Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 10

message: At Commons, a new system of promoting quality on Commons and helping users create better images is developed. It should be complementary to featured pictures. See the proposasl at Quality Images, Quality Images, Quality images guidelines, :commons:Commons:Quality images candidates. Help developing the system, join the disscussion - your imput would be much aprreciated! --Wikimol 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality Images on Commons

message: .  Stevage 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm  I don't think it's too low. It draws your attention to the front most piece which is clear. --Gmaxwell 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another suggestion. 

message: Some of you may find this interesting  -Ravedave 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on fake DOF 

message: Anyone else think the voting on "Ferrofluid in magnetic field" is a bit strange? -Ravedave 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm - I don't see any obvious sockpuppeting or any foul play, but I'm surprised that there are so many "one-word" supports for a not-so-great image. I've abstained from voting myself - sure, the picture is interesting, but it doesn't have the wow-factor needed for me to support. --Janke | Talk 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't done a detail analisys but there seems to be alot of new names, and also alot of votes rapidly showing up in comparision to other FPCs. -Ravedave 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct, I noted that, too. However, I couldn't find any traces of solicitation either - can you? --Janke | Talk 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are supporting it because it's an interesting concept, not because the image is particularly feature-worthy.  No comment on the suspicious voting pattern... but I would suggest if people don't consider it a great image, they should vote against it.-- moondigger 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrofluid in magnetic field 

message: Should delisting not be brought more into line with nominating?
Currently Epipcyclic Gear Ratios has been up for a month and a half, Lincoln Statue has been up for a month, with what I see as fairly clear results. Then the map that has been there for 3 weeks with all votes for keep.
I believe delisting should be made the same as standard nominations along with the 7 day time period. It just seems random when they get removed to me.....say1988 18:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting Procedure 

message: A slight elaboration has been made to the "Have a good caption" point of Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?, following frequent complaints on the Main Page.  When evaluating these, please take into account that the image description page should have an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page.  This should be pretty easy to satisfy for any image with a little effort.  Thanks.--Pharos 06:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria adjusted 

message: I am not certain if by some odd chance I was the only one who played into it, but I clicked on the "edit" function on a photo being nominated for delisting. At first I thought it was just a minor glitch on the computer, but page upon page began opening, with an address of "1, 2, 3, 4,....". It went up to 21 pages before I manually restarted my computer. It freezes all of the functions. 
A word of advice, be very cautious whenever a user tells you to "see here" (with a link enclosed) or "please point out this" on another link. It wasnt so much a virus as it was a mild computer scrambler, something a user interested in computer programming could have easily created. I cant remember what user I was responding to at the time (internet history erased), but if an amateur user can temporarily stall a computer, how much worse can it get? 
And in case the user responsible is reading this, please know that it is not only very illegal in Wikipedia standards, but there are several unwritten and official laws which could hold the abuser legally responsible, through meager fines and etc. Just a thought next time someone tries it... -- AJ24 05:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you perhaps have a link that caused this? The history of all pages are saved so it should be easy to point out. It this was actually done on purpose by someone then it should be shown to an admin. Threats of "illegality" are a bit over the top, and a bit against assume good faith. Also, if crashing a browser were illegal than MS would have been out of business a loooooong time ago. -Ravedave 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WARNING: vandalism and Virus on FP candidacy page 

message: Is there any support for dividing FPs as follows:
*Photos taken by Wikipedians/Diagrams made by Wikipedians
*Historical photos
*Scans of paintings
*Other nice images (NASA pics, public domain, etc)
These categories are so different from each other, I find it a bit awkward that they "compete" with each other. In particular, I think we should make the bar slightly lower for Wikipedians' photos, and really encourage Wikipedians to go out there and take good photos, without having to compete with NASA, Caravaggio, or Ansell Adams. Stevage 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support the division of the FP into "hotos taken by Wikipedians/Diagrams made by Wikipedians" and "Historical photos". But arent the FP listings already divided into many subsections? -- AJ24 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Stevage, are you refering to FPC or just FPs? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Commons has recently started the Quality Image project which is specifically directed at recognising the contributions of Users, that images loaded by wikipedians as PD-self and CC-by-2.5 should be encourage to be loaded into commons anyway, this is the main page for Quality images.. I would suggest that FP standards should be exactly the same for all images irreguardless of the source. Gnangarra 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to divide FPs? 

message: Are unregistered users allowed to vote on FPC? I can't find policy anywhere to bakc me up, but I'm pretty sure that unregistered users (especially those with less than 20 edits) are not counted when performing the final tally. Can anyone clear this up? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per a discussion on the last archive, I think it's common consensus that IP users/less than 20 edit users are not counted in the final tally. Of course this is subject to the judgement of the closer, which is why it's not set in stone. --Fir0002 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks Fir. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Suffrage states that its up to the diffrent communities around the decisions (i.e. FP's diff from AfD and whatnot as I gather) about the typical timeframes that anon's and new users go through before comments get more weight. -Mask  07:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP users 

message: The guidelines for delisting a featured picture clearly and boldly ask that that the original nominator and/or uploader be informed on their talk page that a dislisting is being debated. In the 13 nominations for delisting made by Vanderdecken on 7/16/06 and the 9 nominations for delisting made by AJ24 on 7/18/06, I could not find any notice given to the original nominators or uploaders.  
If I am mistaken, then I apologize.  If I am not, then in the interest of fairness, either the delisting nominations be withdrawn, or the clock be reset to start after Vanderdecken or AJ24 inform the original uploaders and/or nominators that they've recommended their picture be delisted.  --Bagginz 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No notice given to uploader/nominator during mass delistings? 

message: Self-nom : Garry-W*
**Garry can you update your Featured pic cantidate page to follow the template in the instructions found here: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nomination_Procedure? The nomination needs your reasons and where the pic appears. -XYZ 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense candidate 

message: Please leave any comments about the new style (which I tried on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Bales_of_hay) here. Thanks, -Ravedave 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm it seems like responding to comments may be hard. I tried using ::#. I am not sure of a better way. -Ravedave 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the code on a few of the Polish FPCs, I notice they indent/leave comments with this sytax: #::: , and that seems to be the standard. A few cases left unnumbered comments (with subsequent ones below) with this sytax: ::: --Tewy 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why not stick with ::* as I've done here. I see no reason to number responses to comments/votes, it makes more sense just to use bullets. Numbering the votes themselves makes sense as it's so much easier to count. BTW, any reason you indented the original subheadings? --jjron 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I did some experimenting and the reason the # is used is because otheriwse the numbering starts over. Since we are using :# for normal entries than replies need to be :#:-Ravedave 06:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, fair enough. Though it looks like that may be a problem with the numbering too - Dante's vote, under AJ24's comment on Fir0002's vote, has also restarted the numbering. This could be a problem. --jjron 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Perhaps the template could include  comments telling the commenter what prefix should be used. --Billpg 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ok, I fixed the numbering issue on AJ24's comment, by changing the "::#" to ":#::" . I think if you don't make the entire list tab over (each vote on the Bales of hay nomination starts with a colon, as in ":#", ":#:", ":#::" etc.), then the sytax will look like "#", "#:", "#::" etc.. (Sorry, confusing way to explain it). Basically what I mean is that each numbered vote should simply start with "#", and its comments should start with "#:", "#::" etc., and any comment that is not part of a vote should be bulleted with "*" etc. as is done now. --Tewy 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I like the information in the heading, but I prefer the traditional style for discussion. Just IMHO. --Billpg 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree that a pure chronological order is better. It is interesting to see how votes change over time and with new edits and arguements. As well as the ideas given above. Though the heading may be good (perhaps a little overcomplicated for newbies, but they would probably learn from people chewign them out about it, and hopefully not get scared off). 209.226.175.59 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't like this format, please stick to the normal "chronological discussion" format. Separating oppose/support does nothing to help us reach consensus, it only highlights opposition and groups people into "camps". Stevage 12:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on new style

message: When a picture from Commons is not promoted and you remove , please consider speedy deleting the Wikipedia image description page under criteria I2 (or, if you are not an administrator, tagging it for speedy deletion).  The reason for this is that these blank image description pages are added to Special:Uncategorizedimages.  Thank you. BigDT 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations of images hosted on Commons 

message: Is there an FPRC process? The pictured I'd specifically like to remove is :Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg; it is of poor colour, dark, speckly and Mount Rushmore looks kinda blurry. I can't the right page though (WP:FPRC leads to Portal Removal candidates). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a separate page. The bottom of the featured picture candidate page has a section for delisting and review! InvictaHOG 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! Thanks! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture Removal Candidates? 

