Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niinsaare järv.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2013 at 19:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
To quote the criteria:
"Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
beautiful does not always mean valuable."
Perhaps the criteria should be amended to spell out what this "value" is. From our Welcome page:
"Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content."
The "value" is surely its use as "educational media content", rather than stock images for inspirational posters or for postcards, say. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support For the value : the kind (species) of trees on the bank can be much more interested than Alien's head for someone I think (not for you certainly), friendly -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't think it lacks educational value (if it did we'd delete it). And I don't think it has so little such value that I'd oppose. Just indistinguishable from the other Estonian lake photographs because they all lack any context/surroundings. Colin (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lakes you have cited are look alike, it's an other very important and valuable information for geographer or others scientifics, thanks to have emphasing that. .We are going to put out mountains in Estonia to help Ivar for it's FP. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to help Colin to distinguish the photos of Ivar -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One only has to look at Ivar's other pictures to know there is plenty scenic variation in Estonia and a variety of composition options. This is exactly the same composition, lighting and subject (give or take) as the other two FPs. I'm currently reading a book on outdoor photography with lots of pictures from both Scotland and from Estonia and none of them are the same. Colin (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a pity this commonness of these lakes, Ivar cannot make a book of photos with these lakes. Maybe only an educative book on these lakes becauses the photos are very good. Question : if I find a similar lake in my country, It is not necessary that I get bored to photograph it, you saw those there? It will be only a "sunset" of more? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christian, judging the value of this picture is as subjective as judging the composition or the lighting. All these aspects are absolutely part of the FP criteria (despite what Ralf said) yet are personal opinions. I respect your opinion, and I ask you to respect mine, not to mock it. Thank-you. Colin (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To respect your opinion and not to mock it? yes ok but what is it? Your first comment : "Pretty but not strong educational value" your second comment  : "Oh I don't think it lacks educational value". I don't understand your opinion. Me, my opinion is that it's not the same lake so all these pictures are valuable, there is nothing more to add. Me, my opinion is if Ivar or someone else photograph all the lakes in earth with exactly the same light and exactly the same composition, I sign right now and I think Commons will be winner and this is objectively and not subjectively. It is also just my opinion and you can also respect my opinion. It's you who had answer my first comment, it was not necessary because it was also only my opinion and I repeat it : "For the value : the kind (species) of trees on the bank can be much more interested than Alien's head for someone I think (not for you certainly), friendly". Now, if you write another comment, be sure me too. Really friendly -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I forgot, don't worry, a little of hot pepper in the discussion is not so bad (IMO), and I thank you very much for this exchange -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I forgot, if you add comment, me too, have I alraidy say it? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the image isn't "valuable" as though that was something an image either has or has not. It is not a binary measure. Of course there is value in this image and we will differ as to how much we see. If Ivar wants to take 1000 images the same of different lakes then Commons is a "winner" as you say. Like QI is filled with hundreds of similar pictures of trains, though I assume they are different trains. However, the FP criteria require "pictures should be in some way special" and discourages pictures that "are not in essence different from others". I think after two nearly identical FPs, the third is no longer special enough for FP. Others clearly disagree. We can discuss opinions and disagree without mocking. Colin (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it's not mocking it's juts my answers. I ask you once again : so because there is "two nearly identical FPs", if I find a lake in my region with the same light and without a mountain in background (or some exotic thing like in your book), it's not necessary that I nominate it to FPC (have you a book of my region, I begin to be afraid that my photos do not correspond to the idea that you are made about my region) (is it mocking? if yes, it's you the first who compare our candidate pictures to your book)? Or another question, if the picture candidate of Ivar was in Italy, or USA, could we compare these images between her?. If no why do you compare theses images of different lakes (only because you see just lake, bank and sky or light : it's only a lake!!!) or from which distance between the lakes it's acceptable to have another FP like the both cited. All these questions are serious, can you answer correctly? Now I go to job, see you later -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is a good idea to intervene your heated discussion but I rather try it: I am on Colin's side that there should be a certain variation of motives and compositions with FPCs. In the past I got much bored by the 1000th NASA FPC and sometimes voted with oppose. Another example are the excellent shell photos by Llez. They have surely a high EV (for biologists) but do seldom include enough Wow for me to support on FPC - such images are better placed on VI or on the language-specific FPCs. The only flaw in Colin's argumentation is to take "value" or "educational value" as argument against yet another Estonian sea reflection photo. Especially in the German Wikipedia terms like "educational value" or "encyclopedic additional benefit" are taken as justification for everything if someone does not like a photo. As I've argued there such (scientific) terms pretend an objectivity which does not exist for photos. It would be more honest to say that one does not like a photo or got bored because it is the third very similar shot - on FPC an eligible reason for declining a photo. Let us talk about excellent photos and not about value which no one can measure. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tuxyso. I agree the focus on ev as the only or main issue is perhaps misplaced especially as it may be loaded with other meaning for wikipedias. Like my last comment above, it is less special because it is so similar to the last two. For a re-user, these three are largely interchangeable images of Estonian lakes in autumn, which says something about their value to the project to me, but to someone else they may judge value differently. All three are very good individually, and I'm not discouraging anyone from taking and uploading such a picture. But three identical pictures is not what FP is about. I do think opinions on "value" are important however, and our varied opinions on this make FP interesting and the reason why we want !votes from so many different people. But such opinions are from the gut and I don't think picking them apart with forensic precision is a useful exercise. Colin (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree your point about valued, it's subjective, and in more I did not speak the first one on about the valued. So I have the right to answer about that and for me it's the most valuable AND nice picture of Lake Niinsaare in Wikimedia, on internet (and maybe in the world?), so it give it a big, big value, I think. Interchangeable images of Estonian lakes? is it a joke? I will try to not mock about this sentence. Different Lakes are not interchangeable, different shells are not interchangeable, different butterflies are not interchangeable. But maybe we can widen this reasoning, you could say "Interchangeable images of Northern Europpean lakes" or "Interchangeable images of Europpean lakes", where is the limit please, be more precise, is my region concerned? You have not to compare two pictures of two different shells species, You have not to compare two pictures of two different butterflies species, You have not to compare two pictures of two different castles, You have not to compare two pictures of two different Lakes. And You have not to compare any picture to your book picture (is there a photo of this specific lake in your book?). You can oppose for not WOW, ok, for the poverty of the composition (in your opinion), ok, I agree. But if you talk about valued and subjectively, and you did, it give me the right to me to be also a bit subjective and to say that I said in my first comment. You have promoted in the past excellent shell photos and now you are tired about that, please what is the precise number of featurable images of shells, butterflies, castles and other lakes? Can you be more precise. If you want you can oppsose but if you talk about value you have not the right but the duty to be objective before to be subjective and to not compare different subjects. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I don't think picking people's opinions apart with forensic precision is a useful exercise. Your long argument about interchangeable just sounds like argument for argument sake to me. These images are, to me, largely identical. That's just a quick judgement. Perhaps you see a significant difference. Perhaps you view this image more valuable and special than I do. I respect that and am not trying to change your mind. One interesting thing to me is that one can visit different lakes and yet still come away with an identical picture. Perhaps that says something about Estonia or it says something about the kind of image Iifar wants to get. Which is fine. Christian, I haven't opposed this picture. I made a comment. I haven't tried to ridicule your opinion as you have mine, so please stop. I'm unwatching. Colin (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I end with my first comment :"For the value : the kind (species) of trees on the bank can be much more interested than Alien's head for someone I think (not for you certainly), friendly" --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JKadavoor Jee 15:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Niinsaare_järv.jpg&oldid=107906844"