Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Conifer Garden 1 NBG LR.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Conifer Garden 1 NBG LR.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 23:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Pinales
- Conifer Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden, All by me.-- PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)- Support This one I like --A.Savin 00:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- But please identify the plants --A.Savin 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Any attempt? --A.Savin 12:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Given all the opposes, it's rather pointless now. I only know a couple by sight I'd have to go to the Botanical Garden to ID the rest. The light green one slightly right of center is an oriental spruce. PumpkinSky talk 13:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Just a QI for me, sorry. Such a scene is not uncommon for botanical gardens. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)- Support Charming forest. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose As per King of ♥ ♦ ♣, --Shishir
- Oppose Per others. -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Same: common scene. -- Pofka (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Withdrawing this crappy photo. I think the "wow requirement", which isn't a requirement per the written rules, often does the FP community more harm than good. PumpkinSky talk 15:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky, Commons:Image guidelines says "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor"". Without this, and the core mission to select the "finest on Commons", then it is just QI. Technical adequate photos are extremely common, rather easy to achieve, and belong at QI. That doesn't make them "crappy" nor reduce their value to the project. -- Colin (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on the requirement part, but stand by the rest of my statement. PumpkinSky talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky your "the FP community does more harm than good" comment is incredibly rude to your fellow reviewers, who are simply doing their job. All because we failed to sing the praises of a couple of your rather ordinary photos. While FPC is sometimes a game of roulette, it isn't a game to play with pretty much most of your uploads in the hope a few pass the grade. The response is no surprise at all. FP is not QI and is meant to be difficult and selective. -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- ColinI see no point to continue this. You're incredibly presumptuous and condescending of others. PumpkinSky talk 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- If I may: There's a very big distance between "crappy" and "not outstanding". But I suppose you'll find that incredibly presumptuous and condescending, too... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- ColinI see no point to continue this. You're incredibly presumptuous and condescending of others. PumpkinSky talk 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky your "the FP community does more harm than good" comment is incredibly rude to your fellow reviewers, who are simply doing their job. All because we failed to sing the praises of a couple of your rather ordinary photos. While FPC is sometimes a game of roulette, it isn't a game to play with pretty much most of your uploads in the hope a few pass the grade. The response is no surprise at all. FP is not QI and is meant to be difficult and selective. -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on the requirement part, but stand by the rest of my statement. PumpkinSky talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