message: User:Eagle_101/WikiVoter This tool may or may not work for counting votes for FPC. Anyone want to try it? -Ravedave 04:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting votes 

message: The overwhelming support and comments we have witnessed from the nomination for FP status of the "Wikipe-tan" anime is becoming excessive. The majority of supporters of the image have never before or rarely taken part in the FPC elections, and while I understand there must at some time be a starting point, it is beginning to appear that these are one-time only voters. In my opinion, the voters premeditated their support before even acknowledging the guidelines of FPCriteria. Upon examining the image, it is obvious that it is not Wikipedia's best work or of exceptional artistic quality. It now appears that the image will most likely become FP Status, and so I would like you to peruse the already Featured Pictures and compare them to the Wikipe-tan. Does it belong? -- AJ24 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I've been meaning to vote on it, but I'm still not sure whether to oppose or to support. It may well be a rare instance of a free, accurate, and relevant picture to the topic, so in these aspects I'd say it doesn't fail any criteria. I certainly wouldn't support it as any kind of mascot for Wikipedia, but that's irrelevant here of course. To me, it doesn't really add much to the article, but since I'm not a fan of anime or related stuff, I can't really judge that, so to others it may. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with the votes there, looks like just a popular topic. — Wildrick 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  AJ, I understand your strong feelings but FPC is a part of wikipedia, anyone is allowed to contribute, and all valid votes should be counted.  You yourself a relative newbie to FPC, infact it looks like a large percentage of your edits are on FPC, should your vote not be counted? Does voting on FPC actually make you any better at judging? (I actually think people who have been here too long get *crusty* :) I shall soon count myself as one of them )-Ravedave 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do consider myself relatively new to the FPC process, which is why I said, "...and while I understand there must at some time be a starting point, it is beginning to appear that these are one-time only voters". I would again like to emphasize how these voters most likely fully supported the image without FPCriteria in mind; a premeditated vote. And I do not believe any votes should be invalid, I was simply bringing up that there seems to be a conflict of interest between ardent fans of the anime and users who frequent FPC with the Criteria in mind. -- AJ24 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was wondering why so many people are commenting on this image in particular. Where did they all come from? Raven4x4x 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The why is simple its being advertised on the project page which uses this image in their user box Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Wikipe-tan_for_Featured_Picture.21 Gnangarra 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then it must be a very popular page for anime fans. -- AJ24 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Um, have you read the way votes are generally counted on FPC (at the top of the project page). This method of counting votes is highly unusual, to say the least. --jjron 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You wouldn't have my support, though you might not have my opposition either since I should stay neutral as the person who closed the original nom. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasnt really taking an individual pole... I wanted to know in general. -- AJ24 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipe-tan" euphoria eclipses FPCriteria 

message: Due to the current situation surrounding replacements, should replacements be entirely forbidden and banned from FPC? I now support this move to ban. A permanent notification would be added to the FPC Nominations page to inform nominators of the new amendment. Please list if you Support or Oppose the ban to permanently ban replacements.
*Support -- AJ24 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no possible means of using "common sense" when there is no written statement or guideline on the matter. There is nothing to go by. Again, the use of "near"-identical. The only exemption to the proposed ban on replacements would be identical images: paintings or duplicates (quality would differ). The recent unwritten rule on the issue, which will continue to exist solely in this discussion, which is still a poor source to reference. If you are alleging that my nominate to replace was "agenda driven", please be more literal. If you were not, then excuse my guess. -- AJ24 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not referring to you, but making a general statement that I thought reflected the views of people who posted their comments in this vote. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Written statements do exist to avoid agenda driven or otherwise innapropriate replacements, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV to name only 2. Existing policies apply to this area too. HighInBC 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's common sense that if a picture is promoted that outshines another and fills the same niche that the old one should be replaced. Common sense means that there is no explicit rule. So why do you need rules to use your common sense? We don't need to write out that rule because it's obvious. If people disagree with replacement they will just say so in the discussion, no need to put anything in stone. Where's the threat or urgency. It can't be abused because the participants won't allow good pictures to fall. A new section for replacements...we already have too many sections (remember when it was just 3? or even 2?). That section won't be used often and may confuse people (newbies already find it too hard to nominate things, they often ask for help here). What if I want some old picture removed and another added but people don't agree with the removal? Will I have to resubmit in the standard process? If not, then why not just keep replacements in along with the regular nominations (because the closer is going to have to make the decision in the end anyways). If so, then that section will just waste more time than filling two consecutive nominations. Don't make more bureaucracy. Keep it simple with no rules (the way things were before). Oh and yes I agree with Dante. BrokenSegue 02:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Problem with that is that the tough process of closing a nom becomes doubly as hard. -Ravedave 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: <DEL>Oppose - Unless considerations are given for recropping, color correction, adding of text ect... to improve the quality of an image that has only small failings. I don't think it complicates the process, if you don't specify which version you are voting for, then you are reffering to the original. HighInBC 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I misunderstood the meaning of the vote thinking it was to allow alternative edits to a proposed picture, it is not clear that this is a vote on replacing existing FPs. HighInBC 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - To replace a featured picture the existing delisting proccess should be used after the new image is upgraded. If the community finds the old one redundent fine, but it should not be streamlined. However, when a new image is from the same source but of higher detail this should be allowed(:Image:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg vs :Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg). HighInBC 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing Images: Vote to ban or allow 

