Alexz Johnson

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 09:47:07 (UTC)

Reason

Another digged-out portrait. Superb quality and good composition, although I better know Final Destination 3 than other films she starred in

Articles in which this image appears

Alexz Johnson, Jude Harrison

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Epitome Pictures

• Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 09:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. She's in character here, is she? That should probably be made clear- I'd argue it has more value for the character article than for her own, though I know there are people who would rather see this kind of portrait in actor bios anyway. In any case, she's not in-character as anything too outlandish. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I see her role appearance here is not much different from that in the real life: [1] vs.[2] Twilightchill t 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per WP:SPAM. This image is used for illustrating the article “Alexz Johnson”. Having such an article—and the picture therein—for those readers who seek out her article is an entirely separate issue from helping Epitome Pictures advertise this artist by plastering one of their publicity photos for 24 hours on the Main Page as Today’s Featured Picture. Besides, Epitome Pictures’ boosting the blue channel and attenuating the red to obtain this color cast isn’t what I consider fine photography; it lends a “moody” note but a color-adapted eye wouldn’t see it this way—that freight elevator is painted blue. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, basically I agree, but the image shows exactly what an actor/actress is supposed to do - acting, especially amid lack of her real-life free photos. Would wait for more feedback before possible withdrawal though. Twilightchill t 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, don’t withdraw based largely on my opinion. My anti-SPAM views in this regard are not embraced by everyone who frequents this joint. Greg L (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's largely disgusting TV commercials, that annoy me :) I'd add that a role-playing shots certainly have no less EV than the real-life ones as you won't find freely licensed movie screenshots. Twilightchill t 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Original Only Lovely portrait picture. I see it's EV and no issues concerning SPAM for me. JFitch (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this image reminds me that I am a guy. One of the few at FPC. Frogs and fungi don't do it for me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that how you say such a thing politely? I thought my reaction of “This picture makes me feel fuuuuuuuny” would be unbecoming. Greg L (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors are human, and there's no requirement that we psychologically castrate ourselves before commenting at WP:FPC. Sexuality is part of the beauty of life; I oppose any effort to portray sexuality, or at least male heterosexuality, as inherently juvenile or disgusting. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a flattering picture of her and I support either the original or edit 2. I don't know what color Betty Davis' eyes are, but this woman his nice (and maybe Betty Davis) eyes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent image of a beautiful actress. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original because I don't think the superficial beauty of the subject should enter into our decision to feature an image. Ugly people are just as featurable if they're notable (and FPC isn't the place to decide on notability). This image also carries the scent of a fairly major colour cast -> wb correction needed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might violate you sense of fair-play and all-things-humanity, but ugly people aren’t as eye-catching as pretty people—that’s why they’re called “pretty.” “Eye-catching” is a critical element of FPC criteria. Greg L (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iconic photographs: [3] [4] [5]. Eye-catching, well-executed, and of people that are not, at first glance, particularly attractive. An accomplished light painter can make a beautiful work out of any subject. Sebastião Salgado's is a good example of this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. (Your very good) point taken. Fine photographs can be had of ordinary looking people. But having beauty can certainly enter into a judgement of an image; beauty sorta goes with the territory and is a component of what makes people stop, stare & click when presented with a photograph. People like looking at attractive people. They even did experiments where chimps chose to “pay” with significant portions of daily food rations at a photo juke box of sorts for the privilege of staring at photos of chimps that had high social standing. This phenomenon is in our genes. Peter Karlsen’s point is that we just accept this as part of our innate humanity and get over feeling guilty about it because it’s *dirty* or somehow *unfair*. Greg L (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure where guilt was being advocated and by whom, but I also think that we should cook our meat and use condoms, so maybe we can evolve in other ways, too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Evolve to where humans don’t prefer and enjoy looking at pictures of pretty people vs. ugly people? (????)… (I mean… really… WTF???). That would be somewhere between the heat death of the universe and infinity. In the mean time, there will be millions of frustrated liberals who fancy themselves as being enlightened beyond all comprehension who won’t like that. Like they say in the military: “So sad – Too bad.” Go with the flow dude; you’ll enjoy life more along the way if you accept things the way they are and forever will be. There will always be guys who hold the doors open for women. And there will always be guys who let go of the door a half second too soon so it hits the fat gals in the butt on the way in. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I assume that you would support your edited version of the image -- unless of course "the superficial beauty of the subject" makes a image of excellent technical quality and of a notable person non-featurable. I notice that you downscaled the image when changing the colour balance, which usually isn't necessary since the MediaWiki software will dynamically generate images of any reasonable resolution requested. As the image has an effective resolution of at least 50% of the size at which it was uploaded, downscaling to 30% of the original resolution is effectively discarding quality. Featured images should have as high an effective resolution as possible, within the file size limits for uploads. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. As far as I know white balancing doesn't require downscaling, as any other retouchment, but anyway looks like a good proposition. Twilightchill t 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why it's called a "suggestion". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Policy" lol --I'ḏ♥One 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great and free portrait. No concerns for me. - Darwinek (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this is spam--in fact, I think a high-quality, professionally-done portrait released under an appropriate license is something we should very much encourage, and making this a featured pic might well help encourage that. On the other hand, the complaints about the color of the original are clearly valid, and the white-balanced suggestion is downscaled. If someone makes an equivalent white-balanced version at full-scale, then change this to support. Xtifr _tälk 19:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The white balance issues you have raised here aren't accurate. This is how the image was shot and processed. This is accurate to how the lighting and balance were setup by the photographer. Reprocessing the image to represent what you 'feel' it should look like in your mind is not acceptable. The photographer took the portrait with a warm feel to it and technically it is fine. JFitch (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has what's called a colour cast, which means that the colours aren't particularly suited to a colour display that in many cases is already limited in the colours it can show. Just as you wouldn't drink your tea through a straw filled with coffee beans (unless you're the sort of person that feels harrassed by the tea-or-coffee question and would rather not decide), you wouldn't try to get an impression of a notable person's features through thick yellow glasses. The encyclopaedic standard has always been a neutral white balance, except where the notability or EV stemmed from a deliberately shifted white balance, for instance where the image is of interest only because the photographer is famous for his use of colour filters, or where the image itself has already become iconic with a particular white balance. In all other situations, we correct the colours so that the image contains true whites, true blacks, true greys. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what a colour cast is and it's nothing like your analagy. Using your analgy again, what you've done here is been taken the tea and changed the leaves to ones that suit you. Also in your 'corrected' version you've either just Auto WB'd or gone too far manually, either way you've compensated to achieve natural lighting, which is inaccurate for this studio shot, even without a colourcast. Also looking through the FP's we have, there are many with stylised white balance JFitch (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I opposed or at least disagreed with several of those, but actually, none of them have a significant colour cast. This one does. And I'm old enough to remember changing film when moving indoors, to avoid unsightly white balances like this one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Full res edit uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree 100% with JFitch’s 22:27, 13 September post. We can’t be messing with the color cast of this publicity shot. That’s the shot in the article, that shot is precisely as the producer intended it, it shows the artist in the mood they prefer, that shot should stay in the article, so we can’t be advancing an alternative edit as the FPC. My “oppose” vote still stands for the reasons stated above. Greg L (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may apply to the article about the fictional character, but not the one about the actress. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of WP:MOSFICT the real person behind is more important (and not only because that character doesn't exist, but also because portrayals of fictional characters may vary from actor to actor). Twilightchill t 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're misapplying that guideline there; it's not about which subject is "more imortant", (for instance, which is more important, the character James Bond, or the actor Bob Holness who happened to play him in a minor radio series?) it's about how we discuss fictional content. We talk about things from a real-world perspective, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be illustrating aticles on fictional content with portrayals of said fictional content. As I said above, it would be unfair and misleading to lead an article on an actress with a picture of them in role unless it's made clear that that is them as someone else. I agree strongly with Greg and JFitch- this is a picture of the character; even if we're using it to illustrate the actress it remains a picture of the character, and it is not at all acceptable for us to be fiddling with that; it effectively equates to us changing what the character looks like. Unlike with photos of real people, there is not anything that this character really looks like, so we can't edit the picture to drag them closer to reality- they look like what the creators of the show tell us they look like. We wouldn't be changing the colours in a cartoon strip, would we? As such, strongly opposed to either or any edit. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support white balance edit or edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent portrait. --Priest zadok (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support white balance edit, the contrast on it is perfect; #2 overdoes it too much. Excellent photo in any of the 3. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support white balance edit or edit 2 only, oppose original: Colour cast on original looks awful. Don't buy that it "keeps it in character", nor do I care that it's "as the producer intended". This is not just their publicity shot any more. Maedin\^talk 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it's still their character, and who are we to tell them what the character actually looks like? J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This exactly. They present this charachter, we have the option of either supporting what we have, or opposing it. We have no right to edit this picture to something we like more. JFitch (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We certainly do have that right, that's why we require a license that grants the four freedoms - these include the freedom to alter the work and share the altered version. This image has been released under such a license (CC-BY-SA). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You miss the point. OK, technically obviously we have the right to alter images, and we use this to make things more technically correct. However as J Milburn said above, we have no right to decide what it should look like, they as creators have that right, we either support or oppose it. JFitch (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I couldn't disagree more. We've been editing images at FPC for many years. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I 100% agree with JFitch and JMilburn. Changing pictures shot by amateur volunteer contributors is an entirely different thing from changing a P.R. picture taken by a professional photographer and submitted by her P.R. firm; they know full well what they are doing and shouldn’t be second-guessed by anyone here.

              That image is used to illustrate the Jude Harrison article, which is a fictional character. The image is the way the P.R. firm wants to portray the actress and character. A small cabal of less than a half-dozen volunteer people who happened to have had nothing better to do than cybersquat at FPC this week have zero right to say “Tough, we don’t like the color cast of the picture and changed it to suit our tastes.” Such an attitude reeks of excess self-esteem. Greg L (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

              • We would be more legit to do so on most other publicity pictures- we could realistically say "ah, well, they've doctored it a bit, let's change it to what the subject really looks like" but what this character really looks like is what the production company says she does. Chnaging something here is not the equivalent of adjusting the colours of a photo to be more like life, it's the equivilent of adjusting the colours of an artistic work because we don't like them. We wouldn't change the colour of Peter Rabbit's coat, and so we shouldn't be fiddling with this photo if we want to be accurate and encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point has already been made that if we're using this to illustrate the real person (which we are, as the lede image!), the production argument is void. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)se I[reply]
                  • I switched myself to the notebook screen and the way it displays the unedited original is tolerable for me, most likely because I discern all four grey circles. Twilightchill t 08:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I assume you're referring to File:Gray contrast test image.svg, which says seeing four is too much. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes and my old PC monitor displayed the image terribly. But because people have various monitors, I understand your concerns. Twilightchill t 10:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • PLW, no, it isn't void, because the image is not her, even if we're using it to illustrate her, it's her in character- a suitable illustration for an actress. We should not hold up this picture and say "hey, look, it's Alexz Johnson!" We have to hold it up and say "hey, look, it's Alexz Johnson as Jude Harrison!" To further my comparison before, we wouldn't put forward the picture of Peter Rabbit and say "hey, look, it's a Rabbit!" J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Do I need to point out that you've just argued my side? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Once again you miss the point. Clear as I can put it now: The photograph is of a fictional charater. This photograph is also used to represent the actress, true, however this doesn't change the fact that the photograph is of a fictional character! JFitch (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • The photograph is used as the infobox image in the actress' article, and that's the wrong place for an image that is either badly done or deliberately altered to have a yellow cast, whatever the reason. Note that a cast is not necessarily the same as a colour balance choice - a yellow cast makes white yellow; colour balance changes can be made without affecting luminosity, so white can stay white while, for instance, giving warmer colours to the rest of the image (and likewise for black). With a colour cast, there is always a net loss of information in the image, and what information remains gets more difficult to access because it's being crammed into a smaller fraction of available colour space. All of these are undesirable characteristics for an encyclopedia image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Would you oppose a photograph from a noted photographer for this reason, when being used to show their work? Of course not- that would be a deliberate choice of the photographer, and of encyclopedic interest. Same here- we are promoting this as an image of the character, even if it is for the use in the article on the actress- we can't promote it as an image of the actress because it isn't one. We cannot just change the colouring of an image and then say "hey, now it's a picture of the actress, not the character!" any more than we can remove Peter Rabbit's coat in order to turn the illustration into a suitable one for rabbit. This is a photo of the character- we are all agreed on that- and yet, you have said yourself, it would be inappropriate to modify that for the article on the character. Why, then, would it be appropriate in the article on the actress, when it is still being used as a photograph of the character? J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Your views on Peter Rabbit are a little strange. You're arguing that we can't use Peter Rabbit, a falsified, estranged rabbit, to illustrate rabbit, yet you maintain that we can use a falsified, estranged picture of Alexz Johnson to illustrate her article. That's a direct contradiction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • No, I'm saying that we can't use "a falsified, estranged picture" to show Alexz Johnson, just as we couldn't use Peter Rabbit to show a rabbit- we can, however, most certainly use "a falsified, estranged picture" to show Alexz Johnson in character- big difference. The point is, the picture is of her in character, so it must be treated like a character portrait, not like a straight up portrait of Johnson herself. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Unless you're going to suggest that she turns a different colour when she's "in character", including a strange yellow glow that fills her environment (bioluminescence), I fail to see what the strange colour choice has to do with her being in character. In fact, the ability to enter a role for an accomplished actress should be independent of the environment she's in. