Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Union Jack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Union Jack

WITHDRAWN since this obviously has no chance of suceeding. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is a great illustration of the national flag of the United Kingdom. It is used in a huge number of articles but most relevant and notable United Kingdom and Union Jack. It is an illustration not a photo and should be judged as such.

• Nominate and support. - Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support! --Elephantus 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Illustrations of flags (as simple as this one) require little effort. ~MDD4696 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  I find this curious logic. James F. (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  I find many things about that logic but WP:NPA and good taste precludes me saying any of it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  That's not really a valid to oppose. Just because the flag isn't extremely complex doesn't degrade it as an image or as a featured candidate. If you have an issue with their choice of flag I suggest you take it up with the Queen of England. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  My problem with this image is that although it is of the highest quality, there is nothing remarkable about it that makes it stand out. There is nothing that distinguishes it from other images; nothing to suggest that it is Wikipedia's best. A more informative image of the flag would include dimensions and measurements, show the flag in some sort of historic or otherwise significant context, or perhaps show a juxtaposition that is not inherently obvious to the reader. Surely, the Euro FP's subject is as bland as most flags, yet to me it stands out as being an extremely useful and exemplary illustration.

  The best diagrams and images require significant effort and skill or knowledge to produce. In general, I see no point in featuring images that can be produced by anyone with a little time on their hands. What would be the use? Wikipedia's featured pictures make me proud of the wiki community, and it would disappoint me to see a drop in our high standards for both aesthetic and informative content.

  I believe many others feel the same, but I'd also venture to guess that there is a fair share that see the FP criteria the same way you do Pegasus. We're here to generate consensus, and I don't see why voicing opposition should alienate anyone from the discussion. There will always be disagreements, but that doesn't make people's opinions any less valid. ~MDD4696 03:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't really be said to be exemplary of Wikipedia's best work, which is a requirement. I don't find it pleasing to look at either: the diagonal red stripes are uneven. bcasterline t 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the nom about it being an illustration of an existing flag. As such whether it's pleasing or not shouldn't really factor into it, it should be whether it exemplifies the article or not and is accurate which I think it qualifies in both measures. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The criteria are the same for every featured picture. Naturally it exemplifies its subject perfectly, as do many other illustrations of flags, I'm sure; I'm not going to use that as the sole criterion. In any case, I think my first objection is the stronger. bcasterline t 02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

oppose- we'll probably have to draft specific policy on this- but if we allow the Jack we have to allow ALL national/state/district flags. There is nothing exceptional about a flag. Borisblue 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference though in allowing all flags and allowing only good images of flags. So your statement is incorrect, we wouldn't have to allow all flags just good images of flags. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose meh. It is not striking or very pleasing to the eye and most definitely does not "represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". And I stand by the idea that no image is exempted from any requirement. I see different types of images are judged differently, but follow all requirements. say1988 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. At first, this image does not exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. It can easily be reproduced with little effort. It fails to represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet - you can get this one about everywhere. It is just a flag, nothing special at all. We might as well be starting to nominate simple elements like dots, lines or similar for FP. Where would that lead to? Mikeo 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  What a strangely similar comment to my own... =P ~MDD4696 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  Haven't read it- it was way too prosaic. Try to focus on the important things. Mikeo 04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose If this nomination becomes FP, shall all flags be FP? This one is technically just as good - and even more stunning in its simplicity! I agree with all other opposes. --Janke | Talk 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See my reasoning above that they wouldn't have to be and I'm actually somewhat surprised that people are using such shallow and quite frankly wrong reasoning to oppose this nomination. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes this image remarkable enough to be considered exemplary? I see little reason to promote this image to a status above other images. Janke is right: looking through the list of sovereign states, there are numerous (though not all) flags that are of equal quality to the Union Jack. But there's nothing special about any of them. Am I missing something? bcasterline t 05:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your missing the fact that a flag is a flag and it is illogical to compare all flags to each other because if you do then yes non of them will stand out since flags by design are roughly the same, however since this is a diagram and not a photograph the quality and the significance to the article should hold more importance then the criteria of it "standing out" which doesn't really apply in the case of a diagram. What you and the other oppose voters are proposing is the entire disqualification of an entire category of image and if that happens I will make sure to add in bold letters on the FPC page that flag images are not wanted as FPC's because that's sure the response I'm getting on this nom. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see why this flag would be featured and not the one of the 200 other sovereign states. Regarding quality, it wouldn't be difficult to find good SVG files for all the flags. Good quality is not the only criterium for FP. If we go that way, why not start featuring good quality road signs, or good quality company logos? To be featured, representation of symbols must bring some additional information, such as the recently promoted Euro symbol [1] which contained all the necessary information to draw it. Glaurung 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because votes like yours and everyone else's oppose votes exclude any flag diagram (photos of actual hanging flags are somewhat different) from every becoming FPC's just because a group of editors are stuck on the point that flags are two dimensional images based on a set of shapes and colors and represent a country. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not support any logo, symbol, flag or diagram that doesn't contribute significantly to the article, or the understanding of the subject. Most, if not all, of Wikipedia users know what the Union Jack looks like. If you want it featured, it should be a diagram showing the proportions, the exact colors, official dimensions, etc. Make that, and I might support it. (I said this about the Euro symbol: Great diagram, very informative. But... not a FP in my book, sorry) Voting for FP is all about opinions (you are definitely entitled to yours), but please check yourself, and do not try to impose your views on others. Thank you! --Janke | Talk 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not imposing my views on you I'm trying to sway your views to the fact that your view is both contradictory and illogicial as well as excluding a huge number of images from ever becoming featured due to some percieved deficit people see in photos. What's next, you gonna oppose pictures of non living objects because they aren't lively enough, or pictures of sports or other action for being too lively? Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see little difference between imposing my views and trying to sway your views. As for logic, that goes both ways. "A huge number of images" never have had, and will never have a chance to become featured. You just have to accept it. End of discussion on my part. --Janke | Talk 06:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What you and those who agree with you are pretty much saying that if it isn't a photo then we don't want it as a featured picture since anything less (at least from what I've seen from various FPC's in the past and this current one) is that non photos are not worthy of FPC status unless they are absolutely amazing. That's an extremely narrow minded view to take on what deserves to be a featured picture. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)