Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Entzia - Espino albar 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Entzia - Espino albar 01.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 19:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Psychiatrist's office, the other wall. (first wall). I quite like the vast and highly elevated view behind the tree. – LucasT 21:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ezarateesteban 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty but not featurable. --Selbymay (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Selbymay, please explain "not featureable" – LucasT 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Straight and simple, not able to be featured. I only see an B&W aestheticization of a simple view. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think a plain "not featurable" isn't the right expression. It would be "not featurable" if the requirement weren't met (e.g. minimum size). If this one gets enough votes, it will be featured. Perhaps it won't but maybe it will be. But I accept that you want to say that you don't think that it isn't good enough. Maybe it isn't, let's see. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Straight and simple, not able to be featured. I only see an B&W aestheticization of a simple view. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Now wow for me either. lNeverCry 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support I was ready to oppose based on the thumbnail, but then I took a closer look and the fog really is something special. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support - OK, I've lived with this photo for a few days now, but I wasn't committed to voting. What got me off the fence was the opposition. "No wow" is fine, but "not featurable" riled me. This is not a "simple view". The shape of the tree is not ordinary and the composition with its quick dropoff into a sea of striated fog (and, if I'm seeing right, distant mountains in fog) is not ordinary. The streaks of clouds in the sky, while perhaps not so unusual in themselves, greatly help in creating a special composition by helping give the viewer's eyes direction. And to whomever finds this photo ordinary, please submit your photos that you think are equally ordinary, because you may be undervaluing them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Ikan Kekek Glad that I made you react. I don't mind if this picture gets FP label, and it would obviously. But, to quote the guidelines, "beautiful does not always mean valuable", and I don't find much of encyclopedic value in this aestheticization which reminds me so many "beautiful" and decorative images. --Selbymay (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm trying to follow your argumentation but sorry, I absolutely can't get it. Why shouldn't be there any encyclopedic value? Because it's nice? Because it's B&W? If you want to, you can question any picture nominated here. Ice crystals on a Window? Who would need this? An award-winning residential complex at night? Why not at daylight? Mountains at sunset? Absolutely useless! Well in this case, the picture shows at least a landscape of a certain area, a meteorological effect, a classified species of a plant. And who knows, it's possible that it'll be used by next psychiatrist article... We cannot know how it's going to be used and this refers to almost any picture here. B&W is an artistic choice but it also helps to concentrate on the image in another manner, it helps to distinguish contrast in a better way. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Selbymay, this is not Wikipedia, nor is this Commons:Valued image candidates. The photos that are featured are supposed to be among the best on the site. They do not have to be "valuable" for Wikipedia. If their value is simply in looking at them, they succeed as art photography and should have their turns on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The quotation I made is from the FP guidelines. And if this has no relation with Wikipedia, which front page are you talking about ? --Selbymay (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The front page of Commons, a Wikimedia project that is not Wikipedia and not an encyclopedia. Yes, "beautiful does not always mean valuable" is in the FP guidelines, but "encyclopedic" is nowhere to be found in those guidelines. Look at the context:
- The quotation I made is from the FP guidelines. And if this has no relation with Wikipedia, which front page are you talking about ? --Selbymay (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Selbymay, this is not Wikipedia, nor is this Commons:Valued image candidates. The photos that are featured are supposed to be among the best on the site. They do not have to be "valuable" for Wikipedia. If their value is simply in looking at them, they succeed as art photography and should have their turns on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm trying to follow your argumentation but sorry, I absolutely can't get it. Why shouldn't be there any encyclopedic value? Because it's nice? Because it's B&W? If you want to, you can question any picture nominated here. Ice crystals on a Window? Who would need this? An award-winning residential complex at night? Why not at daylight? Mountains at sunset? Absolutely useless! Well in this case, the picture shows at least a landscape of a certain area, a meteorological effect, a classified species of a plant. And who knows, it's possible that it'll be used by next psychiatrist article... We cannot know how it's going to be used and this refers to almost any picture here. B&W is an artistic choice but it also helps to concentrate on the image in another manner, it helps to distinguish contrast in a better way. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Ikan Kekek Glad that I made you react. I don't mind if this picture gets FP label, and it would obviously. But, to quote the guidelines, "beautiful does not always mean valuable", and I don't find much of encyclopedic value in this aestheticization which reminds me so many "beautiful" and decorative images. --Selbymay (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable.
- Nothing about "encyclopedic value" there. Instead, the conclusion is drawn by citing sunsets and night shots, which are very common motifs. And they absolutely can be featured and are featured, but must be special in some way, in the opinion of FPC voters. Do you really think Commons is purely an arm of Wikipedia? I'm an admin at Wikivoyage, and we use Commons thumbnails extensively and are not encyclopedic but a travel guide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 20:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain