Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt, Nasenschild -- 2017 -- 2101.jpg

File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt, Nasenschild -- 2017 -- 2101.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 10:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt, Nasenschild -- 2017 -- 2101.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt, Nasenschild -- 2017 -- 2101.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Info The background looks like disturbing, but it's part of the composition. It is a counterpart like young and old, near and far, fun and violence, harlekin and cages of anabaptism. This composition is only possible from a special point of view and only with a large focal length. --XRay ^talk 11:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm quite disturbed by that background, it's much too busy for me.--Peulle (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• The background is a special counterpoint (young and old, near and far, fun and violence). You can see both only with this perspective. (BTW: That's why a focal length of 170 mm must be used.) --XRay ^talk 18:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Peulle and Daniel Case: I think there is an information missing. The background is a special part (counterpart) of the composition. Otherwise it would be just a sign. Please see my added information at the top too. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support imho the background is part of the composition --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. --XRay ^talk 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support. What against the packground background? Perhaps it would be even better if the golden man would be a bit more right. But nevertheless the composition ist very good for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: Packground? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kong of Lasers: Thank you! It seems impossible but obviously not. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose I see the thought behind this composition, but without knowledge about the cages in the church tower in the background one of the "counterpart" you speak of in the description above becomes lost and the composition looks just jumbled. I know of the cages only because of the photo I saw at QIC and went to read the WP article on them. The young/old is also lost since most folks would consider the sign in front just as old as the church. Sorry. --cart-Talk 08:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support because it's a good background. --Ralf Roleček 14:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Good thought, but  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)