Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 17:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crushed plastic bottles
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Containers
  •  Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- grendel|khan 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose This image is technically poor and, more importantly, ethically wrong. Its crop is awkward, and its composition is lacking. You cannot feature an image of plastic bottles. This tool kills millions of animals each year; they are omnipresent, and I can't bear them. To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement. Wikimedia Commons is a large project, and we cannot feature images that encourage global destruction. Wolverine XI 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There is nothing ethically wrong with this image at all, I disagree with the above vote on that score. It should absolutely be possible to feature a picture of something that causes environmental destruction. Featuring something doesn't mean that we approve of it. It means that the photograph is good enough to provoke emotions in us, which might be curiosity, or wonder, or - just as easily - horror. A picture illustrating how much damage mankind is causing to the environment is absolutely worthy of FP if otherwise good quality and well composed. It might inspire people to become more interested in environmental protection.
That said, I do agree with the above vote that the composition/crop of this image is not outstanding and that this precludes it from FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2011, my dog choked on plastic and died. As a child, I was devastated. That is the fundamental reason I believe plastic bottles are unethical; I have seen plastics on beaches, in suburban areas in all of the nations I have visited, and even in the most remote locations. So, if I follow your logic, a picture of, say, individuals robbing from a bank will discourage theft? No, it won't. Humans speak and speak and speak, but they do not act. I have done my part, and I would like to encourage you to do yours. @Cmao20: you might want to reconsider your statement. Wolverine XI 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about mosquitoes? Are they allowed or not? I remember them biting my cousin in 2009. Maybe time to update our eligibility rules for some topics? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolverine, I'm sincerely sorry for your loss. However, my brother was hit by a car in front of me in 1970, and I don't oppose car nominations on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, mosquitos are not an issue; they do not harm the environment. It's also difficult to update what has been ingrained in your brain for so long. Ikan, wait, you can still recall events from the 1970s. Wow, I am impressed. I've never lived during the decade, but I imagine it was fantastic. Anyways, thanks for your condolences. I'd also add that we all handle stressful situations in different ways, and this is just how I handle things, I suppose. Wolverine XI 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was born in 1965. The 70s had some excellent music, but it was a horrible decade for New York City, which almost went bankrupt during the Fiscal Crisis and was dangerous, scary, violent and dirty, though affordable. I'll add that I also couldn't vote on an FPC nomination for a very good photo of a heroic equestrian statue of Khmelnitsky that truly glorifies that Jew-murderer, but I abstained while stating why I was too biased to vote yea or nay and didn't oppose for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FPC: "An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations..." -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Interesting texture and educational picture. We had similar subjects promoted FP in the past, like a truck in a recycling center, for example. Unfortunately not the best technical quality here -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yes, important picture, and the idea that it's immoral to photograph subjects that show the ills of society is abhorrent to me, because it suggests to me that the moral thing is to ignore them, and ignoring them is the best way to ensure that they continue, unchallenged. Consider nominating in an appropriate scope in COM:VIC if there isn't already a VI in that scope and this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the picture is about PET bottles recycling. So, it is ethical and respectful attempt to avoid ill and ugly wasting of natural resources and minimizing ecology damage. But I agree with you about the principle. We should show ugly, ill, unpleasant things if we want to solve the problems. LexKurochkin (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, these are among the very few plastic bottles that are being recycled at least once. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Honestly, screw plastic bottles and single-use plastics that have destroyed our oceans, but this image is a perfect showcase of why they suck and why their production deserves to die in vein (and having done several beach cleanups, I can attest that the problem is only getting worse). But, I'm not a fond of the crop so I will too  oppose, but agree with Ikan Kekek that this would be more appropriate for COM:VIC. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated it at Commons:Valued image candidates/Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg. Thank you for the suggestion. grendel|khan 20:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The idea that featured pictures are selected weather some people believe the subject to be immoral etc. is absurd to me. Good pictures should be regarded as what they are: Good pictures. Only because you don't like what's depicted in them dosen't make them bad/not worthy. TheImaCow (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Agree that the composition is not completely compelling. However when I look for a while at the photo in full size, it works for me – like an ugly, but impressive wallpaper. Such a photo must express abundance, and this one does. Imagine this, say, as a big wallpaper in a bar etc. It would be much cooler than the usual “beautiful nature” wallpapers – and a much better reflection of our current western way of life. – Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bales_of_PET_bottles_closeup.jpg&oldid=865420615"