Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allébron September 2014.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Allébron September 2014.jpg, featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 19:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by ArildV - uploaded by ArildV| - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Support Really creatively and very successful -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Abstain as creator. Thank you Villy!--ArildV (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)- Support Wow. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Regretful oppose Beautiful and striking as it is, I still cannot tell just from looking at it what it's supposed to be a picture of (I know, I read the description, and it's a tram ... but still), and I am further missing any idea of its encyclopedic value, save perhaps to illustrate some concept in visual aesthetics. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, this is not en:wp. There is no requirement on Commons FP for "encyclopaedic" value (i.e. for it to be suitable to illustrate an article). There is a core "educational" requirment for material on Commons but this is very loosely interpreted. Outside of an encyclopaedia, educational media (web sites, magazines, books) require images to catch the readers eye (eye candy), to break up large slabs of text (giving the eye/mind a rest) and to engage more senses and parts of the mind than just those processing text/language. This isn't just gratuitous decoration, but actually helps the reader/learning experience. Many of those images are not standard encyclopeadic shots of "something" but may simply be lovely images with a loose connection to the subject. One may remember a fact supplied alongside a memorable image far better than if presented in plain text. The fact that this image is real, rather than just some Photoshop montage, is valuable. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- So, you couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be either without looking at the description?
Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 
Comment I agree with Colin. About encyclopedic value, the picture could easily be used in these articles: Motion blur, Long-exposure photography and may be in Fine-art photography. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, though, I don't think the argument that an image has EV due to the photographic technique used (or photographic mistake, even) is particularly compelling for Commons. And I'm less keen on extremely contrived images such as the Picture Of The Year lightbulbs (but I'm clearly in the minority on those!) -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- So, you couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be either without looking at the description?
- Daniel Case, this is not en:wp. There is no requirement on Commons FP for "encyclopaedic" value (i.e. for it to be suitable to illustrate an article). There is a core "educational" requirment for material on Commons but this is very loosely interpreted. Outside of an encyclopaedia, educational media (web sites, magazines, books) require images to catch the readers eye (eye candy), to break up large slabs of text (giving the eye/mind a rest) and to engage more senses and parts of the mind than just those processing text/language. This isn't just gratuitous decoration, but actually helps the reader/learning experience. Many of those images are not standard encyclopeadic shots of "something" but may simply be lovely images with a loose connection to the subject. One may remember a fact supplied alongside a memorable image far better than if presented in plain text. The fact that this image is real, rather than just some Photoshop montage, is valuable. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel Case -- Jiel (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support fantastic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Love it. --Kadellar (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. More like this please. Let's celebrate creativity, not stifle it. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Per Colin --DXR (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Really inspiring! Poco2 11:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Support Fantastic!! Intriguing, conceptual, thought-provoking... The fact that one's mind has to make an effort to understand the image is a plus, not a minus. A cubist tram.... :-) --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
- Support --Maire (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support I somewhat agree with Daniel Case, but well... the image is just so great and there definetly is some use for it :) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Per Colin --· Favalli ⟡ 00:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
