Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 3.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 3.jpg, not featured edit

 

  Comment It's not racism because "Latin American" is not a race. But, let it be... Dantadd✉ 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i don't get your point...what do you want to say? Do you really think that this worldwide community has something against latin america?! Why should that be?! --AngMoKio 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't think that, but something is wrong, and people should "forgiven" minor technical flaws in order to have more featured pictures from Latin America. There are hundreds of featured pictures (maybe near a thousand), but Latin American subjects are less than 20. The numbers are eloquent enough, don't you think? Dantadd✉ 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sole reason to become a FP is my opinion the composition and the overall quality. I agree sometimes minor technical shouldn't count that much if the composition is really good. But again: to give a photo FP-status because we have only few photos in the FPs of that certain topic can never be a reason. --AngMoKio 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh this is ridiculous: can I next start to complain about Africa, which is far larger and more populous than South America, yet has far less FP's? That's not the point of FP. It's just about selecting the best commons has to offer, and if South America doesn't offer, we can't select! Lycaon 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's is just a lame excuse for obstructionism. I didn't mention Africa, but the same obstacles apply. Technical questions are important, but minor flaws should be forgiven in order to have more equity. But by the signals the decision makers here have given that's not gonna happen. It's a shame, because if this exact same scene (flaws included) was from a terrorist attack in London I have NO DOUBT the picture would be selected. Dantadd✉ 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly shows your personal bias. Also in Europe mitigation for technical flaws is not that forgiving (see e.g. ([1]). Lycaon 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my bias, it's my opinion. I'm not saying that European or US subjects are forgiven for technical flaws. I'm saying that little technical flaws should be forgiven in order to have more equity. This is not an election for QUALITY picture (there your views are perfect), but for featured picture, and it's shameful the incredible numeric difference between the continents. We have to take some affirmative actions here... Dantadd✉ 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, Dantadd, I absolutely agree with you that the picture value should overwrite most technical flaws. After all the reader of Wikipedia (the ones, who do not vote here) will never-ever even notice most problem opposing people are talking about. I also agree that FP has too many pictures of very, very common insects and even more common flowers. I could not agree more that "this is not an election for QUALITY picture". As you see I was the first one to support the both pictures of that horrible tragedy. Yet I cannot agree with you that people, who opposing these pictures, would have voted in different way, if the pictures were taken in Europe or North America. Some(maybe even most) people here put a quality of the image much above the image's value. Sometimes I feel like it is a photo forum of professional photographers and I do not like it at all, but I'm afraid it is the way it is. One guy from that Photo Forum once told me that, if I'm to take a picture of an alien in an alien spacecraft, and the picture is not perfect, he would oppose it. Oh well, I felt sorry for him...--Mbz1 01:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
"if this exact same scene (flaws included) was from a terrorist attack in London [...] the picture would be selected"? A similar scene was photographed in NY in 2001, and uploaded two years ago (Image:September 14 2001 Ground Zero 01.jpg), and it hasn't been featured, though it's as impressive and useful as this one (though I find more emotive this one of the couple of firefighters looking downwards). I think humans deserve equity but photographs nor photo subjects don't. If we haven't been able to find excellent and informative images of Panama or Uruguay, the solution is to look harder, nor to lower the requirements. I opposed featuring the noisy image of this event's aftermath, but I nominated this one, despite of its want of contrast between figures and foreground, cause I thought its other values and the uniqueness of the moment could mitigate its technical flaws. I don't think that Image:NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle.jpg is technically better than this one -of course I acknowledge other people here know more about photogrpah than me-, but I understand than the circumstances the moon image was taken in increase its value as a FP. --Javier ME 22:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I didn't know that... Then, explain something to me: why so many people are eager to get FP status to their pictures? And more, why some many people are eager to criticize pictures here as it was a QUALITY picture contest? Another one: why we have 500 US pictures, 400 European pictures and very very few Latin American or African pictures? If this election applies the same concepts used in Quality Picture why do we have two elections? Dantadd✉ 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If 0.01% of all picture posted achieve FP status, then there is a clear positive bias towards Latin American pictures!! It is all a game of volume, quality and potential. There is no conspiracy, be assured!!. Lycaon 12:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy, I'm not (that) naïf. I'm asking you to be more compliant with certain subjects in order to have a little bit more equity here. Just that, it's not that difficult. Dantadd✉ 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering why people try to get FP status. Maybe more Wikipedia readers see FP pictures compare to not FP pictures. I know at least one guy here, who sells his pictures. His license is kind of free, and kind of not free. Does FP status help to sell the pictures? Who knows. I, for example, nominating my pictures mostly for fun. Some comments that people make about my pictures are really funny. I do not care at all, if a picture will get FP status or it will not. Please take a look at that Nomination. It was passing, with no one opposing it (I believe Lycaon was still in Namibia), but I withdrawn the nomination because the flower is too common and was not taken in South Africa, where that plant is native, but in a botanical garden. On the other hand, please take a look at that nomination. I took the picture of the girl at Madagascar. I believed, if one looks into her eyes, he would forget everything, as I did, when I first saw her. As you could see it was not the case.Yet I'm sure the picture was opposed not because it was taken in Africa. By the way it is the truth that even not FP pictures are used and looked at. At least one of my pictures was published in a bib magazine in Italy. They even never contacted me, but my freind, who lives in Italy bought the magazine and saw my picture there. At first I was surprised -I 've never submmited the picture to that magazine, but then I knew - they took it from Wikipedia. By the way, if I am to nominate that picture here to get FP status, it will never pass;) Do I care? No I do not.--Mbz1 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •   Oppose There are no mitigating reasons for the low quality. In daytime lighting, there isn't an excuse for this blur. It's not like this was taken with a little point -and-shoot either, this was taken with a very capable camera, but the photographer did not accomplish a technically excellent picture. -- Ram-Man 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 15:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:TAM_Linhas_Aéreas_Flight_3054_3.jpg&oldid=164706562"