Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Semargl - Tak, Kurwa Uncensored.ogv

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Semargl - Tak, Kurwa Uncensored.ogv, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2013 at 22:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Semargl - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- russavia (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stable image:  Agree
    • Framing:   Agree
    • Visual clarity of subject:   Agree
    • Highly illustrative: Excellent example of its genre   Agree
    • Free of distractions:   Agree
    • Color:   Agree
    • Audio:   Agree
  •   Support Michał Rosa (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Professional quality videoclip. --Kadellar (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose until criteria for this sort of thing are defined. The guidelines for featured video were clearly written for documentary-style videos of a subject, whereas here the pop video is the subject. As such, the above checklist is pointless. Our guidelines for "Artworks" would appear more suitable but this is not a reproduction, rather it is the artwork. The work itself is not notable. While it may be an example of its genre, I'm struggling to see what distinguishes it in any way to make it a "featured" example of its kind. The ev is made more limited by its sexual content, which limits where it could be realistically used [This isn't a comment against hosting such content -- just that it obviously limits its value compared to some other video of the band playing]. The world is full of non-notable professional music videos -- this one's main defining feature seems to be its free licence -- and I don't think being "professional" is a sufficient condition for FP - . Colin (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a non-notable music video, but a music video by a notable Ukrainian band (uk:Semargl). Also, we don't really deal with educational value here on Commons in such things, that is more a Wikipedia notion, what we deal with more is the technical aspects of the images/video. Also, sexual content isn't relevant in this regard either. The "checklist" by Michal Rosa above has merit. russavia (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very few pop videos from any band are notable in themselves (to the extent, say, they could have a WP article in their native language). I highly doubt this one qualifies. So let's not claim it itself is notable. The band may well be notable, but that's another matter. The point, when comparing the "Artworks" criteria, is it fails "Notable in its own right" -- the subject isn't a great work of art that the world values and admires and comments on. The second criteria "Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art." Again, I don't think there is anything special about this video that qualifies it on that condition. And the third possibility is "Of high historic merit" seems also unlikely. And it isn't an illustration so the last criterion doesn't apply.
      • The "ev" is an absolutely requirement on Wikipedia but is still a quality to be judged on Commons (and frequently is) -- we are a repository of educational material after all. We've rejected self-made artistic photographs and drawings before because of their limited ev even though they might do well on Flickr. The FP criteria require the picture to be "valuable" and in that sense it is its value to use as educational material. This video can be used on the band's article would be hard to use elsewhere. If it weren't so sexual it would have more value as it could illustrate music genre articles too. So I do feel that its content limits its value to the project and that counts against it. It is professionally made, though the studio setup is low budget.
      • But more importantly, we have the fundamental difference here between reviewing a great reproduction of a subject and the subject itself. We simply haven't agreed a set of criteria for judging the latter, nor have we even agreed that such works fit into the FP process. What if a band were to release all their videos and songs with a free licence. Would we "feature" all of them automatically because they were professionally made? What if people released adverts under a free licence? On en-wp we had a current movie poster once at FP (the real digital poster, not some scan) and iirc there were copyright doubts about it and a unease we were publishing promotional material. I think the FP process needs to discuss whether such material is featurable and what criteria we should set -- merely being one of so few donations so far doesn't really cut it imo. Colin (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Colin. Further, unlike COM:POTD; COM:MOTD doesn’t require a "Featured video" as a pre requirement. So you can post it at any empty slot available there without nominating here. We rarely feature some Featured videos ; which are heavily used in WMF projectsto document something. JKadavoor Jee 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't being nominated so it can appear on the front page of Commons, it is being nominated because it is a high quality video, and meets requirements as they stand right now. Also, it is in use at uk:Semargl, and it simply requires that article to be translated into other languages and it would likely see use in those articles too. russavia (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • High quality is only a pre requirement (QI) and sometimes neglected if override by other exceptional merits. Since this is an art work, it should be “Notable in its own right”, “Of high artistic merit”, “Of high historic merit” or “Of high illustrative merit” to qualifies an FP. This is definitely a QI; but QIC accepts only works of Wikimedians now. The only notability as “the subjects of a controversy” I see here is its sexual content; but that is very common in pop videos. JKadavoor Jee 14:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I wonder if we should be a bit less critical with videos given so few of this quality are made free? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco2 18:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Semargl_-_Tak,_Kurwa_Uncensored.ogv&oldid=106412721"