Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Auf dem Gehrenberg 6.jpg

Image:Auf dem Gehrenberg 6.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 14:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dietrich Krieger - uploaded by Dietrich Krieger - nominated by Anghy -- anghy (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- anghy (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support High quality and very artistic, but not a whole lot of EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture--Llorenzi (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be perfect the horse should have been the other way round, but still impressive. --ELEKHH^T 11:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per THFSP. --99of9 (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, per THFSW. His arguments are valuable for an oppose vote too... This is a very nice picture, which could win in a contest, but I do not know how to use it in projects. There are many other sites where to show this kind of (very good) images. Only my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Commons is not only supporting Wikipedia. I imagine this could be used as a generic image in a Wikinews article like this or elsewhere. --ELEKHH^T 13:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for information. I'll try to remember, but I think I know well enough now what "Commons" is or is not ...;). I know too that this picture will be feature-d. In my opinion, only in my opinion, this (nice) image has no (or a very little) educationnal value and is not feature-able for this reason, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beware the lone opposer, thou shall be castigated. W.S. 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen O my Lord. Sed qui bene amat, bene castigat. --Jebulon (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't misunderstand me, I am very glad you give so much attention to educational value! Nevertheless I think there are multiple ways an image can be educational. In this case I imagine you refer to a lack of EV as the image does not show any details of the horse or the vegetation etc. But as a highly impressive image, it can help attract attention (i.e. readers) to an educational article, thus indirectly leading to an educational benefit. More directly, it shows the silhouette of a horse in an aesthetically pleasant way, which might make viewers want to learn more about it. -ELEKHH^T 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can agree with all of that. I understand what you mean. My oppose is "weak". But I oppose, indeed...--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Je pense comme elekkh que tu as tendance à trop valoriser le côté encyclopédique d'une image alors qu'on est sur Commons, mais nous en avons déjà suffisamment discuté... À la rigueur, il faudrait penser à faire l'équivalent du FPC sur le Wiki français (seul grand wiki sans !!) - Benh (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Je pense comme Archaeodontosaurus (et d'autres) que tu as tendance à trop valoriser le côté "concours de beauté" dans FPC alors qu'on est sur "Commons". Il y a beaucoup d'autres sites, et des meilleurs, pour montrer et juger de "belles images", alors que "Commons" est unique. Nous ne nous accorderons pas sur ce point je le crains, et en effet nous en avons déjà discuté (suffisament ?). Je crains que ton interprétation de la pensée d'un autre ne soit pas tout à fait conforme à ce qu'il dit, en ce qu'il confère tout de même un aspect encyclopédique (ou éducatif, pour mieux traduire) à la beauté de l'image en question et tente de m'en convaincre. Je pense au contraire qu'il conviendrait de supprimer les FPC des wikipédias nationales (anglaise, turque, allemande essentiellement), qui n'apportent rien et ne font que créer de la confusion, d'autant que la tendance est à regrouper et à faire migrer tout les stocks sur "Commons". J'attache énormément de prix au côté international de "Commons". Je considère enfin que les discussions particulières et les interpellations ad hominem n'ont pas leur place sur cette page, surtout dans une langue qui n'est pas usuelle pour la majorité des utilisateurs. --Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've no issue with switching back to english. I remind you again part of the guidelines : "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". That's Elekhh's point. Another issue, unlike en:FPC, you can't weight your vote on Commons, no need for weak or strong vote. - Benh (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        My concern was not only about the use of english or french...--Jebulon (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        After re-reading the guidelines (rule 7), I see that I was wrong (only) with this part of my sentence above: but I do not know how to use it in projects. It is not a valid reason to oppose, ok. I still think so, but please notice that it is not the main reason of my oppose. I maintain the rest. To me, this picture is suffering of a lack of educational value. Then I still oppose for that. It was a weak oppose because I used a contrario the same arguments used for a weak support by THFSW. Please notice that I didn't use the false/wrong template. This kind of trial sounds ridiculous. I never go to ENWP FPC (only one time, when they promoted my écorché), and I don't know what happens there regarding the vote process.--Jebulon (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition is unbalanced to me. Challenging the general rule of giving some space ahead of the subject doesn't always work -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks EV, sadly. That's a great shot! --LeavXC (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per rule #7. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karelj (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Claus (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Falcoperegrinus (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Red tone overexposure.--Snaevar (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Citron (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural