Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana Forum Romanum Rome.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Santa Francesca Romana Forum Romanum Rome.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by -- Pava (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Pava (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunate crop.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment Where ? Improvable ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do not be upset Jebulon: it seems that you write the same things in all the images, it is to be considered as an intervention spam or troll, that one vote. However commons is free, it is for others to evaluate. He used even on a framework, which is an all seen say that it is 100%. Here the cut is good, very good indeed. --Pava (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry Pava, all is fine, but there is a mistake in your comment. Do you mean "he writes the same thing", and not "you write the same thing", right ? About the crop: I've tried other solutions, but nothing works better than this one, indeed. It is interesting to see that the church is in the Forum Romanum, just along the Via Sacra... But you know this better than me, of course !--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- is what I meant. About the Basilica: It is fascinating location, although it's a bit 'think they have also built a church there in the middle --Pava (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry Pava, all is fine, but there is a mistake in your comment. Do you mean "he writes the same thing", and not "you write the same thing", right ? About the crop: I've tried other solutions, but nothing works better than this one, indeed. It is interesting to see that the church is in the Forum Romanum, just along the Via Sacra... But you know this better than me, of course !--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do not be upset Jebulon: it seems that you write the same things in all the images, it is to be considered as an intervention spam or troll, that one vote. However commons is free, it is for others to evaluate. He used even on a framework, which is an all seen say that it is 100%. Here the cut is good, very good indeed. --Pava (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Thaks for unexpected nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose QI, no FP, the cut off ruins deviate the view to the main object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are going strong, tonight ! Congrats ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- obsessive annotation? --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- EoD with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- it would be a good decision not to replay if you haven't s.th. factual. Thank you! --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- End of the Discussion with you, thank you again.--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you think it's a bit absurd to declare EOD and replay again and again? I think so. You'll not manage to ban me from speaking. TY. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- EoD for me with you, T.Y.--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- flim-flam --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- What a cheat ! "flim-flam" is obviously not an attempt of "discussion", so, no Eo"D" possible this time. Anyway, only 5 days more to wait before the end...--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- palim palim --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- flim-flam --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- EoD for me with you, T.Y.--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you think it's a bit absurd to declare EOD and replay again and again? I think so. You'll not manage to ban me from speaking. TY. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- End of the Discussion with you, thank you again.--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- it would be a good decision not to replay if you haven't s.th. factual. Thank you! --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- EoD with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- obsessive annotation? --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like the sky was blurred to reduce noise. Shouldn't be visible on the edges and in the clouds. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I've tried to reduce noise and compression artefacts in the sky, but I don't think it is very disturbing nor visible (around the cross, perhaps...)--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --P e z i (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose --Viscontino (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Question We should be interested to know why do you oppose, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the journal: maybe Viscontino is not in mood to get in entraped in a nonsense-ad-infinitum-conversation like we had here already. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
