Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thamarai-Namam2.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Thamarai-Namam2.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:31:39
The Ayyavazhi Symbol

 Comment Sorry, Though I agree with the point of User:Alvesgaspar, I like to inform that the reason I nominated the image here was verymuch more than it being merely a religious symbol. This image, I feel is also much more than a mere outlined symbol like this or a less complex (in design) National flag. This is more a 'religious art' than a symbol or an emblem. For instance, the small greenish spikes, the green circular border and the brown background is not part of the "emblem". But it was justified here since it was more a 'religious art'. Of course it (or) part of it may be a religious symbol. But, I like this image to be featured here is not for the reason that it is a 'religious symbol' and for the reason that I believe it's beautiful and very much deserves to be featured as a 'Religious Art' as so in English wikipedia, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment That is no valid reason to oppose Alvesgaspar. Under your criteria so much could be censored. Art is a reflexion of a culture, religion included, and as such, a theme where creative activity takes place. Religion and art have had a long walk throughout history and I doubt that it will stop anytime soon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is just my opinion, not an attempt to introduce censorship. There is so much beyond the strict graphical components of such symbols that I'm afraid we cannot isolate them from the whole. Of course, we can say if we like them or not, in a strict aesthetical sense. But will that procedure be acceptable, when compared with what we do when assessing bug and building pictures? In this particular case, I find the image quite kitschy but that is probably because I'm not aware of its detailed symbolism. Should I be? Both a simple cross and Bach's Mass in B minor have strong religious content. But while I can still enjoy and understand Bach's masterpice being unaware of that component, that is obvioulsy not true with the cross. The same goes with national symbols and, for example, Tchaikowsky's 1812 piece. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me ask an academic question, which will make my point clearer: would Vaikunda Raja consider nominating this picture as a purely abstract creation of his own, saying nothing about its religious content? And would the chances of promotion improve by doing so? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood you correctly, any-work which could create a symbolic ideology such as religious sentiment or Nationalism should not be given any featured or special status? Am I correct? If so, further sharpening your views, if I understood rightly, not even an outstanding photograph (or) a well written article that of a religious (or national) building or symbols shall be featured.
But it is not the case here in wikimedias. Here every thing including the ones which you neglected enjoys the featured or similar status; It be article, Category, List, Portal, Images or videos. The only thing is it should meet the appropriate criteria. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you didn't understand correctly. My examples clear show that I'm not against featuring works with religious content. I'm only against promoting religious, national and partidary symbols or emblems. And I don't make any distinctions between the national flag of Portugal, the swastika or the Christian cross. As for the rules and criteria governing these issues they are not shared by the different wikis. There is an enormous difference between featuring an article on the Nazi ideology and featuring the swastica! Because the first can be neutral but not the second -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All religious images imply a transmission of ideology, the recipient, however, may or may not accept the symbolisms that such images convey. There are many variables involved. Protestants, for example, may take offense at catholic imagery, or jewish people at nazi symbols. However offensive the symbols may be to certain people, they exist outside an ideological realm and can be appreciated from different contexts, cultural, historical, etc. To suppress nazi symbols does not make the past dissapear, and in fact, may even contribute to forgetting the terrible events, which in turn, as we say in Mexico, the medicine would be worse than the illness. So in this small FPC world IMO it would be better to limit support or oppose votes strickly on technical and other relevant criteria aligned with the advancement of knowledge and preservation of history in general and not rely too much on the small world of personal opinions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is not whether they have an ideological value for FPC, that doesn't matter. The point is that once FP, they will become POTD, nolens volens one day and at that time make publicity for that particular ideology and that would be wrong. Lycaon (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that introducing the ideological variable to FPC is foolish. It is hard enough to agree on aesthetic, cultural, historical, encyclopedic value as it is, and to throw in the possible implications of ideology of images on some people is a recipe for disaster. A cross, or an image of a cross could be an insult to muslims, a swastica to jews, nudity to puritans, and so on and so on... yet, neither crosses, swasticas nor nudity cease to exist or dissapear from history. Unless of course we turn over FPC to the Talibans and have them determine acceptable content from now on and have them delete what they don´t like. Much of graphic creation, sculptures, architecture, photography, drawings have an ideological base, consciously or unconsciously, and even if they come from the most abhorrent political spectrum, the work itself, the thing, does not necessarily lose its qualities as a work of art, or neither because it comes from there can it constitute itself in a piece of art. By exersicing good judgement by the community offensive material can be filtered out, ans solely based on technical and cultural quality. Unless of course we stick with the birds and the bees... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Lycaon - But the same is true of every image we promote. Shots of Catholic stained glass windows get promoted, thus making 'publicity for that particular ideology'. The same could be applied to shots of dead chickens, PETA may come after us saying that we approve of animal slaughter. But it was still promoted. There are American military aircraft Featured, when those reach POTD, will we be accused of favouring the US? Whether or not we realise it, each image that is promoted could be 'publicity for that particular ideology'. Singling one out is just hypocritical. Everyone seems to forget that this is Commons. If one side thinks that there are too FPs of one particular thing/idea/faith/country, they can always upload some of their own, and nominate them. It's a about quality and message, and I don't have to be religious to appreciate a religious photo. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose You've got to ask yourself - would this picture even be nominated if it was not a religious symbol? If the answer is "no", then oppose. If you think it would be worth featuring without it's religious connotations, then support. This has nothing to do with censorship as far as I am concerned, it simply "has no wow". Plrk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose should be SVG --ianaré (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I created this image using Adobe Illustrator. But due to 'forced rasterisation' of certain parts (the flower petals) while converting to SVG, the whole image was converted to a PNG and was uploaded. I also made a trial in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab but failed. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment mistake in typing - it's not featured. --Lošmi (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Thamarai-Namam2.png&oldid=164717036"