Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2

File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info created by Bert Kaufmann - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support the picture was nominated before and deleted per legal issues, but now file was restored per legal considerations changing. -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Mesmerizing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing! --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Very OOOooooh!! I actually had to triple check that it had the right license since it is one of the more restrictive licenses (CC BY 2.0) but that seems to work. Someone check again just to be sure, please. Also, looking at the place on Google Maps, I can't tell if this place really looks like this or if the pic has been created by mirroring one element twice (which I suspect since all shadows are identical) in which case this should be mentioned in the file description. w.carter-Talk 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with W.carter - it is created by mirroring. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support WOOOOOOHOWWWWW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose as it is against the rule: "Digital manipulations .... Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable." --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Question - What's the manipulation? The blue color or something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• The manipulation is that this exact place does not exist. One half of it is how the building looks, the other half is just a mirror image of the place. Like in a kaleidoscope. As an example, I took this image and used the same technique to create this more stunning image. w.carter-Talk 23:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Well, I think it's a great picture, but the description should indicate what manipulation was done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• I mentioned it in the file. It can be verified by the tags in Flickr. Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we should expect everyone to click the Flickr link, so I'm glad you added "This picture uses mirroring" to the English-language description (someone should translate that into French). That having been explained, I have no further objection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• The main subject is misrepresented. Therefore it can not be a FP. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The fact that the description now mentions that mirroring is used is sufficient to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we can accept the photo as FP such as the guidelines are right now, BUT I also think we should use this photo as a starting point for a more broader discussion at a more proper place on Commons about new categories and guidelines. We will always encounter new things that the site has not been prepared for and I think the site should adapt accordingly. I was recently in a similar discussion about something new that did not quite fit the policy at English Wikipedia In The News when one of the main news was the Pokémon Go mania. No one had anticipated that a pop culture phenomenon could be newsworthy. But it was solved and accepted. w.carter-Talk 09:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support seems fine --Mile (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Winifred Carter.--Jebulon (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well frère J, I haven't opposed it! ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm just as wowed by this image as anyone else, I only want to get all the technicalities and Formal things right before I vote for it. You know all the boring things that have to be right before we can call a pic Featured. One of these is what category this should be in. We promote images of fantasy places in paintings all the time, but should this really be in the /Places/Interiors category? Not everyone are as savvy as we when it comes to image manipulations and someone may see this and want to go and have a look at this amazing place only to find that it does not actually exist. And it can hardly be in the /Non-photographic media/Computer-generated or...? w.carter-Talk 09:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support An interesting and highly artistic approach to a place that deserves more photographic interest now that fop finally seems to be established in Belgium. I've been to that station many times but didn't have time to take pictures yet. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per/Villy Fink Isaksen JukoFF (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • JukoFF, it is mentioned in the file description. Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mirroring image... --Laitche (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice art, but we are here not in a photo community forum. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Question - What would you say to the argument that a great photo with mirroring is not only beautiful but also educational in showing what can be done with that technique? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support − Meiræ 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mirroring image... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose, since there is no category in FP for digital experimentation. It is very cool, but apparently FPs should correspond with objects in a more encyclopedic way. w.carter-Talk 16:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it's very cool. We probably should create categories for this kind of artistic photos, if it is not there already. what pop up in my mind is this picture File:Allébron September 2014.jpg, but it is a long exposed one and not manipulaited. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, that was just a long exposure of a tram/local train going by. And that place actually exists, bridge railing and all. Funny you should choose a pic of a place where I've lived so I can vouch for the correctness of the view. Problem would probably be that with digital manipulations the possibilities are endless and we would be swamped with "cool" and "cool-wannabe" pictures. As our Alchemist-hp pointed out, this is not what Wikimedia is for. There are plenty of photo sites for that. I vote for this remaining an encyclopedia. And there is already the Category:Digitally manipulated photographs, it's just not linked to FP cats in any way. w.carter-Talk 20:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - It's entirely proper to discuss the aesthetics of this site, what they are and should be, but it's not correct to call Commons an encyclopedia. This site is a repository of photos for the use of any Wikimedia project and also for per se educational reasons. It is not simply an annex to Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I know that. I oversimplified right here and now only to be brief since this is not the place for such a lengthy discussion. w.carter-Talk 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 18:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose for the impossible shadows on the framework created by mirroring. EV low, though nice as an artwork. Besides that, it’s noisy and shows considerable chromatic aberration --Kreuzschnabel 07:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Fascinating! --Benzol (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Staggering! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

* Oppose Per others.--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Sorry, I can't oppose twice...--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment btw see Commons:Village_pump#Featured_pictures_.28manipolations.29 --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support misrepresentation. Lotje (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Lotje: Funniest reason to support ever :-/ --Kreuzschnabel 11:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Magnus (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 06:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 02:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment So now we got two pics that are photoshop compositions at the FPC, this and this. Both are created from two images put together to create something that doesn't exist, now this one could be on its way to get promoted to FP while the other one is discarded as a "fake". So where is the logic? w.carter-Talk 16:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I stopped asking for logic in here, there are too many emotional votings being given ("ooooh, that’s nice!") without any rational reconsideration. Some voters appear to ask, "do I like it?" instead of, "is it really worthy in every respect to be considered among the very best images we’ve got on Commons?" --Kreuzschnabel 18:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)