Commons:Featured picture candidates/Rotring Technical Pens by Lucasbosch

Rotring Technical Pens by Lucasbosch, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 16:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info This is a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files. The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. All by LB -- LB 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LB 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Don't you have a version with more resolution? Poc o² 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Poco It's a SVG, a vector graphic :) --Laitche (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC) should not open it as PNG. --Laitche (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you are right. Actually I thought that it was for real! you got my Support Poc o² 19:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small for me --LivioAndronico talk 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LivioAndronico just open it normaly and press CTRL + how much you want to...it wont lose resolution since vector graphic. --Mile (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CTRL + how much you want to works with every image,anyway i delete my oppose,but i'm not very sure --LivioAndronico talk 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, that with a vector graphic like this you can enlarge it infinitely without negative effects. The default display size really doesn't matter here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitely? isn't true.--LivioAndronico talk 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That infinitely means you can see the more details in larger images (loss details) but those are not smooth because you can see kinda path (like this) of vector graphics and Bézier curve in larger images, but it's actually infinite at times, that depends on the way of making. --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LB If my comment is wrong, please remark. --Laitche (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, that looks extremely realistic to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand the composition. Is it a set ? a picture ? Why the series ? Why individuals ? It lacks of clarification to me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon: It's a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files (your comment reads as if you think it's all one file). The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. I hope you will reconsider your vote. --LB 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pinging me. I know and understand what I see, my concern is about the "set" nomination. It is a very impressive work, by the way. --Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jebulon: Set nominations are okay by the FP nomination rules, and this set can be seen as a "group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object." (see set nomination rules, category 4). The class of object is technical pens currently sold under the Rotring brand, all possible variations are both Rapidograph and Isograph pens and the extra images showing them disassembled and the color codes (and different nib sizes) are for illustrative purposes. --LB 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This clear explanation makes sense, I strike my oppose, and I think that such a quality job deserves a support. btw, I'm the proud owner of two FP sets... --Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. — Julian H.^✈ 10:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a great (and very nice) work! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks nice work for me. --Laitche (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is stretching the "set" definition a bit more than I'd like, but very good work nonetheless. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could somebody please change this to being featured? I don't feel comfortable doing all the steps correctly. @Poco a poco: , could you please do this? --LB 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your comment and just read it. Poc o² 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]