Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pula Aerial View
- Reason
- The best photo of Pula, Croatia that Wikipedia can use
- Caption
- Aerial view of Pula, Croatia
- Articles this image appears in
- Pula
- Creator
- Orlovic
- Support as nominator --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Jpeg artifacts, not very sharp, possibly oversaturated colours... Very nice view, but not the best quality photo technically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff, it may be the best photo of Pula we have, but its not the best aerial photo of a city, and that's the benchmark. Mfield (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose What they said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought exceptional quality was an issue on commons, and here just encyclopedic value ;( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- You'd best read up Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria then. In some ways, we're a lot harder on images because we need both encyclopaedic value and technical quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- What happened to Valued images? Might be appropriate for that, if it has materialized. de Bivort 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC
- I believe it's commons only. Here's the link, though. NauticaShades 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I nominated it here. NauticaShades 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it's commons only. Here's the link, though. NauticaShades 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- For completeness: TFG is partly correct, our resolution requirement is lower than that on Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be pedantic, TFG is completely incorrect, since he was under the impression that we were just looking for encyclopaedic value. Just because we have lower res requirements, it doesn't mean we don't have res requirements at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be pedantic, I prefer to say he is somewhat correct over saying he is mostly wrong. Just a matter of courtesy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then you're not being pedantic, you've delibrately glossed over the original point, which was that he misunderstood our FPC requirements, in order to be courteous. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, my logic is just different from yours. There are several ways to decompose his statement, and yours is just one of them. But that plurality would have been intolerable to you, I really should have known, having interacted with you in this same style on several occasions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- oh my gosh it doesn't really matter. the confusion has been clarified; no need for more discussion. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then you're not being pedantic, you've delibrately glossed over the original point, which was that he misunderstood our FPC requirements, in order to be courteous. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be pedantic, I prefer to say he is somewhat correct over saying he is mostly wrong. Just a matter of courtesy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be pedantic, TFG is completely incorrect, since he was under the impression that we were just looking for encyclopaedic value. Just because we have lower res requirements, it doesn't mean we don't have res requirements at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- What happened to Valued images? Might be appropriate for that, if it has materialized. de Bivort 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC
- You'd best read up Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria then. In some ways, we're a lot harder on images because we need both encyclopaedic value and technical quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . --John254 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)