Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arabic Calligraphy at Wazir Khan Mosque.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Arabic Calligraphy at Wazir Khan Mosque.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2009 at 11:09:32
- Info created by User:Atif Gulzar - uploaded by User:Atif Gulzar - nominated by User:Fast track -- Fast track (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Fast track (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Do we know what is written there? I don't think it is a good idea to have some kind of religious message (no matter from which religion) on the frontpage. Futhermore the pic is tilted. If the tilt gets removed it might be a QI candidate. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image needs tilt/perspective correction. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Alternative, not featured
[edit]- How about this one? And about what it says: The Prophet said, the prayer in a group is 27 times better than the one in private (Hence why it's written on a mosque) --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Fast track (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Question - It's beautiful, but isn't there a large supply of similar decorations on the mosques and palaces of the world? Why is this one unusual? Downtowngal (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- This one isn't unusual at all. A user has nominated the original version, which I altered and uploaded again than nominated it. The shadows and lighting ruin the image plus there are many tiles that are dirty. The art isn't that historic (probably late 20th century) and represents probably modern Islamic art. It isn't a moving object, which makes it very easy to take a picture of (avoid direct lighting). I find it very "weird" that no opposition has come up till now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Some people oppose by ignoring a nomination. Downtowngal (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- This one isn't unusual at all. A user has nominated the original version, which I altered and uploaded again than nominated it. The shadows and lighting ruin the image plus there are many tiles that are dirty. The art isn't that historic (probably late 20th century) and represents probably modern Islamic art. It isn't a moving object, which makes it very easy to take a picture of (avoid direct lighting). I find it very "weird" that no opposition has come up till now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diaa. Why did you nominate if you feel this way about it ? --ianaré (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The image was thrown out of nomination because it needed tilting and some fixing. I fixed that to the wishes of FastTrack.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - IMO no religious messages or symbols should be featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you. If we had an image of Genesis in the bible which is well decorated and nicely scanned it could become Featured. The same with the Qur'an or any other religious book. We shouldn't care about the message as long as it's a well done picture.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar - Featuring of Sybols I think is no problem. I think a much bigger problem is the featuring of photos of the american war maschine every day by commons. HBR (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whats the problem? I like it because of it's colours, textures and feature. It does not support any bias? I think its nothing to do with religion. Its arabic scripture made into art. Dont need to through religion into question when you see an islamic artifact.. --Fast track (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar - Featuring of Sybols I think is no problem. I think a much bigger problem is the featuring of photos of the american war maschine every day by commons. HBR (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you. If we had an image of Genesis in the bible which is well decorated and nicely scanned it could become Featured. The same with the Qur'an or any other religious book. We shouldn't care about the message as long as it's a well done picture.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Looks good and a nice motive. HBR (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Useful and interesting. --KenWalker (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. --DsMurattalk 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Based on Diaa's comments. Maedin\talk 11:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diaa --AngMoKio (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose-- RBID (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Voting has closed. Maedin\talk 07:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)