Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 17:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anime Girl simplified for typical US understanding of the world.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anime Girl simplified for typical US understanding of the world.jpg
Support very good illustration and applicability to use in articles. although title and german description do not meet encyclopaedic standards and should be changed to increase neutrality. regards, PETER WEISTALK21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of FPs incorporating position statements in the attribution field. --Avenue (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As said, this is a exceptionally good image, but is essentially "Anime Girl" with a different angle and background. But regardless of that, at this angle, I find the crop distracting (would have liked to see the whole girl :-), I did not find that to be an issue on "Anime Girl"). Furthermore, the railing is better on "Anime Girl" (i.e. glass panels & horizontal bars). G.A.S05:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comparison of composition rules that apply: (from t2b l2r: third rule, golden ratio, diagonals 45 and golden mean.)
Info I know that this is the same girl. But the discussion at EN told me that a good composition is a bad composition. At least at a point if you can't find any more good reasons to oppose an image, that you find offensive (for some reason i can't understand it as an educated being). So i have thrown away the composition guides and gave up upon the misunderstood dutch angle, since no one noticed that it has bigger meaning than just depicting something evil. Maybe Hollywood is to blame to use it without thought in always the same repeating patterns. If you look at the comparison you can clearly see that i was giving it a thought. That means either that the voters (on EN) don't know anything about composition or they are actually playing dump, to make a point based on prudery. I don't really care about the outcome of this voting, basically i wanted to hear the thoughts on composition (as G.A.S. did) and how much anyone cares about the image description. --Niabot (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a discussion on en.Wikipedia and I can only say that some people really have issues. I'd support this image only if it's not pretty much the same image as already featured one. --Lošmi (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it too if we didn't already have the other one. I like the other one's composition more, so I wouldn't want to replace it with this. --Avenue (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Lošmi said, en.wiki has issues with anime-related topics. Do not let it bother you. But I still believe the original is superior to this one, and would not want it replaced with this one. G.A.S20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offical NPOV policy: "Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. [...] For the reasons given above, it may not always be possible for file names and related descriptive text to be "neutral"." From Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Snaevar (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info all by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Niabot (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- We don't need a second FP of the same subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
