Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/monopoly

monopoly


Not only is it impossible to see the detail of the opposite side of the board, but it is extremely blurred. Not in any way exceptional. Needs to be delisted from FP status.


 * Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Besides the problems mentioned in the nomination, it doesn't meet minimum resolution requirements.  I doubt a higher-resolution replacement would pass muster by current standards.  -- moondigger 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks great. --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its blurred, grainy, and instead of being an above view of the board it is at a slanted angle, whereas you can not in any way see the details of the board. Again, it is grainy and blurred around the monopoly money and figurines. No where near exceptional quality. And it is most certainly, Most Certainly, not "great". -- AJ24 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you now plan to dictate to me what I feel is great do you? Before you set up your dicatorship, maybe find out what Wikipedia is about. Every person is equal and so is their opinion although some of us seem to think they are more equal --Fir0002 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I "dictated" to you nothing. You took that "equality" line right out of 1984. You need to calm down and rationalize. It is overly inappropriate and rude for you to not only jump to odd conclusions of dictatorships, but take my brief statements and make your own interpretation. And below, I was speaking in direct response to user Chris73, not you. Unless you are using sock puppets or whatever their called.... Furthermore, immediately refrain from jumping to conclusions and those comments of yours should be kept to themselves until you can bring a plausible reason not to delist that image of poor quality. I gave more than adequate reasons for delisting: it is grainy (around all shadows), blurred, small, and no where near an exceptional photograph (opinion). Another opinion of mine is you have formed a belittling vendetta against me for nominating a few of your images for delisting. I do not look at the users, I examine the photographs primarily based on quality, encyclopedic value, significance, and most of all whether it is exceptional or not. Im sorry you feel that the nominating process for delisting should be regulated, but the majority feel it should not be. -- AJ24 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it do you? You can give reasons until your ears go blue, but that counts for diddly squat in a FPC nomination, delisting or otherwise. So giving "more than enough reasons to delist" does not entitle you to reject a vote as erroneous. Furthermore this is an open discussion, and there is no such thing as isolating only one person to converse with. And it is "overly inappropriate and rude" for you to suggest that. Re: vendetta - grow up why don't you? --Fir0002 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, please cite a reason for your "Keep" so that I can address your reason. Thank You. -- AJ24 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got a very skewed out look on the delisting process. You don't give reasons so that people can say that you are wrong. The main area reasons are encouraged is for "opposes" or "delists", where the image can be improved not downgraded. --Fir0002 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The image meets my size requirement, licensing, and usage. And, most of all, i LIKE the picture, and don't agree with your quality defect list. Same goes for all my other Keep votes. On a side note, I think you may be overdoing it with nominations for delistings. Featured pictures is not limited to the top ten pictures in wikipedia, and many of the images nominated for delisting are in my opinion excellent featureworthy pictures. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Classic shot of a difficult subject to photograph. I think it does so well. Very simple and clear. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-19 20:19
 * Uh, this subject is definitely not difficult to photograph. What happens when somebody posts a Monopoly gameboard picture that actually is good?  Does this one get delisted then? Does everybody who insisted this one was high-quality recant their support? -- moondigger 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject of a game is more difficult to decide what to shoot because the game is not something as physical as an animal or flower. This image keeps it simple, choosing to show the board in action, but not to include the players or any background content. There is more to quality than resolution and sharpness. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-20 05:32
 * All I'm suggesting is that somebody could duplicate the idea this photographer had, maybe even the rough composition, and end up with something cleaner, less blurry, and with enough extra detail that you could actually tell which cards are "Chance" and which are "Community Chest," for example. If that happens, does support for this version disappear? If I thought there were more than a small handful of Wikipedians who wished for a better version of this photo, I might shoot it myself.  But as things stand, not only does a consensus think this one is good, they think it's good enough to be featured.  -- moondigger 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What we do here is not consensus. It's simple voting. Don't get the two mixed up. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-20 14:42
 * I realize that we're voting, but according to the text at the top of the FPC page and in the introduction to the Nominations for Delisting section, we vote to reach a consensus. We may not meet the strict definition of consensus on many of these images, but we pretend that a 2/3 majority in the voting is equivalent. If it bothers you that we call something a consensus when it isn't, then maybe you could propose on the talk page that we eliminate references to it in the section headings and in the FP tag template. -- moondigger 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can add whatever inaccurate statements they want to a page. Voting is not consensus. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-20 17:22
 * Agreed -- as I said, we (most of us, anyway) pretend that what happens here and in the FPC discussions is equivalent to consensus, even though it isn't. Since that usage clearly bothers you, you could propose on the FPC talk page that the offending word be stricken from the procedure descriptions and the FP tag template. Or, you could simply change the wording to reflect it without briging it up on the talk page.  As things stand right now, it is used incorrectly on hundreds of pages, including every FP page that uses the FP tag template.  Complaining that I used the word incorrectly in a single delist discussion does nothing to solve the larger problem. -- moondigger 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, should be higher resolution, and have crisper lines. I think a better version could be taken since it's a photo you just need to setup and easier to recapture than nature ones. gren グレン 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should we by default delist images that get nominated for removal independently more than n times? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so... that would kind of subvert the whole process of trying to reach consensus. To pick one example, I have a feeling the animated horse will come up for delisting semi-frequently, since new participants here won't know the history, and may not be familiar with the reasons it was promoted.  That doesn't mean it should be automatically delisted after n people have nominated it.  Maybe those who nominate it will be swayed to support once they learn more about it. -- moondigger 12:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delist per nom--Vircabutar 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. As I said in a previous delist nom, I think that we should at LEAST use an English-language Monopoly set for a featured picture on the EN-Wikipedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except the big LOS and the nur zum Besuch that I can hardly read on the jail, the text is completely blurry and I am sure that most people didn't notice that this is a german game. However, you raise a good point: It would be better to have a higer resolution shot on which the main features are readable (and in english). for that reason Delist --Glaurung 05:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep lokks great Ch ild zy  ( Talk 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delist. Although I like the picture itself and the perspective, the size and blurriness are a bit too much, beign in German isn't a plus, but it doesn't matter. I wonder if somebody could take another version of this preferably with the traditional tokens. say1988 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a good image, for those that say a better image can be taken please do so, then nominate for FP then nominate this delisting
 * Whether a better picture can be taken OR not, I think this picture should be delisted, but a higher quality of this same shot would be good (contrary to the nominator saying it was bad composition). And sorry to tell you, but not everybody can go out and get a picture of a subject I lack both a monopoly board and a good enough camera to take a high quality picture. say1988 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. This is a great way to photograph the board/game in progress, but it is too blurry and small to be of much use. As per a couple of others, and with no offense to the German game, in English Wikipedia we should have a pic of an English language board (which is the original? Probably the American version?). And with the proper game pieces. Would love to see you have a go at it Moondigger. And agree that nominator needs to calm down. --jjron 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist I would like to be able to read the board and cards. This is not a once in a lifetime shot and can be done better. HighInBC 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist and reshoot. Too small, lacks DOF. --Dschwen 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I probably should list this as a stand alone nomination, but what are people's thoughts of this as a replacement for this image? --Fir0002 10:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a lot better. Good DOF, higher res, and a much better job of blowing out (or photoshopping away) the background! --Dschwen 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd still prefer the "classic" Monopoly version be used, but yes, this is an improvement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

''' Retained. 9 Delist 6 Keeps ''' --Fir0002 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)