Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 20:50:13
Info I argued against featuring this image, but got featured anyway. Now many seem to agree that we have a better replacement from the same angle and same time (May 2011 vs June 2011) with File:Neuschwanstein Castle from Marienbrücke, 2011 May.jpg. There is also a second FP taken in 2005 when the vegetation was much higher, so is at least somewhat different. (Original nomination)
Delist far inferior to current candidate (small, and that cast shadow on the right part which is unfortunate) - Benh (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep aber Hallo ?!? dieses Bild wurde in 3 Wikipedia Projekten ausgezeichnet:
Commons (Featured pictures)
Polnisch (Ilustracja na medal)
Vietnamesisch (Hình ảnh chọn lọc)
wo ist das Problem? Es können auch 2 Bilder exzellent sein, nicht wahr? --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wird haben schon zwei Varianten von selbem Aussichtspunkt die ausgezeichnet sind, und besser sind. --ELEKHHT23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sicher doch, wenn man auf starke Schlagschatten steht wie in der Version von 2005. Es ist schon ein ziemliche Respektlosigkeit, ein Bild, dass sehr deutlich vor nicht mal einem Jahr gewählt wurde, in einen Abwahlantrag zu schicken und nicht einmal die Traute zu besitzen, den Urheber des Bildes zu informieren. --Wladyslaw (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Elekhh: die Frage ist: "was ist besser?" ? @Taxi: hier wird und wurde praktisch noch nie jemand darüber unterrichtet, das sein Bild zur Abwahl gestellt wurde. Damit musst Du Dich abfinden. "Ziemliche Respektlosigkeit" ist wieder nur rein polemisch. Das schadet Dir mehr als es nutzt. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Es steht in den Richtlinen, dass man dies vor einer Abwahl zu tun hat. Und diese Aktion ist nicht nur mir gegenüber respektlos sondern auch den Abstimmenden, die vor einigen Monaten mit großer Mehrheit dafür gestimmt haben. Das hat nichts mit Polemik zu tun sondern ist meine Meinung. --Wladyslaw (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
featured on Commons, same angle featured on Commons, same angle
Keep See no reason for delisting - OK, the recently promoted picture has a few more resolution and a more warm WB, but also some backside shadows; all in all rather a matter of taste, and show me a rule which forbids two or more FP's on the same motive. - A.Savin22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think no one here used the duplicate reason as an argument to oppose. But when you have two very similar pictures, why bothering keeping anything but the best? Now which one is best is something else. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The above keep votes area a follow up to the creator's messages in which he calls me a TROLL, also here, and here, and here. Also being accused of secrecy, although I did publicly notify this delist here. I already stopped contributing at Commons QI because of the same bullying, which has been tolerated by the community. Herewith I will stop contributing to Commons FP. --ELEKHHT00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing of secrecy and "hiding the vote" isn't true. You could get here by two means: through the delising list, and through the recent vote of a picture of the castle. I'm sure Elekhh had no interest to "hide" anything. Maybe the delisting list isn't enough visible, that why I suggested merging it with the new FPs list (see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Another suggestion). As for the naming, "Troll", I can't believe it was used without any response from administrators; in Hebrew Wikipedia someone calling a troll to another user would have been blocked on the spot for violating the rules of the community. Tomer T (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding the troll thing, I don't share that kind of behaviour either, but you should obviously not quit FPCs because of bullying and people calling you names. As we say in my country: "a palabras necias oídos sordos" (deaf ears to foolish words). Regarding the discussion, I've seen many delisting candidates and many replacements of old FPs with better images. I don't remember anyone complaining about it being a coward act. I think there was no bad intention from Elekhh: it's just a replacement of an old FP with a newer one with more resolution, and without the distracting shadow. It would be better if we put some water on the fire: it should not be about taking sides nor about pride, but deciding which image is better (I see no reason to keep two almost identical images on our galleries). Now, as Savin says, it may also be about personal taste. Let's let people decide if it should be kept or not, but on technical merits. I think I read somewhere that two pictures of the same subject should not be featured. Many times candidates were rejected because of an already existing FP, so I really don't see nothing wrong with this delisting process, even if the picture was selected with tons of votes (the new one has a lot of votes too, but that doesn't matter). Replacements and delistings have happened before. I think it does not matter if the old candidate was featured one or five years ago. Technology improves constantly: I've always been aware my FPs will possibly be delisted someday, and the world will not end. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. 1) May I ask please our german speaking friends to remember that we are here in another place than the german wp, and maybe using english language could help for general understanding of the debate (Obwohl ich persönlisch die deutsche Sprache verstehe...)? Danke :) !
2) Nothing was hidden in the delisting process, we as users have just to follow carefully the evolution of these pages. I've had some pictures of mine nominated as FP candidate by any of you without specific information, and I did not know that, and it is not a problem. Please notice that, almost at the same time I gave the information of the nomination to Myrabella about her piece of cheese, and the information of the beginning of the delisting process (see talk pages) to the photographer of this picture, who is not precisely my best friend.
