Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 01:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by NOAA - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)- Support Very fine detail, very striking view. And timely. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Neutral I remember very well this picture. I struggled to opened it on my computer at that time, but it was a lot of wow : technically, and for what it showed. I'm not sure why we should promote the cropped version above the original one. Significants parts are gone and the borders weren't so distracting in my opinion. Will add alternative later. - Benh (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Benh, I think this is fine and the extra buildings aren't relevant to the WCT. I see there is some complaint of too many alternative nominations created, often without nominator permission. I think we had a discussion on this at FPC talk a while ago and I thought we'd agreed to always respect the nominator and only "disrupt" their nomination with their blessing. And some people are quite against alternatives in general. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Benh: don't hesitate to nominate a non cropped version under your own name !--Jebulon (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jebulon, Colin, and ArionEstar: If I{{ping|Jebulon|Colin|ArionEstar can't use an alternative here, then I don't know when I can. If I nom separately, we could end up with two very similar FPs. Not sure this is desired. I don't know about the conversation Colin refers to, but I could understand than an alt. disrupts a self nom (authors don't necessarily want their work altered). Not the case here. But my apologizes in advance if any inconvenience. - Benh (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the dilemma and personally I think alts are fine for crop variations, but if you add an alt, it splits the vote, and one could get neither promoted. I think the safest thing is to consider that the nominator owns this nomination and you haven't any right to alter it. We have seen some people get upset that their nomination was disrupted without permission. There's also the hassle of pinging people who voted prior to the alt -- many people do not revisit nominations they have voted for. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Benh: If I can't use an alternative here, then I don't know when I can. yes I agree. The answer is : never !
--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jebulon, Colin, and ArionEstar: If I{{ping|Jebulon|Colin|ArionEstar can't use an alternative here, then I don't know when I can. If I nom separately, we could end up with two very similar FPs. Not sure this is desired. I don't know about the conversation Colin refers to, but I could understand than an alt. disrupts a self nom (authors don't necessarily want their work altered). Not the case here. But my apologizes in advance if any inconvenience. - Benh (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Benh: don't hesitate to nominate a non cropped version under your own name !--Jebulon (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Benh, I think this is fine and the extra buildings aren't relevant to the WCT. I see there is some complaint of too many alternative nominations created, often without nominator permission. I think we had a discussion on this at FPC talk a while ago and I thought we'd agreed to always respect the nominator and only "disrupt" their nomination with their blessing. And some people are quite against alternatives in general. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 07:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mild
Oppose in favor of the original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC) - Support We generally go with edited versions of "official" pictures if they significantly enhance the encyclopedic quality of the image, despite any loss of perceived "authenticity." --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I support the original because I consider it a better composition - ergo on artistic, not encyclopedic grounds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I would like a crop with a non cropped corner of the park, above.--Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]
- Support I'd rather go with the original one (which is also featured en en:FPC) - Benh (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I prefer the original. However, it's important to ping everyone. @Daniel Case, INeverCry, Jebulon, Colin, ArionEstar, and W.carter: , which version do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the crop. I like having a square composition with clean borders, and Ground Zero is the subject, so I can spare some water, a boat, and few buildings. INeverCry 08:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
