Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Neuschwanstein 2013.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Schloss Neuschwanstein 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2013 at 20:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  Info I removed the halos. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Support--P.Lindgren (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral I have to agree about the oversharpening. I would support if redone with less sharpening. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support It is razor sharp image, but I see very little evidence of oversharping unless under extreme and worthless pixel peeping. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Very good like that --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:55, 01 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment It's a nice & highly valuable image, without doubt. But: Do we really need four (!) nearly identical views of Neuschwanstein as FP? Even though the one from 2005 can (and should, imo) be delisted, the remaining three are a bit too much I think. --A.Savin 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Per A.Savin. No more wow factor...--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that is more a comment on our FP collection and processes than on this image. We don't moan when there are lots of similar poor-quality non-FP pictures in our collection. We are happy to congratulate one that is the best (and this is). So it is a bit unfair to be critical in this nom just because some others got to FP in the past. I imagine there is one best viewpoint for this castle, which limits the variation. Should we discourage people from taking and uploading improved pictures of subjects we already have? Of course not! Suppose this nom failed if everyone said "Not this again, boring" -- then we'd have a perverse situation where the best image of this castle wasn't actually featured. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, actually a dilemma. Feature this one but delist all others = a disrespect for the work by Taxi and Ximonic, possibly unnecessary conflicts. Feature this one and keep the others featured = somewhat contradictory to the idea of COM:FP (the "very best of Commons", several almost identical pictures concurrently featured). Not feature this one = nonsense, the picture isn't worse than the others (although the "wow factor" falls with every new nomination of this motif, that's for sure). --A.Savin 11:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well you and Jebulon can go "Wow, not this again!" :-). Having too many similar FPs is "a nice problem to have", is fairly uncommon, and not worth the pain it causes whenever the subject of delisting is raised. Let's just be happy we have an abundance of excellent photos and worry about something else. Colin (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Yes, very good!! Although I`d like to see the unsampled 11500 px version. ;-) --mathias K 15:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cropped version. The other version will be uploaded soon! :-) -- Wolf im Wald (de) 15:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Joydeep Talk 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Schloss_Neuschwanstein_2013.jpg&oldid=103436015"