Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset2

Sunset2


This awesome picture is on the color page. Who doesn't like a picture of a sunset! Photo taken by User:Fir0002 --Xerxes2004 • Talk

Note: I have moved this to it's own page per procedure, and left a note for Xerxes2004 -Ravedave 03:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Support. - Xerxes2004 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment looking into this (just quickly), it looks like this was never a FP, so it shouldn't be here - this is where we "de-featurify" images. If you want to re-nominate it, please do it at the top of the page. --Janke | Talk 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems like it was previously nominated at Featured picture candidates/Sunsets. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support nice picture. Pegasus1138 Talk 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose another absolutely stunning photo by Fir but we already have two of his sunsets featured, leaving aside those from other contributors! I've added the existing ones for comparison. I'd support this if it were to replace the first FP, but the proper place for galleries of featured sunsets is Commons rather than here ~ Veledan • Talk 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)\
 * The fact that there are previous versions is irrelevant and is not a valid reason to oppose, now if degrades the relevancy of this sunset to the article that would be a valid reason but your reasoning falls wayyy outside all reasoning within the guidelines for what a featured picture should be. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As such, not very encyclopedic. Beautiful, even though I don't likle that dark cloud at left. (The photographer could have moved a few hundred meters to the right... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised its not photoshopped out already, ha ha ;-). I like the cloud, makes the sky more interesting. I'd support it, if it were to replace FP#1. I think no topic should be overrepresented at FPs. --Dschwen 06:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are previous versions is irrelevant and is not a valid reason to oppose, now if degrades the relevancy of this sunset to the article that would be a valid reason but your reasoning falls wayyy outside all reasoning within the guidelines for what a featured picture should be. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. whatever encyclopedic value it has is cancelled out by its redundancy.say1988 04:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are previous versions is irrelevant and is not a valid reason to oppose, now if degrades the relevancy of this sunset to the article that would be a valid reason but your reasoning falls wayyy outside all reasoning within the guidelines for what a featured picture should be. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Crepuscular rays in a sunset, now that's special. Support 3rd image. -Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, lets make it double FP :-) --Dschwen 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * if not redundant, the actual image quality is quite low, you can see specks everywhere which either mean poor exposure or heavy saturation/contrast alteration. I vote the latter. drumguy 8800  - speak 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px|Oppose]] Oppose There's already two sunset image both by Fir0002. [[Image:Yin yang.svg|15px|Black and White]]Black and White USERTALKCONTRIBS [[Image:Yin yang.svg|15px|Black and White]] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another sunset. --Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- it is redundent, but this pic is better then the other two --T-rex 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

~ Veledan • Talk 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)