Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Müga Wasserspiele sw 2013

Müga water games
Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2013  at 05:02:50 (UTC)
 * Reason:high quality image; considered as a featured photo on Commons
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mülheim
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Others
 * Creator:the creator of the image, where possible using the format is Tuxyso.


 * Support as nominator --  Blurred   Lines   05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose lots of information is lost due to a lack of colour. Nice pic, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Mattximus (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, I would have choosen the colored version of ths image, but people on Commons seemed to like the B&W version better for some reason.  Blurred   Lines   14:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The colour photograph is much better, but now I have concerns about the EV. There isn't even a page for MüGa-Park! Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, probably the uploader is planning to create it someday, but I really think that the un-creation of the article is no concern to the photo.  Blurred   Lines   14:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it does. One of the criteria for featured article is that it "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article" and that "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value". So even though it's a nice picture, it's EV is lacking. So I oppose on those grounds. Mattximus (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this a fountain? What is a water game? Rmhermen (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a fountain. Also, I have no idea what a "water game" is, you may have to ask the person who uploaded it.  Blurred   Lines   03:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nomination and for the interest in this photo. I do not know if "water games" is the correct term for it in English, but the following is meant: A water game ("Wasserspiel") is a system of fountains which are connected to each other. If you take a closer look on the photo you see that in front of the fountain is an efflux trasporting the water to the next fountain. On the other side there is an conflux to the fountain so that it is recharged from water of the previous one. The water game is located in the "Müga" a large park in Mülheim. The complete water game extends to half of the park. Why B/W (from FP candidature on Commons): black/white is better here because it attracts the attention on the water and its flow --Tuxyso (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the colour version. Support colour version, Half support B/W version. Godhulii 1985 (talk)
 * Comment. Jeux d'eau is the French equivalent for Wasserspiel and is often used in English (as in our article). It's slightly more specific than fountain. Chick Bowen 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the interwiki link from the German article, the equivalent is Water feature. Don't if it fits better than Jeux d'eau (never heard in German of that term). --Tuxyso (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. The picture's currently used in a gallery on the article about the town; if it was used in an article about the park (or, even better, in an article about the fountain) then we could reconsider, but this isn't really eligible right now. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose no EV at the moment. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 13:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Per others, the EV is missing at present. However, I have to say the "lack of colour" issue is ridiculous and frankly embarrassing for WP:FP. -- Colin°Talk 18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious... What is it that you think is ridiculous and embarrassing? I cannot really tell from your message. 86.171.174.156 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That "lack of colour" means it isn't "suitable for an encyclopaedia". There are many legitimate reasons to choose a black-and-white image (as Tuxyso says, here it focuses the eye on the water feature rather than the hedge and trees which in the colour one catch your eye). Black and white can be better where shape, form and texture are more important than colour. -- Colin°Talk 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for pictures specifically illustrating a photographic technique or genre, I cannot think of any situation in which the EV (as I understand that term) of a black-and-white image would be higher. "AV" (artistic value) is a different matter of course. 86.171.174.156 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there are plenty photographic books that disagree and will describe situations where black-and-white enhances what a viewer can get from an image. There are of course many examples where colour is better and even essential. I don't think this is one of them. What does the green of the bushes add to the viewers appreciation of the waterworks or the park's design? Even if you think there is no EV benefit to b&w, is there always a loss significant enough to oppose? Would File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg have more EV if it were in colour? Colin°Talk 21:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not so you can see that bushes are green, it's so you can see that the base of the fountain is grey and that the water is not dyed pink. Seeing the colours of things always, by definition, provides more information. "Mainstream" black and white photography only exists because of historical accident. If people weren't used to it for that reason it would be a niche "artistic" format and no one would consider it suitable for factual depiction of subjects. 86.179.5.161 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)