Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:String grown into tree.JPG

File:String grown into tree.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2010 at 01:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:String grown into Prunus tree.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:String grown into Prunus tree.JPG

•  Info all by –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The intent of the picture is only clear after a close look and explanation. Kleuske (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree. The only part of the image in focus is the scar from the in-grown string. Maybe because I'm familiar with it I know what it is, but I think it should be clear (and the description is there to help as well). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Next time please use a file name with jpg in the lower case; see Image titles and file names for more on using lower case file extensions on the wiki. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's how my camera formats files (see Category:Taken with Nikon D60 for others). Is it really as simple as just changing it in the upload interface? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is easy. Change JPG to jpg by renaming the files on the hard drive, or in the commons upload interface. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the linked recommendation is an enwiki convention, and most other projects have no such guideline. Commons in no way requires lower case file extensions. Jafeluv (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• See Commons:First_steps/Upload_form#4._Set_an_appropriate_file_name - commons links the English wikipedia guidelines (a recommendation for lower case file extension) to show an example of good practice. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the upload form reminds the uploader to follow the local naming rules of the wiki where the image is intended to be used. However, this image is not used on enwiki. Jafeluv (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• What if someone wanted to show it on the biggest wiki? Snowmanradio (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously they can. Jafeluv (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously the format is wrong for the en wiki, the biggest wiki. Snowmanradio (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• See your talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Commons recommends language wiki guidelines and specifically links to the en wiki guidelines. It says on commons in the fist steps guidelines (linked above); "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc." Snowmanradio (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see how it makes a difference. I've never heard of any technical distinction between "JPG" and "jpg", and I've uploaded hundreds of images without ever encountering an issue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is not a technical issue. The documentation explains that it is about uniformity in the encyclopaedias. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, just uniformity on the English Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• The only file extensions recommended for photographs by commons is jpg and jpeg; see Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Format_guidance. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The bark doesn't look like Prunus to me. Any pics of the foliage / flowers / fruit, to check the identity? - MPF (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• You're completely right; major error on my part. I moved the image and FPC page to remove the misidentification. Still, I don't feel the species is particularly relevant, but I'll try to identify it if it's deemed necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right, the identity isn't too important here, more useful for the arboricultural aspects - MPF (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the species of the tree is an important part of the documentation. The tree does not only show a piece of string, but also lichen, which may be identifiable. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support - MPF (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, IMO not visually striking enough to feature. 99of9 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose An interesting phenomenon, but poor focus over much of the tree. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• The tree isn't the subject; the in-grown foreign object is. The focus was deliberately created accordingly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• My view is that the composition could be better than to have the focus only on the in-grown foreign object. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's a matter of personal opinion, which is perfectly fine, but I don't feel it has any significant bearing on the quality of the image. I'll try to reshoot it from different angles over the next weekend and see what happens. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the tree and the lichen on the surface of the bark are important features of the photograph, and I have added lichen to the image description. The guideline (see above) says; "Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp." Snowmanradio (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• But the lichens and the tree bark aren't the main subject — the in-grown string is. That's my feeling as the photographer, at least. Thanks for the edits though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• See Commons:Image guidelines; "An image “speaks” to different people differently". Some people see string, others see lichen, and others see a tree. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - the composition does not work for me, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Would this be an acceptable QI, at least? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)