Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015-04 - Puits de la Houillère - 10.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2015-04 - Puits de la Houillère - 10.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2015 at 21:13:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
Info created, uploaded and nominated by A.BourgeoisP
Support -- A.BourgeoisP (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)- Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- What is there to merit encyclopedic value? Are the trees in danger of extinction? Is it hard to get to? What does it illustrate? What does it teach? There must be a zillion look alike mounds in the world. The same questions you used to justify your oppose of this nomination could legitimately be asked of this image too... I ask these questions not because I dislike this image, but because I find it rather hypocritical that you can support it when there is nothing notable about this fairly anonymous looking scene, according to your own criteria. Diliff (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- This image is a perfect example of reclaiming the nature of an old forgotten mine site. Its graphic aspect makes it interesting. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you, my questions were pointed towards Tomas. Diliff (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- This image is a perfect example of reclaiming the nature of an old forgotten mine site. Its graphic aspect makes it interesting. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment ah, Diliff, starting with the zen of the photograph, it conveys ease, peace, letting be... It has aroma, visual aroma, it has wabi sabi... perfectly imperfect, but perfect in its imperfection. No way to measure aroma... On the compositional side, nice rule of thirds, nice color, nice texture, nice escense of the place, unpretentious... One needs not to intellectualice the scene, one is placed there. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- You know, an uninvolved third party who happened to read this thread might be forgiven for thinking you didn't actually read my questions at all - you just imagined your own question and answered it instead. Diliff (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- And on an afterthought, Diliff, what has this image to do with yours? Absolutely nothing, so keep the conversations is their rightful place. No need to contamite the environment of this fine photogrpah. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- My question is perfectly valid. I'm asking, using the framing of your own description of what a FP should be, how this image meets your expectations. You responded with mumbo-jumbo about what it makes you feel, rather than how it is encyclopaedic by your own definition. That was not even remotely close to answering the questions I asked. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really think you are looking for an answer and probably you couln't understand it beyond your narrow mindset, which is evident. I think that you moving a discussion from another candidate here is simply a very uncouth act and this candidatet's space has been poisoned, all because little David is throwing a tantrum because someone opposed one of his nominations. You are no more than someone who snaps pictures and loves pixel counting, but you miss the higher level of doing and understanding photography. It is like describing vanilla flavor to someone who has never tasted vanilla or like someone who doesn't know mechanics who when opening the hood only sees a confusion of things and wires, as opposed to a mechanic who sees injectors, alternators, belts, hydraulic pumps, etc. It is called "distinction," or the ability to distinguish. You know how to drive the car, but that doesn't make you neither a racer or a mechanic. Maybe a taxi driver. Same with photography. So if you really want to understand my answer, learn first something about the art. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Listen, you don't know what I think, so please don't guess or put words in my mouth. And please stop using airy fairy metaphors, they make no sense at all and only serve to distract from the discussion. Also, I'm not throwing a tantrum, I'm asking you a question about your voting patterns and your definition of a FP and you won't answer it except with a vague "je ne sais quoi!". I'm not upset because you opposed my nomination, I'm upset because the reasons you used to justify it were both unreasonable and inconsistent (and given our recent disagreement on FPC talk page, possibly a retaliatory vote) as demonstrated here in this nomination and your inability to explain your vote beyond silly meanderings about flavours, aromas, wabi sabi etc. I'm not trying to change your vote, I'm only pointing out how inconsistent, unreasonable and unable to properly answer a direct question you are. Diliff (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Lol @ Diliff... I quote myself on why I supported this image, which you obviously, in your ofuscated state, missed, or did not understand: "On the compositional side, nice rule of thirds, nice color, nice texture, nice escense of the place..." If you look at the picture from these parameters, you may appreciate its aesthetics. And me guessing what you think? Ah, that prerrogative is only reserved to you! You are free to dish out BS and judge people opinions but no one can speculate, the way you do about others, about you. Go for a ride taxi driver... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)for a ride, taxi driver. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- You say I don't understand your answer. That's not the problem here, the problem is you didn't answer my question, you ignored my question and answered your own rhetorical question that related to feelings and emotions and 'why you like the photo'. I didn't ask about that and you know damn well I didn't. As I said earlier, you answer questions like a slimy politician. By avoiding them and answering the question you wish was asked in the first place. I'll repeat the questions and perhaps you can point out where or how your answer relates to them. "What is there to merit encyclopedic value? Are the trees in danger of extinction? Is it hard to get to? What does it illustrate? What does it teach? There must be a zillion look alike mounds in the world.". Diliff (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain... Should have listened to good old Samuel Clemens... ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you incapable of discussing anything without using quotes, rhetorical questions, anecdotes, parables and metaphors to make your points for you? We're done here yet again, because you won't stick to the subject. Pathetic... Diliff (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- God almighty, grant me patience. Listen taxi driver, in popular language around here, this picture has Wow factor for me, that is why I voted for it, and no, I am not going to compare my rationale for voting in this picture vs yours, which incidentally, to me has no wow. go count some pixels... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you incapable of discussing anything without using quotes, rhetorical questions, anecdotes, parables and metaphors to make your points for you? We're done here yet again, because you won't stick to the subject. Pathetic... Diliff (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain... Should have listened to good old Samuel Clemens... ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- You say I don't understand your answer. That's not the problem here, the problem is you didn't answer my question, you ignored my question and answered your own rhetorical question that related to feelings and emotions and 'why you like the photo'. I didn't ask about that and you know damn well I didn't. As I said earlier, you answer questions like a slimy politician. By avoiding them and answering the question you wish was asked in the first place. I'll repeat the questions and perhaps you can point out where or how your answer relates to them. "What is there to merit encyclopedic value? Are the trees in danger of extinction? Is it hard to get to? What does it illustrate? What does it teach? There must be a zillion look alike mounds in the world.". Diliff (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Lol @ Diliff... I quote myself on why I supported this image, which you obviously, in your ofuscated state, missed, or did not understand: "On the compositional side, nice rule of thirds, nice color, nice texture, nice escense of the place..." If you look at the picture from these parameters, you may appreciate its aesthetics. And me guessing what you think? Ah, that prerrogative is only reserved to you! You are free to dish out BS and judge people opinions but no one can speculate, the way you do about others, about you. Go for a ride taxi driver... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)for a ride, taxi driver. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Listen, you don't know what I think, so please don't guess or put words in my mouth. And please stop using airy fairy metaphors, they make no sense at all and only serve to distract from the discussion. Also, I'm not throwing a tantrum, I'm asking you a question about your voting patterns and your definition of a FP and you won't answer it except with a vague "je ne sais quoi!". I'm not upset because you opposed my nomination, I'm upset because the reasons you used to justify it were both unreasonable and inconsistent (and given our recent disagreement on FPC talk page, possibly a retaliatory vote) as demonstrated here in this nomination and your inability to explain your vote beyond silly meanderings about flavours, aromas, wabi sabi etc. I'm not trying to change your vote, I'm only pointing out how inconsistent, unreasonable and unable to properly answer a direct question you are. Diliff (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really think you are looking for an answer and probably you couln't understand it beyond your narrow mindset, which is evident. I think that you moving a discussion from another candidate here is simply a very uncouth act and this candidatet's space has been poisoned, all because little David is throwing a tantrum because someone opposed one of his nominations. You are no more than someone who snaps pictures and loves pixel counting, but you miss the higher level of doing and understanding photography. It is like describing vanilla flavor to someone who has never tasted vanilla or like someone who doesn't know mechanics who when opening the hood only sees a confusion of things and wires, as opposed to a mechanic who sees injectors, alternators, belts, hydraulic pumps, etc. It is called "distinction," or the ability to distinguish. You know how to drive the car, but that doesn't make you neither a racer or a mechanic. Maybe a taxi driver. Same with photography. So if you really want to understand my answer, learn first something about the art. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- My question is perfectly valid. I'm asking, using the framing of your own description of what a FP should be, how this image meets your expectations. You responded with mumbo-jumbo about what it makes you feel, rather than how it is encyclopaedic by your own definition. That was not even remotely close to answering the questions I asked. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- And on an afterthought, Diliff, what has this image to do with yours? Absolutely nothing, so keep the conversations is their rightful place. No need to contamite the environment of this fine photogrpah. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Very interesting composition. Weak for the unsharpness in the upper right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand what is the subject here. Yann (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: the vegetation that proliferates on the old spoil tip. The composition is intended as attractive with the old tree trunk + the contrast between green young leaf on the top and brown-grey dead leaf on the ground. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. -- Fotoriety (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Fotoriety: Sorry but for the subject, this image emerges something wow... A.BourgeoisP (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow, a typical and trivial forest view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet, the whole point of the image is that it isn't a actually 'typical and trivial forest', it's a forest that has recently emerged from the spoils of a mine. Diliff (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I know the German Harz. This forest have a lot similar places too. Perhaps therefore is "typical" for me ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet, the whole point of the image is that it isn't a actually 'typical and trivial forest', it's a forest that has recently emerged from the spoils of a mine. Diliff (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know it's typical or remarkable but in which case it looks no wow plus quality issue, a bit overexposed overall and that motion blur on the leaves can not be overlooked to me. --Laitche (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose For others --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As others. -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Competently done image of coarse woody debris without any wow. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- The contempt of the full frame DSLR's possessors. Nether respect for the beauty and simplicity captured by an APS-C mirrorless... A.BourgeoisP (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point... where does he say anything about the camera you took it with? Diliff (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Unremarkable. (APS-C shooter) -- 11:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) --LivioAndronico talk 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I gave this picture a weak pro at QI. Not more. I don´t see this one as a FP at all.--Hubertl (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