3) I'm really shocked about the accusations of "Trolling" against ELEKHH. Obviously Elekhh is not a troll, but a very important, useful and friendly member of "Commons". OK, "Trolling" could be understand as a "funny" word in the real life, and sometimes even in the wiki community. "Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe" (@Paolo Costa ;). But the words "NACHT-UND-NEBEL-AKTION"I read in some messages are absolutely not funny and simply UNACCEPTABLE.
4) I don't want to make a Godwin's point, but the non-german speaking users have to know here that "Nacht-und-Nebel" means "Night and Fog", and has a very important historical and highly tragical significance as explained in the following article en:Nacht und Nebel, which cannot be unknown by any german speaking user. If I understand well (and there is not any other interpretation possible, even in Germany or other german speaking countries), Elekhh is, in this case, in the messages he noticed (please see the references he provided), clearly compared with the organizers and the responsibles of the Jewish holocaust ~ political mass deportations by the Third Reich, sorry ~ nothing else, nothing less, as he is accused of a "NACHT-UND-NEBEL-AKTION". It seems to me to be the higher and the most violent personal attack possible. If in some wikipedias, the accusation of "troll" is a rationale for a temporary ban, I don't know what deserves this kind of foul and disgusting comparison. So, as I don't know, I will ask the administrators (nothing hidden). --Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation Jebulon, I had understood almost nothing of the german parts. This changes things: I also agree with you that this is a very serious and unacceptable personal attack to user Elekhh and some actions should be taken. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Thanks. Your comparison with en:Nacht und Nebel is just stupid. In common German language this refers simply to an action that is done without letting others know about it (behind their back). You can find this figure of speech everywhere and not only related to fascism or holocaust. I would beg you to stop this idiotic "construction of arguments". If you need examples or definitions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn man aus seiner eigenen "Geschichte" nichts gelernt hat, und dazu zählen gewisse Wörter und Redewendungen, dann sollte man lieber den Mund halten. Ich habe unsere Geschichte studiert. Jebulons Aussage trifft es genau! Im Deutschunterricht wurde mir dafür eine "5" im Aufsatz verpasst: falsch angewendete Kontext. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Das sieht selbst der Duden anders und du findest es einfach überall als Redewendung in einem ganz anderen Kontext. Dir geht es gut, oder? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. The report is called "Nacht und Nebel". A "Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion" is a common term inside the german language, as used today, and it isn't related to this original meaning or not anymore. It is used to describe robbery, or in a more general way: An unexpected action done by someone. It was you who brought up this old and not fitting interpretation. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言19:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also see no need for delisting this picture. It's a great shot. Making the uploader aware of this process would have been nice. I don't like people calling someone else a troll, although. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't understand the part of discussion written in other languages but it smells something heat. :)
Regarding the delisting: I agree with Tomer, thinks the 2005 one should be delisted also.
Regarding the quarrel: I think we have to think all images are the property of Commons and not us. There is no meaning in contributing to Commons if we still think (and say) mine, me and I as a child.
My stand: I don't care any fancy badges; just nominating here to get more visibility and to hear your opinions. I respect them very much even an opposing one.
Exactly, I strongly agree with you. Wisest words I've read around here in a while. No sense in contributing for free to Commons if we then talk about me me me, mine mine mine. What's the whole point, shouldn't we be a little more selfless? If not, why did we join Commons in the first place? --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I asked this question about the recently nominated Amritsar Sikh Golden Temple, and the answer was that we had several FP of Eiffel Tower, Neuschwanstein castle and other famous places in the world, without any problem. So my logical following opinion in this case is: no reason for delist.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The trolling and stalking by Elekhh is disgusting from my point of view. Considering his other actions directed against a single user. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言10:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The doings by Elekhh isn't disgusting from my point of view, because the unnecessary harsh tone from Wladyslaw is it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never been self-conflicted? :P Kidding aside, when you google translate the wording it doesn't come across as that harsh but its the cultural context that appears to make this unbecoming.Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I advocate two or more images of the same subject may be featured (here it's a bit problematic because it's three times almost the same angle, but still okay). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usual trolling considering the relation between the creator and the opposition. I fail to see any other reason why this request was made. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I prefer this image much more to the other 2011 photo, mainly because the shadows are much reduced in this image. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As the FP nominator and as ”the second owner of the picture” (the true one is my father) I kindly ask you to especially not judge the other Commons/Wikimedia contributors nor what there has happened in the background of nominations or delists... Please, focus on the pictures. From perspective of usefulness one should think about improving the community and Wikimedia project! Personally I think a good point of observation might be the weather in each picture and so the individual lighting condition in each picture. You should think about the best for the castle and for the Wikipedia, not the people you want to defend or be against. So calm down, this is not the place for judging people... Furthermore, It can't be that serious, come on! :D --Ximonic (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Ximonic; I'm sure that you too very unhappy with this controversy (no way made by you). It is sad if people (not only the contributor and the nominator) have other interests. