Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Horseshoe Falls 2 Mt Field National Park.jpg

File:Horseshoe Falls 2 Mt Field National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2009 at 13:04:12

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The water was absolutely freezing. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No gummies ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gummies? w:Gummy shark? w:Gummi bear? I did see an interesting insect about 50mm long under one of those rocks actually. I didn't have any macro equipment on me though since I'd just jogged in to this waterfall after a failed trip to the Tarn Shelf in the same park. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ment rubber boots. When i was in Australia and whenever we needed rubber boots for our hike the australian said: "take the gummies with you". So I thought gummies is a familiar term. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

With you now. The water was approximately up to my thighs so they'd be a bit ineffective i'm afraid.Noodle snacks (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Probably a good thing you didn't; from personal experience, your gummies turn into leadweights once they're full of water. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its nice but are such long shutter speeds really required? I would have preferred the ferns to be sharper. BTW, nice to see you back here --Muhammad (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First impression: the picture isn't on an encyclopedic mission. I'am not a fan of massive reality bending - for me it's too much, sorry. When excluding the silky water effect there is not much left - plus the overexposed sky is marginal. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too artificial. —kallerna™ 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am disaffected by the altering of the water flow in the foreground. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --Aktron (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Nice, but I must agree in that it looks a bit too artificial. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful work of art. Fg2 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice. But artificial. And the sky is overexposed. Sorry.--Berru (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is artificial... nevertheless support. It is an elaborate, skillful and nice piece of work! My compliments --Rectilinium (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful --ianaré (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support exceptional piece. --Ka ro ra 11:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent interpretation of the subject --JJLudemann (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no need for encyclopedicness, this ain't Wikipedia. --Aqwis (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are at the wrong party and haven't ever known ... Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation where Wikipedia is a part of. In short - A Commons FP must cover the Wikipedia demands, too.  Richard  [®]  20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  - I think you will find that the sentences that you quoted contradicts your own claim - Commons is a common media file host for all of the Wikimedia projects (as well as its in practice being a central host of freely licensed pictures for the entire Internet community), and thus a picture's encyclopedicness at Wikipedia is no more relevant to our FP criteria than its suitability in a news article at Wikinews or in a textbook (who knows, maybe in a chapter about varying the shutter speed to create photographic effects) at Wikibooks! We can't favour Wikipedia over other Wikimedia projects by requiring Featured Pictures to somehow have to be fit for Wikipedia but not necessarily for the other Wikimedia projects. What does matter, however, is that Featured Pictures have to be of some kind of use on one or more of the Wikimedia projects, but as I gave an example of above (and there are probably other uses for this picture as well) that is true for this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Theory & practice are 2 different pairs of shoes. And what is the reality ? This picture decorates a tiny stub at Wikipedia. So ? A good Commons FP at best must be useable in all sub-projects the same time ... and your flippant comment no need for encyclopedicness, this ain't Wikipedia is not a good example, especially for our newer reviewers.  Richard  [®]  17:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you really believe that all of our FPs should have a use on all nine Wikimedia projects (not counting each project's non-English versions)? Furthermore, you seem to think that a picture being used on a Wikimedia project is the same thing as it being useful now or in the future. Also, there's no reason why pictures, whether now or in the future, have to be used on Wikipedia in particular. We have many FPs that won't ever find a use on Wikinews, most of our dozens of insect FPs, for example, and yet we promote them to Featured Pictures and I have no problem with that. Equally, we shouldn't stop a picture from being promoted just because it's not in use (or even has no potential use, which I don't necessarily agree with) on Wikipedia, which is merely one of Wikimedia's many projects. --Aqwis (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. ... host of freely licensed pictures for the entire Internet community - finally is abuse. We don't need to host the wedding pictures of Erwin H. from Boston. --  Richard  [®]  17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you know perfectly well what I meant. A large number of wikis, blogs and other sites use Commons as a source for freely licensed pictures they can use on their own websites. However, this is not relevant to the current discussion which is why I put it in parenthesises. --Aqwis (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --High Contrast (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really don't like how the water in the foreground has been done. I like the silky long exposure effect normally, but this seems to have taken it too far. And the fact that the right-side waterfall doesn't display that effect at all is off-putting. Maedin\^talk 11:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Maedin. Lycaon (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 17 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\^talk 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Horseshoe Falls 2 Mt Field National Park.jpg

File:Horseshoe Falls 2 Mt Field National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Navigation menu

Search