Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portland Night panorama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portland Night Panorama

Reason

Nicely shows the downtown area. Technically strong.

Proposed caption

The skyline of downtown Portland, Oregon. Taken from the east waterfront.

Articles this image appears in

Portland, OR

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support (Self-nom) Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Lovely picture, great stitch job, but I'm not convinced of its contribution to the article, especially given your existing FP at the head which depicts much of the same scene by daylight. It could certainly benefit from a more informative caption though (and the removal of the template deletion template!) ~ Veledan • T 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, its pretty similar to my other one but that doesn't preclude it from FP, compare this and this. Thanks for being more coherent then Mbz1. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, let me be completely clear and say that I'd have supported this photograph if your current FP of the same subject didn't exist. Criterion #5 doesn't make clear whether multiple images of the same subject where neither has any enc advantage over the other can simultaneously be FPs, and in the 3 years I've hung around WP:FPC I've seen many discussions on the subject fail to reach consensus. I am of the opinion that any image that doesn't provide additional value to an article should be featured on Commons not Wikipedia, hence the vote. Of course, this image might have informative/interesting elements that the existing FP doesn't cover but without a decent caption that can't be determined by people who don't know Portland! ~ Veledan • T 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The image adds no value to the article.--Mbz1 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment How so?--Svetovid 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria No 1 & 2 specify the technical quality required. Therefore it is contrary to support regardless of quality. --jjron 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put but uh, I think svetovid's comment was a response to Mbz1's vote since I added the note after svetovid added his. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, oops, I think you're right, I didn't look at the times, sorry (I guess that can happen when stuff gets out of chronological order and indenting goes awry; still, my miss). --jjron 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Because Portland's skyline is already a FP. I believe the photograph does add value to the article, but the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria #3: "It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject...," for which I would say the subject of Portland's skyline has it's best, as mentioned by Veledan above.--Puddyglum 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support - This is a gorgeous picture, which is certainly enough for adding significant value to the article. Sometimes I have the strong feeling that sterile pedantism is cultivated in this forum. - Alvesgaspar 00:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I truly don't think the distinction between Commons FP and Wikipedia FP is pedantic. Commons FP is the proper showcase for beautiful, well-photographed images; Wikipedia FP is the showcase for beautiful, well-photographed images that happen to be most valuable from an enc point of view, in the context of their article. I do feel that there is value in the exclusivity of the WP:FPC criteria. It's possible I'm wrong of course, but honestly it's not a pedantic discrimination ~ Veledan • T 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Alves. Very detailed. Although, personally, I think we could do with a guideline against multiple redundant FPs of the same subject. Debivort 03:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A high quality picture. The fact that there is a similar FP does not prevent it from becoming one itself. --NauticaShades 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support great panorama, nothing wrong with the article having 2. Anyway they arent even almost similar --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support I have seen many other pictures just like this one. It's similar and they're not ALL featured pictures, however interesting they are. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Portland Night panorama.jpg MER-C 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)