message: Just to let you know there are a *lot* of images awaiting comments at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. Thanks! Stevage 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture peer review 

message: I created a page to help newbies with images sizes here and linked it from Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. It probably needs to be worked in better, but I am getting sleepy. -Ravedave 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: Gmaxwell's shots of ferrofluid are quite striking. I'd like to nominate one for FPC, but since he has (at least) five of them, I'm not sure which one I should nom. Any thoughts? Link. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to nominate one last night, but ran into the same problem.  I'm leaning towards the one with the edge of the glass plate and the magnet beneath it visible. -- Moondigger 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: These are the two I was trying to decide between:
	
-- Moondigger 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The left one is going through FPC on commons. -Ravedave 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The left one shows the spikes much better, and would be my pick to get through on commons, though I believe the right one is more encyclopaedic. Also, is there not a better place to discuss things like this? Peer review maybe? say1988 02:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrofluid 

message: How long has the sentence "Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support." been around in the intro? It's news to me - consensus is *supposed* to be a fuzzy thing, based on who's voting and what their arguments are. It's *not* a hand count. Stevage 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how long it's been there, but it's meant to be a rough guideline, given that 2/3 majority means twice as many "supports" as "opposes."  In fact no simple vote count could be construed as a true consensus, unless it was unanimous or nearly so.  You might notice that references to "consensus" on the FP tag have been removed for that reason. -- Moondigger 14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus = 2/3? 

message: I recently proposed :Image:Solar sys.jpg for featured status, and several of the oppose votes were due to lack of moons. If I upload a version with moons should I start a new page or put the old one at the top again? --WillMak050389 04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the proper protocal, but I don't think moving an existing section to the top is the way. I would submit it as a new edit on the existing on without moving it, though there may be a better  way. HighInBC 05:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make a new page and link to the old discussion in the intro. Its too much of a mess otherwise. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks for the help. --WillMak050389 05:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-proposal 

message: Someone made the comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures that it would be good to link to the FPC discussion on the page for image itself, so people can see *why* it's a FP. I like the idea. Anyone else? Stevage 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a link to the discussion, in the "File links" section.  For example, see :Image:Windbuchencom.jpg.  In the "File links" section, each of the pages in which the image is used is listed.  One of them is :Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Winter, which is the link to the FPC discussion from when the image was nominated. -- Moondigger 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it would feature more prominently if it was mentioned in the actual image text. Also, I've found the existing 'file links' method of accessing the FPC history a bit problematic when it is currently POTD as it includes any page that has the image as part of a template (eg people have a POTD template on their user page). It gets a bit messy when you have to dig through pages of links to reach it. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not arguing against the idea.  I pointed out that a link exists on the image pages because I missed it myself for the first few weeks I was participating here.  If it would be useful to have a separate link outside of the file links section, then I don't think making one requires much discussion or debate. -- Moondigger 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be fairly uncontroversial, I think the big issue would be how the best way to do it (I suggest what I mentioned below) and if and/or how we should deal with old FP's in terms of should we hunt down old FP's to add the extra info. Cat-five - talk 09:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The easiest way to do that I think would be to add an extra option to the FP template allowing for a link to the discussion. Cat-five - talk 07:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would that work exactly? You would have to specify the link as a field on the template? If that is simple to implement, I'm all for it. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be pretty easy to add to the  template and its siblings, but I always subst those templates in when making the POTD pages, so if we want to put them in retroactively, we'll need AWB or something similar to accomplish that. howcheng  {chat} 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but we're not talking about POTDs are we. We're talking about the  template, right? Checking the template now, it appears it already has it. If you do  then it works by linking the word "identified". See :Image:Lange car.jpg where I just added it. howcheng  {chat} 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I was thinking of, though it might be a good idea to make the link to the discussion a little more obvious then that. Cat-five - talk 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to FPC discussion 

