagery, particularly the only historica imagery in an article, not giving EV. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can clarify? What specific encyclopedic entry does this provide EV for? It's in 4 pages at the moment. One is for a player that may or may not be illustrated in this image (so no EV there), the second is for the artist, but it's buried in the gallery among others (no EV there), and then it's in 2 modern teams where a photograph would be better. I agree with the above, if you want to illustrate historic uniform then a photograph would be better, if you want to talk about the "action", well none of the 4 pages actually talks about the historical aspect of the action, so I have to agree, I don't see any EV. Mattximus (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: But the modern teams are also historic teams. It's in their articles history sections. Further, there wouldn't be any historic photos from this period in colour, which really puts a damper on any historic photos of uniforms. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]