Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/VFA-204 River Rattlers

Set nomination: VFA-204 River Rattlers, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 January 2010 at 13:31

2 Mixed formation of F/A-18s and F-15 Eagles

4 Eight Hornets in formation

•  Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John P. Curtis (US Navy), uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It's been a while since we've had a set nomination, and I think all of these pictures are worth promoting. They show some interesting formation flying by VFA-204, the Louisiana-based 'River Rattlers', who fly F/A-18 Hornets and F-15 Eagles.
•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Why is everybody against ammunition or machine guns because they are war propaganda and glorify the war, but nobody is against jet fighters for the same reasons? --Kabelleger (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe I can answer that, but the answer would be highly unfavourable to some people. Wolf (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Welcome to one of the thorniest issues of Commons:FPC...Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yay, airplanes! Wolf (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Question (and sarcasm at the same time, as courtesy to the nominator ) Would it be possible to make the filenames even longer? Wolf (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I was going to rename them like you asked, but based on the wait times from previous renaming efforts, I would have been here until February, and like a kid with a cool toy, I just couldn't wait. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Question How does set voting work? If they were individual I would oppose number 4 for composition (planes not symmetric, and too far down the image), but would support the others. What should I vote? --99of9 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Really? That's my favourite. Well, each to his (or her) own. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I've decided I should oppose. Unlike at least one previous set nomination this set does not require all four to get the added educational value for being "complete", therefore I can't give any discount to my individual FP standards. I would support 2 and 3, would oppose 4, and would not vote on 1 (the cloud annoys me). 99of9 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Abstain As 99of9 mentions, how should set voting work ? I think the guidelines should have a section about it if we should use it. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the set. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the set --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO two of these could be FP, the other two couldn't. —kallerna™ 10:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the set. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I don't see the reason for promoting the images as a set. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose set. Support third.--Avala (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose set. Takabeg (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose like Alvesgaspar --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the idea of voting for a set. Why those pictures can't be nominated individually? --Leafnode✉ 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)