Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aschaffenburg Rlwy Bridge Nilkheim.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Aschaffenburg Rlwy Bridge Nilkheim.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 21:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail tracks
Info created by User:KaiBorgeest - uploaded by User:KaiBorgeest - nominated by User:KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Nice photo but it could do with being a bit sharper and I think the light is a little harsh. Cmao20 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)- Strong oppose Level crossings are for crossing with care, not for photography. "sheer stupidity" "unthinkably stupid": "No photo opportunity is worth risking your life for." -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, why actually not? I don't think that everyone who takes pictures on tracks is stupid by default, though of course it's always at your own risk and you need highest possible attention. But I mean, maybe the train is just gone few seconds ago, or maybe the railroad was out of order at that time due to maintenance, construction or something. If so, was it then safe to take pictures? Obviously, yes. (I have several similar pictures, such as this one, and you can be sure I know well what I'm doing.) If you just said "no wow", I would agree, btw. --A.Savin 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Those words in quotes aren't mine. Those are the railway or police comments. FP is about our "finest" work, and inspires others to do similar, or encourages the photographer to go back and take a better one. We should not be encouraging life-risk taking photography. Doing this is illegal in my country for a good reason. People die on level crossings in the UK every year. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see the point in those arguments, but on the other hand: Following your argument, featuring something like File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg could encourage people do to stupid, dangerous (to others) and illegal things with their drones. Featuring something like File:Aircraft Rescue Firefighting training.jpg, do we encourage people to get close to a burning building? Do stupid things on a safari? Approach a hungry wolf? Enter a battle zone? Sure, most people know lions are dangerous and many are not aware how dangerous a train might be. But that's what {{Tracks are for trains}} is for, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg is not taken with a drone. --A.Savin 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. The point is, that this is not immediately apparent from the picture. The same goes for the other examples, they were probably all taken in a completely safe manner. The candidate picture might have been taken in a completely safe manner as well, and we'd still slap {{Tracks are for trains}} on it (for good reasons). Question is: does the bare potential for people doing something stupid trying to re-create a picture they saw on FP mean we cannot feature a great image? Especially when there's already a very clear warning template on the file description page? --El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how it follows at all. I looked at the geolocation -- it was taken on a level crossing, not on a bridge or off to the side. Professionals taking photos of their jobs, or 500mm telephoto shots of distant wildlife? Of course there is risk in life. But nobody is shouting that the army photographer to stop being a dick and nobody writes letters to the BBC asking them to stop showing those reckless wildlife documentaries. The police officer saying this is stupid is the one who has to visit your mum to say her son has been killed trying to get a better railway photo for Commons, as their last one didn't pass FP and the reviewers suggested he try again in better light and to make sure this time they stand right in the middle of the tracks so the photo is symmetrical.... -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg is not taken with a drone. --A.Savin 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see the point in those arguments, but on the other hand: Following your argument, featuring something like File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg could encourage people do to stupid, dangerous (to others) and illegal things with their drones. Featuring something like File:Aircraft Rescue Firefighting training.jpg, do we encourage people to get close to a burning building? Do stupid things on a safari? Approach a hungry wolf? Enter a battle zone? Sure, most people know lions are dangerous and many are not aware how dangerous a train might be. But that's what {{Tracks are for trains}} is for, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Those words in quotes aren't mine. Those are the railway or police comments. FP is about our "finest" work, and inspires others to do similar, or encourages the photographer to go back and take a better one. We should not be encouraging life-risk taking photography. Doing this is illegal in my country for a good reason. People die on level crossings in the UK every year. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, why actually not? I don't think that everyone who takes pictures on tracks is stupid by default, though of course it's always at your own risk and you need highest possible attention. But I mean, maybe the train is just gone few seconds ago, or maybe the railroad was out of order at that time due to maintenance, construction or something. If so, was it then safe to take pictures? Obviously, yes. (I have several similar pictures, such as this one, and you can be sure I know well what I'm doing.) If you just said "no wow", I would agree, btw. --A.Savin 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just as an observation ... if you really want to take a cool picture of the tracks receding into the distance from a grade crossing, well, maybe you can follow the example of this QI I took, in which I am adroitly standing between two tracks. I should also further distinguish these photos by noting that mine was taken not only at a vehicle crossing, but one in a busy downtown (actually two downtowns, as I'm on the municipal border between Rutherford and East Rutherford—not that that really matters as far as safety goes), right next to the station. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment Compared to the other FPs of rail tracks we promoted in the past, this one is really average. I agree with Cmao20 the light is harsh. Is there a mean you try again under more favorable light conditions? 🌅 -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose As per others --SM:!) (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Not much WOW!-effect here for me, and the vanishing point being slightly but noticeably off-center does not help either. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to the aesthetic shortcomings, and the principled opposition to any picture taken while standing on actively used railroad tracks that I share with Colin, this picture fails at being a picture of its (literally) nominal subject: the bridge. It occupies a modest rectangle in the center of the image. If you couldn't see the title, or knew no German, and someone asked you what you thought the subject of the image was, you'd be forgiven for saying it was the switch. Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