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • It seems you are deliberately trying to miss the point here. It's quite clear and has been explained in many different ways. The Character doesn't exist, therefore the character can look however the creators feel, we have no right to decide what the character looks like the creators do, the creators provided this picture...therefore this is how she looks! Pretty simple really. Therefore we have no right to alter the image to what you 'think' it should look like, because what you think is wrong, and the creators are right. If you still don't understand read it again and again until you do. JFitch (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoted File:2099725 FreightElevator 135.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Tally: Support, Opposed - The majority seems to lean toward the original, I'm gonna close it because I think you guys have hashed this out enough, if I'm wrong contact me or just nominate this to delist and replace. --I'ḏ♥One 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think you're wrong - counting only specific supports or opposes:
    • Original: 1 supported (JFitch), 2 Opposed (Maedin, Papa)
    • Edit 1: 1 supported (Shadowjams)
    • Edits general: 3 supported (Maedin, Xtifr, Papa), 1 opposed (J Milburn)
  • It points to me to a promotion of edit 1 (four supports, one oppose) rather than original (1 support, 2 opposed). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting like that doesn't sit quite right to me. The voters had 10 days they could've specified which their support was for, but keeping there supports general it appears to me that they're ok with any version, which adds up to 8 votes applicable to the original. --I'ḏ♥One 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notice the original was explicitly unsupported by 4 (Shadowjams, Maedin, Papa, Xtifr). The edits had non-support from only J Milburn and JFitch. That makes it Edit 1. Maedin\^talk 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'ḏ♥One Had it right the first time. For all nominations here a vote of simply support is for the original. The way you are putting it you are trying to count support votes for the Alt's before the Alt's were even submitted. Thats just wrong. JFitch (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, sorry, a vote of support without clarification, when alts are available, indicates a lack of preference. There are only two open-ended supports from before edit 1 was added. And the nominator was active during the nomination and didn't clarify his vote, and also expressed happiness with the edit(s), so support for original and edits can easily be inferred from him. Maedin\^talk 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Screw it, moved to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Older_nominations_requiring_additional_input_from_users. Please specify which one so I can change everything if need be. --I'ḏ♥One 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. (I know the voting period is over, but I just wanted to express an alternate opinion on this image. Feel free to ignore it if you like.) This looks like a generic publicity shot of a B-list actress to me. These may be rare on Wikipedia, but they're a dime a dozen in the real world. What's so special about it? In 100 years when all the copyrights on a zillion glossy publicity photos have expired, are we going to feature them all? Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not, added you. --I'ḏ♥One 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We shouldn't be promoting based on numbers. The arguments have been made- the only person who has responded to those was PLW, who has, as usual, ignored the arguments, made ridiculous statements and generally got in everyone's way. Many of those who supported the edits clearly did so as a knee-jerk reaction without actually considering the implications. If we aren't going to promote the original, so be it, but the alts should not be used in the articles in any way, shape or form, so should not be promoted. Also, while you've been number crunching, you've completely ignored the fact that Greg has made clear his opposition is far stronger to the alts- he happened to not write "strong oppose" anywhere, so it doesn't count? J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already read everything you had to say on the subject by the time I made my oppose, and I made it clear that I disagreed. You had nothing further to reveal after that, and Papa argued for me just fine. The fact that I didn't respond is irrelevant. It is also not for you to say whether or not other voters made their decisions in a "knee-jerk" fashion. Has it not occurred to you that your opinion about a colour cast keeping an actress "in character" is ludicrous and that not everyone agrees with you? If they're so concerned about this being her image, the producers would have sprayed her with a fake tan by now and coloured her hair. We also do promote based on vote count, but as someone who doesn't close perhaps you hadn't realised. I haven't yet seen a persuasive argument for why the edited versions can't be used in the articles. And, one more thing, strong anything doesn't count. I know you like to do it, but it's meaningless. Maedin\^talk 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know you had read the arguments concerned; I was talking about others (who, I accept, may have done, but that I doubt). Also, yes, vote-counting does hold a lot of sway here (and strong/weak opposition/support, which I and others sometimes use, has been deemed to count differently; check the archives... And no, I don't often close, because I prefer to vote...) but that doesn't mean we should open our mouths, cross our eyes and count... J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, out of pure interest, have you ever disagreed with anything PLW's said? J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, bugger it, you have done the classic "omg ur rong shut up" and not actually explained why. Care to elaborate? Or are my "ludicrous" arguments not worth your precious time? J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Im Confused it says the first image is already a featured picture but the nomination isnt done yet. Spongie555 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. IdLoveOne closed it incorrectly and then didn't bother to fully revert the action. I've asked him about this, twice now, and no action is forthcoming on his part. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't wrong, I closed it according to the numbers and explained to you on my talk page that if people had come back to change their supports I was ready to shift the ((FeaturedPicture)) star. I'm sorry that the candidate image you picked lost but that's just the way the ball bounces sometimes and you should know that by now. I'm putting this in recently closed, I'd hope we could have a mature discussion and re-count but I see that that's not going to happen. If you still want to see the edit you prefer be the featured one just nominate that image at D&R. --I'ḏ♥One 08:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was clear preference for the edit after it was added. Please make the correct choice per our established practice. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And some users like J Milburn and J Fitch came out and changed their votes specifically for and only for the original and there are 5 general votes that were obviously originally meant for the original. Common sense tells you that if those users didn't like the original they wouldn't have voted on it or would just have opposed it to begin with. --I'ḏ♥One 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're wrong about this, and Maedin has already told you that. The instructions specifically say that Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. and it has been established in previous discussion that if reviewers do not change their votes, that means they're happy with any version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, then it could be 8 to 7, it still reminds though that by that same argument it could be 8 supports to the original and still only 4 for an edited version. --I'ḏ♥One 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, that doesn't follow at all. Use your sense of logic please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd demonstrated in the chart, and here's no 'biased picture of debate,' that's why I added the dagger and note. J Fitch and I both already explained that a basic "support" is originally meant for the original version, not that I mind this use of a technicality you're using PLW. --I'ḏ♥One 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We've pointed out that that's hollow. Check out again what the instructions say. I was helping you by actually posting it verbatim at 10:02. Did you read it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I repeat: That is a technicality. My point was, still is and was when it was apparent to me to that the original was the one that should be promoted -- well, what I said in my last point. Your example is basically like a poll version of 'move your feet, lose your seat' or finder's keepers. If that's allowed here than w/e, but it's still not the same as saying more people voted for the one you like because that is not what happened and that is why I promoted the original, not an edited version, and I'm not sorry for doing so either. --I'ḏ♥One 22:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Are you officially declaring now that you engaged in a biased closure? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I don't think that is what ILO is saying, and I don't think it's helpful to suggest he is. I just think the two of you have counted in a different way- the way ILO has counted the votes is not how we ave generally done it here, but that does not mean it's a terrible idea. It does mean, however, that it should probably not have been used in this case. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Stop making BS false accusations against me, and I did notice when you made the same suggestion earlier but had sense enough to delete it. I don't even know who the hell that girl is and don't care about any version of this picture. I'm not sure what kind of selective understanding disorder you must be suffering from, but all I've done in each and every post I've made here today is state firmly that my concern is with the numbers. You are the one who has shown blatant bias for your choice alone and total disconcern for people who've voted differently than you. --I'ḏ♥One 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Nice try, but I know how to close without bringing my personal views into it, and in accordance with the logic that we've always applied. You changing the logic is what needs explaining. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Eight is bigger than four is a partisan personal view? Omigawd call the police so I can confess! Seriously, you're just reaching now. Your accusations are more BS than would be needed to fertilize the continent of Australia. --I'ḏ♥One 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:2099725 FreightElevator 135wb.