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, this is a quite contradicting, inconsistent, precedent. You can see there that the nominator made a similar vote and argument, so you souldn't attach the current vote to any relationships between users. Tomer T (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you talk about the 3 Diliff's, one is not taken from the same point, and the two other not at the same time of the day, resulting in distinguishable skies and pictures. Also the dusk one trades off some resolution for a more aesthetic sky (you can't take too many pictures at dusk with the decreasing light). The three Neuchwanstein are taken from the same place and have same composition. - Benh (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These two are clearly not taken from same point (check alignment with background buildings, and perspective). And the smallest one has a more attractive sky which we be more difficult to achieve with a mosaic. Enough for me not to consider them duplicates. The other one is from same point at the H resolution one, but has a different sky because of timing. - Benh (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was already in London and I know the circumstances around Tower Bridge. The viewpoints are nearly the same; there is no additional value if the picture is shoot some meters left or right. And for sure there is a different sky/ timing. I only wanted to make clear that there are also other examples with same objects/ angles than this one. And that you don't to support this picture you already made clear. We need no novel to read from you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could have restrained from adding the last sentences which brings nothing to the debate. And come on, you mention 2 of the 3 at same point while there aren't and u miss the 2 which are at same point... Anyways that's not my point. Different timings yield different pictures, that's my point. The 3 Neuchwansteins have similar timing, conditions, and exactly same point of view and composition. No need to feature them all IMO. period. - Benh (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the need not to feature all of them? Are we under some bandwidth or storage constraint? Is there a moral imperative to feature only the one image where that image has been selected by such a small group of people? The three images all meeet the criteria and as such are featurable. Selecting amongst them implies an additional criteria that has not been made explicit in the project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't noticeably affect storage ;) as I don't mean deleting the duplicates, but only removing the FP label on least good. I think FP should be unique in some way. Now let me ask the other way: what is the need in featuring identical pictures? I could go and shot the Eiffel tower dozens of times from the same place, at the same moment of the day, under same conditions, and try to have them all promoted. What would be the point of all this? If it's not in the criteria, and it's really needed, we could poll contributors for adding it. - Benh (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You present a false premise in that the imgaes aren't identical and numerous people have articulated a valid preference amongst the three. This is exactly why we can support a number of FP on the same subject so long as they meet the current guidelines. Furthermore, making an appeal on absurd consequence where someone submits essentially the same image can be dealt with on case-by-case basis. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok images are not really identical but, in good faith, are they not strikingly similar? Now among the keeps (that I can read and understand), I see only some who actually prefer Wladyslaw's -and mention it-, mainly for the soft lighting, which is a very good reason to me also. Other only argue that "oh well, still meets requirements regardless of whether there's a better alternative or not, or "why looking back at what's has been decided before?", which has its pros for sure. Some even only mention the pseudo relationship between Elekkh and Wladyslaw with no other arguments. And on the case by case basis... it's a good path to unfair treatment, because it seems so hard to me to reach consensus. As mentioned below, if we agree on having one FP per similar picture (not subject) maybe we should have a round with the three candidates and decide which one should keep the label. But I think we'll stuck to the current situation for a long time. - Benh (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It is a function of balancing having value in the assignment of FP status and not becoming overly bureaucratic about it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we like to have only "one" FP-image: how about to nominate all the three images in a new process and only "one" can win it? Perhaps as a new rule??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that is all three images are quite good images. They each have their own merits. Moreover, I fail to see the need, yet, to force a distinction based on the small sample of votes we get here. The D&R process is really a blood sport to me, pitting images and people against each other. To me an image should be made FP on its own merits. The delist process should similarly be in reference to just the image in question. When an image really doesn't meet community standards anymore put it out to pasture but in a kind and gentle way. The current delist template effectively says the image was once featured but the community thinks its crap now. None of these images deserve that fate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; like MVR. More than one FP for EXACTLY ONE SAME SUBJECT degrade the value of FP itself; so we need a Super FP or something. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher number of votes..." —kallerna™07:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
featured on Commons, same angle
Info I argued against featuring this image, but got featured anyway. Now many seem to agree that we have a better replacement from the same angle and same time (May 2011 vs June 2011) with File:Neuschwanstein Castle from Marienbrücke, 2011 May.jpg. There is also a second FP taken in 2005 when the vegetation was much higher, so is at least somewhat different. (Original nomination)
Delist -- ELEKHHT 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep aber Hallo ?!? dieses Bild wurde in 3 Wikipedia Projekten ausgezeichnet:
Commons (Featured pictures)
Comment I didn't understand the part of discussion written in other languages but it smells something heat. :)
Neutral As the FP nominator and as ”the second owner of the picture” (the true one is my father) I kindly ask you to especially not judge the other Commons/Wikimedia contributors nor what there has happened in the background of nominations or delists... Please, focus on the pictures. From perspective of usefulness one should think about improving the community and Wikimedia project! Personally I think a good point of observation might be the weather in each picture and so the individual lighting condition in each picture. You should think about the best for the castle and for the Wikipedia, not the people you want to defend or be against. So calm down, this is not the place for judging people... Furthermore, It can't be that serious, come on! :D --Ximonic (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
