Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A dip in the road in Färlev.jpg

File:A dip in the road in Färlev.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 13:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A dip in the road in Färlev.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A dip in the road in Färlev.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
•  Info All by me, --Cart (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cart (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looked quite nice when I looked at it small size, but when I saw the full version I realized that the house was pretty new. I was expecting a rustic scene with a nice old farm or something, but with a new building the wow is a bit diminished for me.--Peulle (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, nothing I can do about your taste in houses. (There are some older ones further down the road.) :-) To me the new almost perfect house, plonked down here in the middle of nowhere, adds to the rather surreal scene with that wonky road. --Cart (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Question why is the age of a house a valid oppose? Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Because the subject either contains a wow factor or not. In FPC, such evaluations are highly subjective.--Peulle (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC) I rechecked the rules, there's nothing about wow factor. This must have developed over time because I see it mentioned a lot. I think the wow factor is over rated but I'm also sure it's not going away. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC) The "wow-factor" is a short way of describing the last section of COM:FPC#Photographs: Symbolic meaning or relevance … image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion …. --Cart (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC) I see. Definitely super subjective. Seven Pandas (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Yep. It's always fun to see what things might come up in the votes on a nom. :) I've even had an oppose partially based on that the photo evoked bad smell. Nothing surprise me anymore, but we have to respect how people feel about something. --Cart (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Seven Pandas: Check again. The Guidelines say that: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.". It annoys me when people point out that I have made a mistake when the mistake is really their own. Be more thorough when checking up on me next time. --Peulle (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Peulle: Check again. The word "wow" does not appear in the rules. Cart's response was the way to handle this, not your feeble attempt to attack me. Be more thorough next time. Seven Pandas (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Seven Pandas Jesus H Christ ... does nobody ever read the actual rules? Either you need to get new glasses or you need to brush up on your English. I linked you directly to the wording before and I do so again: Here are the rules. In bulletpoint #2, that's line #3 from the top of the page (so it's not like you had to read very far to find it), it says, and I once again quote: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. ". Is there something about this you don't understand?--Peulle (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC) @Peulle: and @Jesus H. Christ: we've all understood already. No need to sabotage the format indefinitely. Seven Pandas will get the {{Ping}} whatever the place on this thread, including the appropriate one. Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." The main page states "Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is where the "wow factor" section is -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Basile, would you please stop this infernal obsession you have about indentations and discussion timelines. Your proposal for enforcing your version of the rules for them was shot down in flames at both ANI and Wikipedia talk:Indentation. Now you have gone and moved around Seven Pandas' and Peulle's comments to suit your taste in which order they should be, instead of the order these users wrote them in. That is not acceptable. You should not dictate how people write threads. --Cart (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Nonsense. en:Wikipedia:INDENT: "If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level" (point number 2). Clarity is important, and W.carter is completely wrong to say the hierarchy was moved "to suit my taste". The indentation was fixed per the convention rules. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC) It is never ok to move another users comment to another position in a tread. --Cart (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC) When the position is misplaced, yes it is. And it's also allowed to collapse an out-of-topic section like this. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Once again you try to write your own rules. --Cart (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC) No. The rules have been written by others and they are explicit: Talk page guidelines#EDIT Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels". [OK] Done. Anything else? We collapse all the out-of-topic discussions here (1, 2, 3...) A good habit -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Very good composition, good colors and good sharpness. I need no "wow" – whatever it means – -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A cleverly composed image; could almost be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too ordinary, not anything special, no wow, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Composition and mood are outstanding in my eyes and quality is corresponding. --Milseburg (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Michielverbeek Poco² 15:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose We have a lot of landscape pictures and this one is too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support The dip in the road. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Yeah the dip in the road--Boothsift 05:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Makes me think of this B.C. comic strip. Highlights on the cloud in center could be suppressed a bit more, I think. I take it that it was sort of windy that day? Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--LuiKa27 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support you can't even tell that the dip careens down into a giant abyss! — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Sweden