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Original: +7 -4 Edit 1: +8 -3 Makeemlighter (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me add that I considered the votes as well as the arguments. This is nearly a "no consensus", but Edit 1 just has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow this is just stupid. How you get +8 is amazing. Thats some creative school you people must have gone too to learn counting like that. So now what you've essentially done is nominate a file that is just going to have to be delisted as it has no place being nominated as it isnt used in any articles (wrongly placing it into places it doesn't belong is not ok, we have never changed articles to warrant a FP, it has to be warrented first, then we see it's EV for FP). Common sense was lost here I see. JFitch (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already have a procedure for dealing with cases where an edit is promoted. If you want to take this dispute to article space (which is what your tone sounds like), then that's not really of any concern for how this candidacy should be closed. Generally, I would advise that you read what is available on the FPC page (where this is currently transcluded) about the nominating, reviewing and closing process, maybe it will answer some questions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't give a crap which one gets picked, but I still say we should've kept it on the original since it clearly got more votes, this is worse than the Florida 2000 general elections. --I'ḏ♥One 14:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly prefer the original, as I have made clear, but on vote counting, I'd say that, techically, the alt has it. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I strongly disagree with that, when a person comes to an image and puts Support that is generally for the original version unless they come back after another possible candidate comes in and changes their vote. In this case what Papa Lima, Maedin and Makeemlighter seem to have done is change the minds of the users who clearly originally meant their vote for the original for them for a minority-picked image. --I'ḏ♥One 14:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps the easiest way to solve this would be to ask the original "support"ers for their preference (and it would be good if they could be pointed to the discussion above before they make a call). J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fine, I notified them. --I'ḏ♥One 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I support File:2099725 FreightElevator 135wb.jpg. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm honestly not meaning to badger or patronise, but have you read through the debate above? J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes. When an alternate version of an image is promoted as a featured picture, the image in the article is replaced with the promoted version. We're not forbidden to modify images supplied by third parties - the definition of "free content" implemented on Wikipedia for the purpose of determining the acceptability of media licenses actually requires that permission to distribute modified versions be granted. By supplying the publicity photograph under cc-by-sa-3.0, the producers expressly granted Wikipedia editors, and anyone else, the right to edit the image for white balance or any other purpose. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • There has never been any objection on those grounds. The objection has been that it would not be accurate to modify it- in the same way we could legally edit the Mona Lisa so she had a blue face, but wouldn't want to, we wouldn't want to edit this, while we legally can (so Jfitch, Greg and I argued). I'm getting the impression you've really missed the point- perhaps take another read through? J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The white balance edit isn't a defacement that would make the image unsuitable for encyclopedic use, like the Mona Lisa with "a blue face". It's just a technical correction. We've never had a rule that any image editing at all renders photographs inaccurate. I mentioned our standards of image licensing because we wouldn't go to such great lengths to preserve the right to modify photographs, only to forbid editors to utilize the permission in any way. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Again, no one is proposing that there's "a rule that any image editing at all renders photographs inaccurate" or should be. The issue is in relation to this particular photograph, because of the nature of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • The question, I suppose, is whether the subject is "Alexz Johnson" or "Alexz Johnson's publicity photograph". Since only Johnson, and not the photograph itself, is notable, I believe that the subject is the actress herself, in which case we're not obliged to retain the original color cast. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                • That argument would be a deal-breaker for me, apart from the fact that the subject is neither of the things you list- the subject is "Alexz Johnson as Jude Harrison". She's not herself here, she's in character- the point is, the character looks like what the publishers tell us she looks like- that's why I personally see it as improper to edit this. We're not "bringing it closer to reality" in cleaning it- there is no reality to bring it closer to. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Suppose that instead of using a publicity photograph, an editor managed to enter the set, and take a photograph of Alexz Johnson playing Jude Harrison, without a producer-created color cast. Would such an image then be excluded from articles, or be un-featureable, because the producers had not expressly approved it? Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Shit, good point. Ok, yeah, I accept that. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • (Unless, of course, the red sheen was part of the character in the TV series- compare, if a character was always shown in greyscale, it would be inappropriate to show them in colour. However, I see no evidence that this is the case here.) Consider my opposition to the alts withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have read all the discussion above and after having given the matter some serious consideration I clarify that my support is for the original version only. However, I don't oppose the alts. --Priest zadok (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

†General "Support"

I'm leaning to support any white balance edit, the original looks quite bad on conventional PC monitors. Twilightchill t 14:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]