Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurytellina lineata.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Eurytellina lineata.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 15:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)- Support High E.V. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Inconsistent and uneven lighting. (BTW, EV is irrelevant at commons, nice to have it but by no means necessary.). B.p. 22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree. For me, every media in Commons should have some educational value as a basic requirements. We label the most valuable in a scope as VI, good pictures as QI, and with big wow as FP. For pictures with no EV but big wow, I would like to go Flickr Explore.
JKadavoor Jee 05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is OK to disagree of course, but this is as it has always been here at commons. Wikipedia has always put the emphasis on EV (resulting in allowing small images there), but as you rightly state above, at Commons FP is for wow, QI for technical quality and VI for EV. Flickr a is popularity vote system for images of all sizes and of all licenses.
- These are requirements, meaning that EV is always considered a bonus, but never a conditio sine qua non. B.p. 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; I agree with you on EV alone can't be considered as a criteria for FP as for VI/EN:FP. But I can't agree with EV is irrelevant for FP in Commons. EV should stand as a base for any educational repository. My only intention is to discourage some zero EV nominations pop up once in a while. JKadavoor Jee 06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- EV is irrelevant [for FP I just think Biopic means] at commons is fairly a mistaken interpretation and opinion. Of course I can't agree. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jacopo, I can understand your confusion as you are not a regular at FP (15 edits at FP in the last 5 years), but this fact has been on and off discussed at least since I started in 2006. It is thus not an opinion nor an interpretation, it is just the nature of FP here on commons. We want to feature images that can be used for wow, as well on wikipedia (where EV is important) as anywhere else (where EV might be trivial). Value ≠ EV. (and yes I meant EV at FP on commons, not in general) B.p. 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Biopic, did you count my edits on FP? Really very good! Sorry but I'm not confused. I disagree with you! That's my opinion. Regards. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- @B.P.: Wikipedia ? which ? There are so many independent wikipedias... In the french wikipédia, there is no FP, nor any picture contest (fortunately...). But I think we all agree, actually. It depends of the point of start of the thinking.-Jebulon (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree. For me, every media in Commons should have some educational value as a basic requirements. We label the most valuable in a scope as VI, good pictures as QI, and with big wow as FP. For pictures with no EV but big wow, I would like to go Flickr Explore.
Comment EV should be a major criteria for evaluating FPC. I think too much importance is given to minor quality issues. Yann (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)- Support This image is full of imperfections. But it catches the eye. I see the desire to show something beautiful and useful. It is here that is wow. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
