Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg

File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2011 at 18:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg

•  Info created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 18:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- H005 18:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Steven Walling 01:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cephas (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Minimal visual impact (and as far as I know the original is not notable by itself). Good job, valuable, but not featurable as far as I'm concerned. --99of9 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose as 99of9. W.S. 08:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great quality + useful = Feature-able. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Great Quality = QI, Useful = maybe VI. QI+VI != FP. We should have higher standards than that for our "finest". --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...So, no featured maps ever for you? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, that's strange logic. Where do you think I said that? Are you implying that a map cannot possibly have visual impact or be historically notable? --99of9 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm saying it's an old map. It is what it is. And you can't forget that aesthetic tastes have changed in a hundred years and that for certain object there's a higher or lower need for aesthetic presence. A map is not generally even today something people make so that it can be a gloriously beautiful thing, usually it's just meant to serve a utilitarian purpose, but IMO that shouldn't mean it shouldn't be worth any consideration at all. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose If it would be 17th century.--Mile (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per 99of9. --Avenue (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media