Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jatra Posters and a Tram.JPG /2

File:Jatra Posters and a Tram.JPG , not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 11:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Jatra Posters and a Tram.JPG /2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jatra Posters and a Tram.JPG /2

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles
•  Info Previously nominated image, no deletion requests from anyone due to alleged FOP issue, hence re-nomination. c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as I just said --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I never understood such pictures, but previously some of them actually passed, so maybe that's just me? But for me it simply looks like: "The more you blur, the better it looks" ? By going this way soon we will nominate a few random color pixels for the Featured Pictures. It is barely possible to see anything in this picture, excluding that strange poster which is not extraordinary. I absolutely have no clue where it would be possible to use such image. It has no encyclopedia value. It even hurts my eyes by simply looking at it and I want to scroll down as soon as possible. This reminds me of some "randomly thrown tables and chairs" art. Never understood it and never will. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole range of potentially suitable articles for pictures like this one: 1, 2, 3... but besides: encyclopedic value in a narrow sense is (luckily!) no requirement for FP stars on Commons. You have - of course! - every right to dislike a picture though. Happens to all of us. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A picture of Commons must not be useful for an encyclopedia and also needs no educational mission. Commons is a free pool of media and not the photo database of Wikipedia. And this picture can be used very good in Wikipedia. --Ralf Roleček 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blurring isn't a problem for me. Some images looks quite impressive with blurred parts, but in this one I can barely see anything. I cannot like something which I cannot see. It's like tasting ice cream without taste receptors. -- Pofka (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noise is a bit high, and I find it compositionally lacking compared to the other "blurred train" pictures we've seen here. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Mile (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support As before: Good capture: makes you want to investigate the image. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per King. — Julian H.^✈ 10:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose For King --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)