Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelicans in fllight in mazatlan.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Pelicans in fllight in mazatlan.jpg, withdrawn
[edit]
Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2009 at 02:39:47
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Support If you think it is important to id the pelicans, do so! Me take the picture, you name the subject. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)- Info looks like Pelecanus occidentalis --ianaré (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Please obtain id's before you nominate. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Well Lycaon, a few things... Ianare generously contributed with the id... (thanks Ianare) before you opposed. And while I see the value of identifying subjects, it is not part of the guidelines, and I don´t think it should be a requirement. So I see no basis for your oppose, unless you find other faults... (and please don´t just add the requirement by yourself). Some people are good at photography, others at identifying or classifying images... Others at both... If you have the knowledge, share it. I have photographs, I share them... That way everyone wins! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not very fair, isn't it? Imagine if I would nominate a name of an insect (well defined) and trhen say: ""I name the subject, you take the picture". A bit ridiculous too, wouldn't it be? Lycaon (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! Wrong premise Lycaon, starting point is the image, all else follows. Besides, this particular image is centered on flight of pelicans, where the particular identification of the subjects is not the main objective. Remember the Tao, "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. Translation, the words are not the thing named, the words are not the image. The image is the image. The words about the image is not what is judged here. The image is. Granted, Identification is extremely desirable, but to what depth? And since this is a collaborative effort, I think it is reasonable for people to help the project along, not to shoot it down in technicalities. Add them and further the effort. I prefer depth over form. --200.56.93.82 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Opps... that was me... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the (my) point. I have nothing against uploading unidentified pictures (though I'd never do it myself) but there are lots of options to find out an id before you nominate. FP is not an identification forum (nor a forum to post several alternative versions of the same thing for that matter, but that is another story). We have Commons:Photography critiques for that. Other users can do it (e;g. Alvesgaspar, Yann, Richard Bartz, ...) so why couldn't you? I help where I can and when I can and so do other people. Lycaon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please judge on FP criteria, this is still not QI. I agree that identification makes an image much more useful, but images are not just used for Wikipedia articles about a species. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the (my) point. I have nothing against uploading unidentified pictures (though I'd never do it myself) but there are lots of options to find out an id before you nominate. FP is not an identification forum (nor a forum to post several alternative versions of the same thing for that matter, but that is another story). We have Commons:Photography critiques for that. Other users can do it (e;g. Alvesgaspar, Yann, Richard Bartz, ...) so why couldn't you? I help where I can and when I can and so do other people. Lycaon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! Wrong premise Lycaon, starting point is the image, all else follows. Besides, this particular image is centered on flight of pelicans, where the particular identification of the subjects is not the main objective. Remember the Tao, "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. Translation, the words are not the thing named, the words are not the image. The image is the image. The words about the image is not what is judged here. The image is. Granted, Identification is extremely desirable, but to what depth? And since this is a collaborative effort, I think it is reasonable for people to help the project along, not to shoot it down in technicalities. Add them and further the effort. I prefer depth over form. --200.56.93.82 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Opps... that was me... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not very fair, isn't it? Imagine if I would nominate a name of an insect (well defined) and trhen say: ""I name the subject, you take the picture". A bit ridiculous too, wouldn't it be? Lycaon (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality + id's missing. —kallerna™ 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- ... and continuing with the next... What does bad quality mean? There are generally agreed criteria in the photographic world that can, somewhat objectively, define quality in specific terms. Please define your idea of bad quality in adequate language, at least as a courtesy considering your ever present opposes. I think the authors deserve to know the substance, if there is any, of the critiques. That way others and I may learn something from your wisdom. As for the ID, if you had taken the time to read the description, you would have seen the ID. --200.56.93.82 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC) That was me... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak quality, image v. soft at full size and some CA evident. - Flying Freddy (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 12:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
