Oppose, I have to agree with Greg. A good picture to have, but not FP material.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The July 2005 picture is a better shot and that's not FP material either. I guess I have a hard time seeing how a snap taken from a crowd is going to meet FP requirements. I appreciate the effort it takes to get these photos, especially since in most cases there is no alternative. But to me the EV requirement says that for a public person the photo should tell me something about what the person is known for. For an actor it would probably be a shot in character in a role for which the subject is known.--
RDBury (
talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe we have guidelines that specifically discourage that- a picture of the actor as themselves is preferred. What they are as a character is certainly not necessarily who they are- it wouldn't be fair to feature a picture of Russell Crowe as Maximus, as Crowe isn't actually a Roman soldier.
J Milburn (
talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
As an actor, though, showing him in a role tells us at least as much about him as a regular portrait does.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Only if that actor has only ever played one role... If he has played more than one (as DS has) then one could easily mistake their appearance in a picture as their regular appearance... Therefore it is best to have a picture of how they look most of the time ie when not working...
gazhiley.co.uk 14:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I have to agree with Greg. A good picture to have, but not FP material.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The July 2005 picture is a better shot and that's not FP material either. I guess I have a hard time seeing how a snap taken from a crowd is going to meet FP requirements. I appreciate the effort it takes to get these photos, especially since in most cases there is no alternative. But to me the EV requirement says that for a public person the photo should tell me something about what the person is known for. For an actor it would probably be a shot in character in a role for which the subject is known.--
RDBury (
talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe we have guidelines that specifically discourage that- a picture of the actor as themselves is preferred. What they are as a character is certainly not necessarily who they are- it wouldn't be fair to feature a picture of Russell Crowe as Maximus, as Crowe isn't actually a Roman soldier.
J Milburn (
talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
As an actor, though, showing him in a role tells us at least as much about him as a regular portrait does.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Only if that actor has only ever played one role... If he has played more than one (as DS has) then one could easily mistake their appearance in a picture as their regular appearance... Therefore it is best to have a picture of how they look most of the time ie when not working...
gazhiley.co.uk 14:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply