Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/1918 Navy Enlistment Poster

• Leaning oppose on general principal as a single-use image. I just don't think single-use images should be considered as FP material. The only thing keeping me from an outright oppose right away is the age of the image. This image should be considered for use in other articles before being proposed here with its minimal EV or sent directly to
  WP:FOUR) 13:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are of course entitled to your own opinion but just so you are aware this was recently awarded FP status so this sort of image is fine as long as it meets all criteria... Just in case that helps you lean one way or another... Gazhiley (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is in three articles, which is my point.--

WP:FOUR) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahhh I read your "single use" to mean the use of the original poster as in it's only used to promote the royal navy... My bad... Gazhiley (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more though, the criteria for FP is that it "The image is used in one or more article" so again, you are entitled to your opinion but this to me isn't a valid reason for opposing as the criteria for FP clearly state that it can be single use... Gazhiley (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jjron has just phrased this better than me in the cloud cover article... Glad I'm not alone in this... Gazhiley (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, this is simply not a valid reason to oppose an image. Take, for instance, a specific species of plant, animal or fungi. A strong picture of a specimen of the species is a perfect FPC candidate, yet may at the same time have only a single use. Alternatively, a portrait of a notable person. Provided the image is used in such a way that the criterion of EV is satisfied in one article, it doesn't matter how many it is in; in the galleries, only a single article is linked, and when on the main page, only a single article is given a bold link. As such, it could be argued that our entire procedure actually leans towards a one-to-one usage- this is a picture of subject x, used in article y. I think you should reconsider this. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that

WP:VPC either. NauticaShades 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I strongly agree. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if I were nominating this I would clean up

WP:FOUR) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This poster dates from 1918. There is no article on American propaganda during World War I. NauticaShades 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WWI. Let me think.--

WP:FOUR) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

How about if we added a decent FP quality image to

WP:FOUR) 16:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not the point. The point is that it has plenty of EV as it is. I'm starting a discussion here. NauticaShades 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this FP process is a chance to refine WP by editing the finest images and pointing out other flaws in their use. In this case, we have a high quality image that could easily be incorporated into needy articles. Do you see how badly the

WP:FOUR) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, that's great, deal with it, or make some suggestions. Don't oppose images based on it. You'll note I've managed to make suggestions like that in currently open FPCs, but have managed to do so without throwing opposes around. If the criteria are met, whether it can be added to other articles or not, we should be supporting. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoehorning the picture into extra articles immediately before nomination is not a responsibility of the nominator. In fact, I recall people here being chastised for just that behavior. Rmhermen (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. NauticaShades 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it shoehorning is the practice of people forcing images in where they don't belong for perceived EV boost. What I am suggesting is that the nominator put a recruitment image in the image deficient

I have no great opinion on that issue. That actually has very little to do with this nomination, and is certainly not a reason to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that website talks very little about military recruitment, let alone the history of military recruitment. Besides, even if this image did belong in Recruitment, that doesn't mean the nomination should be opposed. NauticaShades 23:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The article is quite deficient and it is possible that Military recruiting in the United States should have a sub article, but as the proponent of this article I am asking if you would consider putting it in the article despite the article's deficiencies.--

WP:FOUR) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I can do it if you'd like, but you're aware that you are allowed to do it as well, yes? NauticaShades 00:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]