Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hashish-shop-Kathmandu-1973.jpg

Hashish shop in Kathmandu



 * Nominate and [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] Neutral since I am the photographer myself. - Roger McLassus 19:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Comment . Wow. What an amazing photo. It truly conveys the gritty urbanism and I like the people on the right. The only thing that bothers me is the white rope(?) that spans the picture, but I'll support when the two-day commenting period is over . One question though, what were you doing outside a Hashish shop???:/ LordViD 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

After more then 32 years I don't remember what the ropes were for - probabely to give additional stability to an adjacent building that was in danger of collapsing. By the way, a few months later hashis became illegal in Nepal, so this photo has some documentary value. I took the picture, because the end of legality was already imminent then. --Roger McLassus 20:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * why does the caption say "(re-inserted for discussion)"? It should have a better caption and it shouldn't refer to FPC. Broken S 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The picture was there before, but someone took it out. It is not my habit to re-insert pictures or texts deleted, but in this case I made an exception. But you are right, the information should be given in the discussion and not under the picture. I'll change that. --Roger McLassus 09:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Well i oppose because the place is not legal... as he claims.. i live there... so i know.... and yeah... even the building doesnt exist.. HOTEL EDEN is still there... but its just a hotel... so i recommend... u edit..the false informaton. Oh by the way, they are the ropes from the electric pole.... and they help ground the extra electric charges that might occur on the poles....to prevent danger!!! Sakar Bhusal
 * What a stupid reason to oppose an image. He clearly states that it was taken over 30 years ago before hash was made illegal there, why would the signs and buildings still appear the same today? duh. --Deglr6328 08:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this image doesn't promote hashish use, so the illegal argument can't be used here.
 * Also opposing on grounds based on the place itself and not on the image by it's merit is not a valid argument to oppose and will most likely be discounted by the closing admin. Jtkiefer T  17:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, anyone can close a nomination here, you don't have to be an admin. I'm not. Raven4x4x 01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The white lines are really bugging me, so while it may need to be documented, I'm afraid I'll oppose once voting on this one is allowed. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For an advertising picture intended to attract coustomers I'd have removed the bicyle, the people, and by some editing tricks also the ropes. But my intention was different. The picture should show a real piece of oriental life - and so everything fits in. --Roger McLassus 12:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Focus too soft. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I like the picture a lot, though I really wish something could be done about the distracting lines... Some clever photoshopping could take care of them, and frankly I think that would make the image much better. -- uberpenguin 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, and I don't think that photoshopping something out of the original photo is morally acceptable just to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Colour saturation/balance, sharpness and luminosity are merely subjective aspects of a photo, and I think are therefore fair game, but not physically elements of a photo such as the cable. Diliff 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then call me immoral; I think it would be better off with the lines removed. If I'm hopelessly outnumbered in this opinion it obviously won't matter :) -- uberpenguin 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, well I never said it wouldn't be better off with the lines removed. I just said I didn't think it does justice to documentary photography to remove aesthetically unpleasing elements. :). The scene should remain as it was when the photo was taken - IMHO! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of the rope/cable/whatever. A featured picture should be free of impediment, and this one is not. I have no qualms about photoshopping a picture, though, so long as the objective is not deceit. I would vote to keep if the rope was gone. D e nni &#9775;  02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The rope is not an impediment but a feature. It is part of what the picture is intended to show. --Roger McLassus 09:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The rope is simply there. It was not purposely placed to enhance the view. Therefore, it can be removed without affecting the view. D e nni &#9775;  22:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support This picture is remarkable because of its object, which does not exist any more and probabely will never again exist in the future. All discussions about aesthetical or technical matters here miss the point. Kessa Ligerro 15:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for its content value. I concur with Kessa Ligerro. Enochlau 01:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support The image has high historical value, and is on par with other Featured pictures' quality. However, I would appreciate someone who is knowledgeable about Kathmandu to write a paragraph on the history of hashish there, so there is some article relevance. &#126; MDD4696 (talk &bull; contribs) 06:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral - love the pic, but the ropes distract too much from the overall quality. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nice subject matter but those darn ropes are just so distracting! - JustinWick 00:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great photo. The ropes add to it, leave them in. Hamedog 01:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an excellent photo. It is striking and conveys the information more effectively than words. The ropes are part of the scene and should be left in. Camerafiend 02:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Keep the ropes! --Hein 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Overall quality is just not up to standard for FP.--Deglr6328 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Calderwood 09:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This was very close, but I'm afraid I'll have to call it a no consensus. Raven4x4x 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * After thinking again about this decision, and especially noticing the contribution history of Sakar Bhusal (3 edits, all related to this vote) I have decided that I should have promoted this. To rectify my mistake:

