Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:M209B-IMG 0557.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:M209B-IMG 0557.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 00:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
- Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
* Oppose. Bad file name. I don't know what I'm looking at.This is an enigma for me.--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Well M209 actually is the machine's name. In any case, we're judging the image, not a file name (which can be changed, eventough it is already properly documented on the description page). Popo le Chien ouah 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Popo le Chien The Commons:Image guidelines for this forum require an image should "have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages". These things aren't always checked thoroughly, but do form part of what we should be proud to feature. Having said that, I agree that "M209B" is meaningful, if a bit too terse to be helpful, and the "-IMG 0557" is not much different to all sorts of ID suffixes that filenames often contain. Changing a filename isn't always easy (unless clearly wrong or utterly meaningless), more so once the file is heavily used, which may occur if it is featured. For example, changing it to "M209B Cipher Machine-IMG 0557.JPG" would be more meaningful but some admins won't permit such a helpful change. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Colin I know, I know, thanks for the reminder though. But at the end of the day, considering how easy it is to rename and how tedious it is to run a nomination / vote process, I'd rather discuss the quality of the image than what is, IMHO, a bureaucratic detail. This being said, we could simply rename it M209 Cipher machine.jpg, that'd be just as good. Popo le Chien ouah 12:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you ask Rama, as the creator has more persuasive power at our very restrictive Commons:File renaming policy. Personally, I'd rather face a hard FPC than do battle with some of our admins over filenames. The best solution, is to encourage clear and helpful names at upload-time. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've reached out to him. Popo le Chien ouah 13:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for nominating this image, I am flattered. I have renamed it to a hopefully more explicit name, I had not realised how confusing the contatenation would look. Jebulon, je te mets la moyenne pour la blague sur Enigma et la citation de Lénine (excellente !), mais c'est bien payé, la M209B est quand même un classique. Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ah quand même ! Enigma... Quelqu'un s'en aperçoit ! Je commençais à désespérer (mais sans trop m'étonner, hélas...)--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Popo le Chien ouah 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Popo le Chien: Pas "bureaucratique", mais juste procédural. En droit, le non respect de certaines procédures peut entraîner la nullité de toute une affaire, la procédure garantit contre l'arbitraire. “La procédure est soeur jumelle de la Liberté.”(Vladimir Ilitch Lénine (pas mon meilleur ami, mais...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Great detail, undeniably a VI and QI. But doesn't wow me enough overall. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop doesn't work for me. Also, for an studio shot of this object, I expect more sharpness. It would have been a wonderful challenge to do this image with focus stacking. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)