Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dornstetten Kübelbachviadukt02crop2 2006-10-17.jpg

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

Dornstetten Kübelbachviadukt

See previous FP nominations. Dantadd✉ 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of argument is this?? Are you angry?--Christoph Michels 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little bit, but don't worry, I'll survive. Dantadd✉ 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a valid argument for opposing the picture. Would have you supported the same picture, if it was taken by a South American tourist? --Mbz1 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
We need more FP of Latin American subjects. It doesn't matter who takes the picture. Dantadd✉ 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agry we need more high value pictures from all over the world including Latin American subjects. Yet I'm not sure how opposing of that European picture could help to introduce the pictures from Latin America? There's no limit in the pictures that could get FP status.--Mbz1 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Well' you're right, but until we have a more fair distribution I'll oppose all European and North American picture. That's my personal opinion. Dantadd✉ 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody could have their own opinion and, if I were you, I would have tried to find some interesting Latin America pictures, which are in public domain, upload them to Wikipedia and nominate them on FP simply because opposing all European and North American pictures will not help your couse while nominating more Latin America pictures could help.--Mbz1 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I'm gonna do it. In fact, I already did it with this beautiful historical picture (Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg), but, as always, the same users have found a hundred of unforgivable flaws in it. Dantadd✉ 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a pity if this forum became a place for fighting over national or continental representation. So far I thought this was about good pics, but I just learned that you can't hide from politics :-) --Christoph Michels 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we must have to things in mind: good pictures and fair representation. If the election is just a matter of quality we already have the Quality Picture nomination. Please, take a look on the FP category: it's not fair what we see there. It's not a matter of politics, but everybody wants to feel represented. Dantadd✉ 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a matter of representation without being a matter of politics? And how can you then demand one sort of politics (continentalism?)only? If we start this debate here we should also take into consideration all issues of fair representation, e.g. gender, nations, continents, species, humans/non-humans, classes, ethnic groups, religions, political parties (you could extend this list endlessly depending what kind of politics you are interested in.)But I think this issue (for this forum) had been settled long time ago. And at least I understood that FP is about (a politics of) representing high quality images with an encyclopedic value. If you have the feeling that some pictures are discriminated due to their origin you are right in yelling out loud. But: From looking at the way people argue here I do not share your perception. And: I can't understand why you then start to discriminate others due to their origin. --Christoph Michels 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have never seen such a ridiculous argument on Commons. Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?
I think this vote should be crossed out and not counted as Featured pictures is not about expressing personal political/ideological views, but selecting good quality pictures. What if somebody votes against a picture of a politican saying "I don't like him, he's a liar"? This vote is a dangerous precedent. --Derbeth talk 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dangerous precedent has already been set. Just look at the FP category. Ridiculous argument is "Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?" This is not a political or ideological view, it's just a matter of equity, but it seems that a lot of people is getting angry because somebody noticed that there's is a wrong systematic in play here. Dantadd✉ 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are really funny. Now YOU (Dantadd) are the only one who opposes a picture because of the country where it is coming from (what a disgusting reason). If we all start a behaviour like you are doing here, we will soon have a mess here. That you as a Commons Administrator give such statements here is quite shocking for me. Again the nationality is of no matter here...i don't care if we have many pictures from Europe here...i want that commons becomes a source for good pictures. If we give low quality pictures with no composition the FP-status, then the FP in general will lose its value and we can close it down all together. But you don't seem to understand that - FP-status is only for the best pictures. --AngMoKio 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm really wrong. I tried, but you seem not to agree that there's an absurd and blatant inequity in the features pictures. I'm not here by myself. This problem was brought to me by two editors on pt.wiki. There's just a sentiment of impotence and impossibility of a even minor representation here. But, you won. Keep going and thinking that everything is perfect. This is not a matter of electing bad pictures, I'm not asking that. I'm asking to little techinal flaws to be forgiven in order to have more equity. Just that. If it's just a matter of quality, why have two parallel elections to decide it?. I don't understand. That's my final comment on this. Dantadd✉ 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dantadd, we have more FPs of mammals (even without counting pictures of humans) than of beetles, while there can be aroung 350,000 species of choleoptera in the world, but less than 5,000 species of mammals. If this was a matter of fair representation, we should oppose every nomination of pics of mammals, and forgive flaws on beetle pictures until we reached equity among subjects. But we don't. We apply the same criteria (not just quality but also interestingness, uniqueness and usefulness - differences between QIs and FPs can be read in the instructions) to images, regardless of taxonomic class, order, or continent. Opposing a picture just with the comment too many European FP pictures looks as strange as opposing a pic of an oryx commenting too many FP of mammals. It's true that we have a bigger want of images of Latin American beetles than of European mammals, but we should have more FP of both types. --Javier ME 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we sought equity among cities instead of among continents? If I found a second excellent and informative image of Brasilia, should I abstain of featuring it until we featured at least one of all the other cities which currently have none? I think we should feature more images, even if they were from Segovia , a minor European city of which there is already one FP. The problem with Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg was neither its continent nor it had a hundred of unforgivable flaws. It was that its values were not enough to overcome the certain flaws it had. I agree with Dantadd, however, in that the first questioned reason of the amount of European FPs were not probable "Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed?". It's very difficult to say if Europe has more skilled photographers than America, but it's easy to guess that the proportion of people with good photographical equipment and affordable access to Internet is higher in Japan, Western Europe or North America than in parts of Latin America or Africa. I also understand that taking photos of humans is easier than taking photos of insects without the proper makro equipment and skills, but anyway I suspect there is specism here and some voters are more interested in images of humans than of beetles, so we'll hardly reach equity in this :P --Javier ME 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • cylindrical projection, the FP candidate
    cylindrical projection, the FP candidate
  • equirectangular projection
    equirectangular projection
  • rectilinear projection
    rectilinear projection
  • the bridge seen from the opposite site looking South
    the bridge seen from the opposite site looking South

Here for comparison (big discussions here please). -- Klaus with K 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It still leaves the distorted pillars on the rectilinear. I think I am finding out the hard way that a mere flat screen is inadequate to display a panorama. -- Klaus with K 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Acknowledging some private discussions I feel that these are justification enough for me to say that illustrating the railway viaduct from the gallery above the right photo is presumably the best choice (unless one prints the image on a semicircular screen) but imaging the viaduct with its dominant horizontal and vertical components and also some fine structure in the girders the left photo can well illustrate the properties of a cylindrical projection. Rectilinear and equirectangular projections to serve as comparisons are now available as well. -- Klaus with K 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ack Ram-Man - so I normally would Oppose, but I marked my vote as neutral because there is one more Oppose listed here than it should be. Now the final calculation should be fair again. Andreas Tille 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You bring back a level playing field — Thank you. -- Klaus with K 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting projection.--Beyond silence 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's l'art pour l'art, no information value, on the contrary. On the other hand, the argumentation of Dantadd is very dangerous and inacceptable. In football it is Latin America, which is overrepresented, but nobody in his healthy mind would consider to limit their participation.--Szilas 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Dornstetten_Kübelbachviadukt02crop2_2006-10-17.jpg&oldid=605791805"