message: Friends - This is a personal request; I have a photo that a magazine editor wants to publish as a full-spread cover on the magazine, but it was taken long ago with a 2 Mpixel camera. I know that some of you have some pretty amazing software available to do upsampling & sharpening - would you be willing to help a fellow wikieditor with this? Thanks in advance - and drop me a line, please! --Janke | Talk 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Janke, I'm willing to give it a try, but I don't think a 2 megapixel image will suffice for magazine-quality full page reproduction, even upsampled.  Is the editor aware that the image is only 2 megapixels?  Drop me an e-mail at my registered address if you want to discuss further. -- Moondigger 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno about amazing software but I'm pretty good with Photoshop - email me and I'll give it a shot --Fir0002 05:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody help with upsampling & sharpening? 

message: I recently nominated one of my pics as FPC, and it ended up getting quite a poor response due to some minor problems - blown highlights, not included in articles. I soon corrected these, but there were no voters thereafter and finally the nomination failed. I wanted to know if it is allowed to go for a renomination as there were no votes after the reupload? -- PlaneMad|YakYak 07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Renomination is allowed, but it's usually a good idea to wait a while between nominations. To be honest though, I'd be very surprised to see this gaining support, as there's simply not enough detail in the subject: it seems mostly a photo of some nondescript clouds and some dusty ground with a shrub growing on it. The mountains aren't nearly prominent enough. Sorry. --Yummifruitbat 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its nominated on the commons too and isnt doing too bad (), which is why i thought id give it a try on wp. It was the absence of votes rather than oppose votes that surprised me here -- PlaneMad|YakYak 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember Commons requirements and voters are very different than WP. Also the lack of votes is probably just do to what Yummifruitbat said would likely cause it to fail. It looks like it is just a generic image of a desert. I know that is why I didn't vote either way for it. I didn't have any fellings about it at all. I forgot it was even nominated. I do advise to at least wait a little while. Maybe some new contributers will come or some peoples' opinions may change, but if you really want to, go ahead. say1988 19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is renomination allowed? 

message: Am I the only seeing what could be some sneaky vandalism in one of the lower right windows in this image? Zerak-Tul 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only not so sneaky vandalism I see, is posting an insanely huge pic full size on this talk page. The window qualifies as art :-) --Dschwen 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so quick to accuse; posting the image was a mistake that was quickly fixed. Raven4x4x 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy... ...yeah I'll make sure to throw in a few more smilieys nex time. Apart from that, the history surprises me. No edit conflict, yet when I posted my reply the image was definately still big. Instead the diff says I just capitalized the I in image. Weird!. --Dschwen 06:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image in the window seems to be a banner that coincidentally falls exactly in front of the window.  It confused me for a while, and I thought it might be image vandalism because of the way it is clearly in front of the banner pole (so not actually on the window), but seems to fit the dimensions of the window.  However, the same image can be made out on two other banners to the right of that one; they're side-on, though, so not as visible. TSP 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice spot TSP :) Still uncanny looking though, and sorry about the initial posting of the image here, forgot that formatting Zerak-Tul 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I was wondering if the banner was split horizontally in the middle with the bottom part left/right and the upper part flipped head-on. InvictaHOG 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think more likely it's on the border of two images (remember it's a stitched panorama), with a face-on view fading into a side-on view. TSP 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:GrazerRathaus-edit.jpg|Grazer Town Hall]]

message: Anyone else a little suspicious of QAZ, 66.36.155.198, Babayi who have suddenly popped out to rescue the Baghe Eram Shiraz from opposes? --Fir0002 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm pretty sure now that they are socks of Arad, the did the same thing with the "Arge Bam" nom --Fir0002 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not cool. The user contributions are quite a give-away. Even with the greatest benefit of the doubt plus extra assume-no-evil I'd guess they are at least meatpuppets. My suggestion would be weighing those votes a little less (or not at all, even if that is begging for in-crowd conspiracy theories again). --Dschwen 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks incriminating to me.  Too bad that the FP crown is so glamorous that it distorts the process.  SteveHopson 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: not sure who they are but I agree with above Arad 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not allowed to ake the votes off. Arad 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible socks