Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken (29366239356).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken (29366239356).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 11:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I agree that the sharpening was an improvement, though..subtle, it takes really looking to notice. Nice job. Reventtalk 11:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Let me revert the sharpening only in the nose --The Photographer 13:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Dear @Colin: I was trying fix the problem and I think that it's fixed, else please feel free to revert all my alterations please. Thanks --The Photographer 02:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment … and again we’ve got three versions mixed up into one nomination. Though it’s a great pic, I keep my oppose just for the sake of this procedure, and I beg all of you again: Please do not edit an active nomination unless it’s a very minor flaw (e.g. a dust spot) that all voters agree upon. Sharpness is too much a matter of taste, and alterations into any direction might affect other’s opinions on it. For me the image was best in its original version but since I cannot express this view any more, I’m opposing. --Kreuzschnabel 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Plenty of wow. A great picture of an unusual aircraft that was built in limited numbers. --Pugilist (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per The Photographer’s edit. Sharpening entirely overdone. The original version is featurable enough, the latest one isn’t IMHO. – Generally, please abstain from altering active nominations, or at least make sure to notify all previous voters personally as to reconsider their voting. --Kreuzschnabel 14:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please, let's not start this multi-version-thing again. I think the picture was fine and featureable even before The Photographer stepped in with the usual fixing. Could you at least wait until an issue is raised that needs correcting or if someone actively asks for a correction. Especially with so many editors voting and no 'pinging'. cart-Talk 15:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. I prefer the original. INeverCry 23:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Anyone that dislikes an edit should just revert it (per COM:OVERWRITE) and ask the person who made the change to put their version under a different filename as a derivative. Voting this down, when people like the original, is a silly result. Just put the original back. (sigh). Reventtalk 09:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment D’accord – any edit which does not just fix a clear flaw (and should be done by the author) but enhances the image to the editor’s taste, such as Photographer’s sharpening here, should never replace the original but always be uploaded (and then nominated) as a derivative work. The more so on an active nomination being voted on! As soon as this point is not very clear among ourselves, I cannot change my vote here since it would be unclear which version I am referring to. User:The Photographer already made a major edit to one of his own nominations here a few weeks ago during voting period and got a lot of sand into his face for that, I really do not know why he tries now the same on other’s works. – As for this nomination, I suggest to withdraw, then reset the image version, and put it up again. Now in this discussion votings for three(!) different versions are already mixed up. This is pointless. --Kreuzschnabel 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revent. We encourage people to avoid making changes during a nomination but it does happen and often for good reason but then people who have voted already need to be pinged, which isn't happening here. I see now that Tm has reverted the sharpening, thus many votes/comments are irrelevant. I've changed my vote to oppose because this is too unstable and people are editing without pinging. Imo The Photographer should not have changed the nominated photo without your permission (as nominator) and without pinging others. But when you were pleased with the results, it would be very rude of others to revert simply because they preferred the unsharpened version. Clearly the sharpening is contentious now and so policy requires a separate image, but imo The Photographer's edit is debatable as to whether it could have been considered contentious in advance. I agree with others that we need to get out the recent habit of fiddling with other people's images or creating alternative versions during other people's nomination, and aim (as much as possible) on some stability for the period of a nomination. I suggest if you prefer the sharpened one, you create a different file and nominate that while withdrawing this one. Currently, I think this nomination is invalid as we have no idea what people are voting for (like Brexit, sigh). -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Actually, the more I more I look at it, the more I prefer the original as well... he did a lot more than I realized at first, and you are right that the nose, in both of his versions, was way too much... it makes all the edges flat, instead of appearing to 'round off' into a reflection of the sky, and it's not just on the nose. Tm has reverted it now, but I think that you're right that I should just withdraw this and put it back up again later (or let someone else do so)... the voting is far too confused now. Reventtalk 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Revent: I wouldn't have felt comfortable reverting The Photographer's changes after you (the nominator) expressed approval of those changes. I would've considered that disrespectful toward you. I hope you do re-nominate this, as it's a great image (as is). INeverCry 21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that response, I will go ahead and actually formally " I withdraw my nomination", and start over again with a clean vote in a few days. I wish I had looked closer, sooner, at the edited version... that was my mistake. Reventtalk 21:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: @W.carter: @Revent: I think part of the problem are my modifications. So that in the future but I will modify only my own nominations. --The Photographer 22:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:AIRPOWER16_-_Air_to_Air_SK35C_Draken_(29366239356).jpg&oldid=769887415"