Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flag of Nazi Germany

Flag of Nazi Germany
Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 20:05:36 (UTC)
 * Reason:Highest quality representation of the Nazi flag.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Nazi Germany, Flag of Germany, Swastika to name a few.
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Other
 * Creator:Real life creator unknown, uploaded by Benutzer:Kookaburra


 * Support as nominator -- ☭ Fr yP od  20:05, 5 August 2017(UTC)
 * Speedy Close Strong Oppose Content ban user from FPC imho. — raeky  T  20:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing special. I imagine this was nominated solely to be provocative. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Speedy Close JFitch   (talk)  21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1) too provocative, 2) and absurdly simple-to-generate graphic. Granted, it certainly is “eye-catching”. But catching eyes by being provocative (via loud, booming radios in cars, purple mohawk hairdos, or swastikas) is un-encyclopedic. More to the point of what FP pictures are supposed to accomplish: there is no reason, IMO, for our I.P. readership to click on this image to see the enlargement since one just sees larger fields of red, white, and black with nice sharp borders between the elements. The subject of “Nazi Germany” might be best treated as a Featured Article. But there is nothing about this graphic that makes it amongst our better, higher-quality images; not by any stretch. It therefore lacks “stop, stare, and click”. Substituting that with “be startled, blink, move on because it’s a simple graphic” isn’t a desirable substitute. Greg L (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because its a flag. Provocative doesn't exclude an image from FP though and saying we should content ban someone for this is just silly, imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator (“FryPod” with a hammer & sickle prefix) decribes him or herself this way: “I am a proud member of the Communist Party USA and user of Ubuntu”. Well, isn’t that just *extra* special? I suspect the editor just enjoys making waves. That’s my suspicion or belief.(disclaimer) And, indeed, we don’t ban editors over this sort of thing—doing so would just add to the entertainment value of this. I strongly suggest we just ignore this entry from hereon and get about our regularly scheduled business.Greg L (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no less controversial than a flag-waving Jingoist's page IMO. It's just that communism is a little less in fashion at the moment. ;-) (no, I'm not implying that's you, just to head that off at the pass) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we all have a pretty good idea what the nominator was likely up to here. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I retract what I said. This editor had nothing but good-faith intentions. Clearly. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the nominator's intentions actually are, reaction should be per WP:AGF. I'd call the flag provocative but the nomination really doesn't appear to be malicious. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

--J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)