Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nordkirchen-090806-9515-Horn.jpg

File:Nordkirchen-090806-9515-Horn.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 18:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

difficult to take a picture of the sculpture withou the trees

Info all by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That tree on bottom right distracts me too much + it's 1.2 only. —kallerna™ 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could easily edit out the tree (though preserving the few strands of spiderweb in front of it might be just a bit trickier :). However, I do echo Kallerna's concern about the licensing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The sculpture is located in one of Germanys biggest historical sculpture parks and the distracting old trees imo belong to the reality of the park just like the spiders and the dirt caused by birds and trees, please leave it as it is. I accept if someone doesn't like the composition and I'm interested in feedback, even if it is negative, that's OK. I'm watching the retouching of our pictures carefully and many do a good work on this task, but I don't believe that it is a good concept to erase all ugly parts of reality.

The debate about licensing is imo displaced in the review of a single picture, many of our best photographers use GFDL 1.2 or similar licenses and they have reasons to do so. We can discuss that but the review of a single picture is not the right place to do so. And I'm sorry, I'm a little bit disappointed, that Kallerna uses this way directly after I critizised this kind of debate concerning a QI picture of another Wikipedian, where Kallerna opposed because he wanted to change our policies for QI. That looks like a sort of revenge.

The discussion of licensing can be very distructive, we have this kind of partially aggressive debates on German Wikipedia since about a year. My main reason to use GFDL 1.2 is the changing of licensing without asking me as an author. Some people say that I could opt out, but in fact that is difficult, because I have thousands of pictures on this server and the gallery of my works mix own pictures with pictures I retouched during my work on categories like «Images for cleanup». For me the license I gave to a picture is a kind of contract between me and the project and I think that that contract cannot be changed without prior agreement. Please leave this statement concerning licenses without comment, because we should discuss that on the right place and that is not the review of a picture. best regards --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vote wasn't a revenge, I don't have anything against you or any other user. And the main reason to my vote was that tree on bottom right. —kallerna™ 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nice to read that, thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm fine with the licence and the trees, but the image is, despite its extraordinary technical quality (really great!), not special enough - no wow!, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]