Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:R M S Mulheim wreck s1 (1 of 3) hug.jpg

File:R M S Mulheim wreck s1 (1 of 3) hug.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 01:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:R M S Mulheim wreck s1 (1 of 3) hug.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:R M S Mulheim wreck s1 (1 of 3) hug.jpg

•  Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality is very good, but I'm not sure about the lightning and the composition. Tight crop at the top and the bottom, some ruins are cut off at the left. The lightning is suboptimal imo too. The rocks on the right are too bright, at the left and bottom are hard (and a bit disturbing) shadows. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Info -- I say again: according to the new rules only different versions of the same picture can be considered as alternatives in a given nomination. Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. At this moment, Mbz1 has 4 different active nominations. Please choose which are to be withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well, the rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version.", but unless I am missing something nowhere it is said that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" and that I cannot add a different image as alternative, if I wish to. If there was such a rule, it would have been a stupid one. If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

   Comment I would like to urge everybody to go here and voice their interpretation of the rules in question. Thanks. --Petritap (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't! –hoverFly | chat? 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I like them both. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Info -- I say again: according to the new rules only different versions of the same picture can be considered as alternatives in a given nomination. Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. At this moment, Mbz1 has 4 different active nominations. Please choose which are to be withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's different versions of the same thing. And where did this one come from? I don't remember seeing that anywhere. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • General rules #11 and #12 above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well, the rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version.", but unless I am missing something nowhere it is said that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" and that I cannot add a different image as alternative, if I wish to. If there was such a rule, it would have been a stupid one. If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  I have nothing more to say to someone who is not interested in understanding. Have fun and spam the whole FPC with dozen of alternatives if that is what you want. I'm out of this discussion because I can't stand the lack of intelectual honesty. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well, it is an usual response of the one, who has nothing useful to add to an unconfirmed claim about the rules. About your increased rudeness I'd like to share with you a quote of my favorite philosopher w:Eric Hoffer, who said: “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength” . --Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

   Comment I would like to urge everybody to go here and voice their interpretation of the rules in question. Thanks. --Petritap (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, I honestly try to understand what rules, if any I violated, but why you're asking others to comment, and do not comment yourself? After all you did oppose the nomination at least partly because in your opinion I violated the rules. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting scene, nice colors, ... and stupid restriction rule. Yann (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Yann --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition + per Alves. --Petritap (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you oppose by alves's rude rant? No rules were violated. I asked a question on discussion page, and so far nobody explained to me what have I done wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support per Yann as well. Kooritza (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting scene, nice colors, perfect composition --Diligent (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very useful scene — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Crazy rules, good picture --Muhammad (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

The chosen alternative is: File:R_M_S_Mulheim_wreck_448_edit_1.jpg