Very good and clear portrait photograph of Monet, actually the only one in commons. This is a slightly cropped version of the original by Nadar. Studio photo that's why not geocoded. -- MrPanyGoff
Oppose I would support this if the scope were limited to photographs of Monet, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a better representation of him than one of his self-portraits or this portrait by Renoir. Certainly a painting is not a strictly acurate visual representation in the way a photograph can be, but a good painter -- and several of the paintings we have of Monet are by great painters -- can capture a truth beyond simple visual duplication. cmadler (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite funny :) There are articles about Monet in almost all the wiki languages. Can you count how many of them use some painting instead of the photograph for the title image?--MrPanyGoff15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very surprised and actually cannot fully understand the discussion here. The paintings, sketches and other forms of visualization are never used in VI section „People” if we have a photograph of the person. In this case we have a perfect portrait photo. It is just a great fortune. So what do we discuss now? The same is with the animals. We can nominate drawings and paintings of people in the section „Works of Art” but considering section people we can use them only as substitute in cases when no photo is available. With Regards ;) --MrPanyGoff 10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) OK, I'm going to wait for a day and then I'll open a MVR to compete the photo with some painting.--MrPanyGoff10:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You mean that some people should be represented with more visual materials in the „People“ section because of their notability. I'm more or less agree. But aside from the photography there are painting, graphic arts and sculpture. Should we generalize all of them with the word „pictorial“. Then we are going to have two: Name (photo) and Name (pictorial). I can accept this. So should we try this way to see if there is some opposition? :) --MrPanyGoff12:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I prefer photography to the subject at hand. But the idea of being able to promote a table on the same subject is not bad. The two are complementary: they are not mutually exclusive. "Claude Monet Photographic Portrait" is a scope which I think is judicious. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
