Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santuário Nacional 20161110 (cropped).jpg

File:Santuário Nacional 20161110 (cropped).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2023 at 09:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Santuário Nacional 20161110 (cropped).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santuário Nacional 20161110 (cropped).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Brazil
•  Info View of Basilica of Our Lady of Aparecida with the walkway called "Passarela da Fé", connecting the old and the new church, in the foreground. The religious building is the world's largest cathedral and the second largest Catholic church in interior area after the St. Peter's Basilica. Created and initially uploaded by Arquidiocese - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 09:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- ★ 09:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not in favour of nominators cropping/editing other people's images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral The pic is nice. But like Charlesjsharp, I don't like the cropped/editing without original the author's agree. I will change it to support only if you prove that the original author agreed. - ABAL1412^{🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺} (talk ☭) 16:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I see no problem with cropping as long as (a) the cropped version is uploaded as a new file under a new name and (b) the crop is documented and links to the original version. That’s what the CC licenses are talking about when they say you can “remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose”; and that’s why we use these licenses – we want to allow other people to built upon our work. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Charlesjsharp and ABAL1412: Aristeas has a (good) point. ★ 10:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Needs a slight perspective correction. Aristeas is correct legally speaking, and also morally speaking for this particular image, but as far as best practices at FPC in general are concerned, I think the editor should run it by the original photographer first unless they have clearly been inactive for months or years. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Which this one has. One contribution, in 2016. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: Yes - which is why I said "for this particular image". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• @King of Hearts: I renominated it after the perspective corrected. See it here. ★ 11:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination ★ 13:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: Perspective corrected thanks to Poco a poco. ★ 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks, Poco. This is such an interesting sight, I think it deserves some love. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Yes, thanks. I think it's good, well depicted, and here you see something unique/original. -- Terragio67 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• The large size of the church makes it imposing amidst the common landscape. ★ 01:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• The curvy pedestrian bridge is also important for the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it makes the composition more dynamic. ★ 02:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Voting period is ending, but obviously I will renominate it following Poco a poco's edits. ★ 02:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) - ABAL1412^{🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺} (talk ☭) 15:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)