Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Polarlicht 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moved here from project page.
- *Support POTY - Not my favorite but we should defer to the judgment of hundreds of other Wikipedians from a broader audience. —dgiestc 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually we do not have to bow to the commons-masses. This is en.FPC and it has different rules and guidelines... --Dschwen 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know we don't. I think a lot of commons FPs would (rightly) go down in flames here. But to reject the winner of such a high profile contest would only confirm that the enwiki FPC is overvaluing technical merit at the expense of aesthetic appeal. —dgiestc 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is getting fundamental (the long discussion that was announced earlier :-) ), but I completely disagree with that conclusion. POTY might have been high profile. As such it attracted a slew of users who (allegedly) voted based on prettyness alone. But that's commons, it is a whole different world. en.FPC is about enc! No need to throw that out of the window because of that POTY. We don't care how flickr useres rate their pics either, do we? --Dschwen 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, the picture just barely made FP at Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know we don't. I think a lot of commons FPs would (rightly) go down in flames here. But to reject the winner of such a high profile contest would only confirm that the enwiki FPC is overvaluing technical merit at the expense of aesthetic appeal. —dgiestc 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually we do not have to bow to the commons-masses. This is en.FPC and it has different rules and guidelines... --Dschwen 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've been experimenting with a three-dimensional scale for rating pictures: first dimension is encyclopedic value; second dimension is technical quality and third dimension is artistic quality. The original is very high in Enc, but that got lost in the editing. Even if you allow for some artistic liberty, a turquoise aurora does not reflect purple. Technical quality isn't very high with either, even considering the circumstances. Artistic merit is high if you look at the composition, but neither color combination is very attractive. So I don't think an argument that this is a stellar Enc/Art picture that gets trounced based on weak Tech merit has much mileage. ~ trialsanderrors 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems obvious to me that the result of the POTY 2006 election had nothing to do with Commons standards or guidelines. As I have suggested before most people who elected this picture did it on the basis of immediate aesthetic appeal only (contrarily to what happened with other pictures in the same contest). The rational conclusion is that if the election had taken place in the English Wikipedia the result would most certainly have been the same... Alvesgaspar 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clear it up, I did not want to imply that. My argument was mole along the lines of even if it had comlied with commons rules an guidelines it wouldn't matter for us, and I agree about the immediate aesthetic appeal. Well, we should take POTY as the picture which appealed to most voters anyways. And then realize that en.FPC is something completely different :-). --Dschwen 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
