| Revision as of 02:12, 2 August 2008 editMahahahaneapneap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers9,805 edits →Village of Passchendaele: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 2 August 2008 edit undoBlechnic (talk | contribs)3,540 edits →Village of Passchendaele: oh wellNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| **I'm pretty sure the nothing in the bottom image is the whole point of it. In fact, it is. The sentence you use about "some villages were completely destroyed by bombing" is only used by you, so I'm not sure why you're saying it, then saying it's awful. If you don't say it, it's not necessary to discredit your own words. --] (]) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | **I'm pretty sure the nothing in the bottom image is the whole point of it. In fact, it is. The sentence you use about "some villages were completely destroyed by bombing" is only used by you, so I'm not sure why you're saying it, then saying it's awful. If you don't say it, it's not necessary to discredit your own words. --] (]) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ***My point is that it doesn't contribute much to any article. Criterion 5 is "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." I fail to see how a picture showing nothing is better than simply saying it. It definitely is not "worth a thousand words" when I can describe the image perfectly and in its entirety in just a few sentences. ] (]) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | ***My point is that it doesn't contribute much to any article. Criterion 5 is "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." I fail to see how a picture showing nothing is better than simply saying it. It definitely is not "worth a thousand words" when I can describe the image perfectly and in its entirety in just a few sentences. ] (]) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ****I disagree so strongly on this that I don't see how the two of discussing it will reach common ground--which is cool. Most other editors posting here thus far see it my way, also, though, that the image of destruction is far more powerful than simply the words. There were other villages destroyed in wars in the twentieth century. Some of them are known only for the visual impacts they have made through art or photography. I think it's human nature to want to see the destruction for yourself, which is why we have war books including almost no text, just images. --] (]) 02:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- additional votes go above this line --> | <!-- additional votes go above this line --> | ||
| {{-}} | {{-}} | ||
Revision as of 02:26, 2 August 2008
Village of Passchendaele
- Reason
- Well below minimum size requirements at 500 × 674 pixels, file size: 290 KB. A 2004 promotion that's rightfully rated a Valued Image at Commons, but just isn't up to technical standards we expect of featured material. Although before/after aerial photography from this period is unusual, higher resolution imagery of World War I devastation isn't too hard to locate.
- Previous nomination/s
- Misplaced Pages:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Village_of_Passchendaele
- Nominator
- Durova
- Delist — Durova 03:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have to disagree, "higher resolution imagery of WWI devastaion" isn't competition for a before and after image of Battle of Passchendaele. The encyclopedic value of this paritcular pair of images is far higher than anything I've seen on FP thus far. --Blechnic (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I'm nominating an image of World War I the same day I'm starting a delisting request. There's a lot more in the archives waiting to be uploaded; standard minimum size for FP is 1000 pixels on the long axis. We can do better. Durova 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- "An image?" What image of WWI do you have that has the equivalent encyclopedic value of this? You got me curious. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I'm nominating an image of World War I the same day I'm starting a delisting request. There's a lot more in the archives waiting to be uploaded; standard minimum size for FP is 1000 pixels on the long axis. We can do better. Durova 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep until you get a higher resolution version of this image... --Janke | Talk 06:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
-
Lille; 3,435 × 2,241 pixels, file size: 5.69 MB
-
French woman returns to find her home a heap of ruins; 3,200 × 4,096 pixels, file size: 4.83 MB
- Étain; 3,037 × 715 pixels, file size: 1.63 MB Étain; 3,037 × 715 pixels, file size: 1.63 MB
-
Richecourt; 2,626 × 703 pixels, file size: 1.37 MB
-
American Army field hospital, 1918; 1,536 × 1,216 pixels, file size: 820 KB
You asked for 'em. Now you restore 'em. Durova 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- None of these would even be mentioned in 10,000 years, while school children will still be studying the Battle of Passchendaele as the history of warfare in the 20th century as long as there are literate humans on this planet. This pair of images, as I said above, has the greatest encyclopedic value of any FP I have seen on Misplaced Pages thus far. I have to go with Janke, until you get a higher resolution version of this image, or something that tops it, or is even in the same ball park, I can't see delisting this image. It's encyclopedic value simply trumps anything wrong with it. PS The one on Verdun would be worth restoring, though, for its EV, should anyone have the inclination. Good find. --Blechnic (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Would you like coaching in archival search techniques, Blechnic? Durova 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer Durova. Archival searches can be a lot of work. I am a professional researcher, though, so I'll decline but thank you for the generous offer. --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very powerful image, I'd like to see a higher rez version before we delist this one. Clegs (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Hey Durova. Are there larger versions of these files that you have found? I'm willing to give up a hand at restoring these images. A larger size would help a lot more. If there isn't an alternative just leave me a message on my tyalk page and I'll be happy to clean up and restore images that you feel are worthy of FPC or current FP that are in bad shape. victorrocha | Talk 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, any of these would be a technical improvement over the current featured picture. The Library of Congress has several others of comparable quality already available and would generate more and better scans for a fee. It's been four years since this image was promoted and online archives have come a long way in that time. Misplaced Pages's featured content standards have risen and we've been defeaturing older ones of this size and quality. Blechnic's first post to this nomination states that this isn't competition for a before and after image of Battle of Passchendaele. Well all right; here are six superior files ready for restoration. Featured picture removals don't customarily carry any expectation of replacement: if something better is available that's well and good, but the question is whether the candidate meets current FP standards. This particular one is typical of what we've been delisting lately. Durova 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- If we've delisted anything in the vicinity of this image, we were 100% wrong. This picture should not, under any circumstances, be delisted as a featured picture, in my opinion, because, as I've said before, it's encyclopedic value trumps any other FP I've seen ever on Misplaced Pages. It's a powerful image. Worth a thousand times a thousand words. None of the other images offered up are anywhere in the ballpark. Just to be clear, Durova, I only commented about alternatives because you include that in your delisting nomination, that high res WWI images are otherwise available. This simply isn't just an image. If it is available for higher resolution for a fee, e-mail me the information and I will pay the fee for a file for Misplaced Pages. This image is priceless. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know what you mean some of these pictures are quite small and the details are lost. If there are important pictures it would probably be best to restore them. Delisting is not too big of a deal however, It's just removing a tag not deleting the picture. If the picture is significant though I would like to help. I'll try my hand at the nominations you made in due time. victorrocha | Talk 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- If we've delisted anything in the vicinity of this image, we were 100% wrong. This picture should not, under any circumstances, be delisted as a featured picture, in my opinion, because, as I've said before, it's encyclopedic value trumps any other FP I've seen ever on Misplaced Pages. It's a powerful image. Worth a thousand times a thousand words. None of the other images offered up are anywhere in the ballpark. Just to be clear, Durova, I only commented about alternatives because you include that in your delisting nomination, that high res WWI images are otherwise available. This simply isn't just an image. If it is available for higher resolution for a fee, e-mail me the information and I will pay the fee for a file for Misplaced Pages. This image is priceless. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, any of these would be a technical improvement over the current featured picture. The Library of Congress has several others of comparable quality already available and would generate more and better scans for a fee. It's been four years since this image was promoted and online archives have come a long way in that time. Misplaced Pages's featured content standards have risen and we've been defeaturing older ones of this size and quality. Blechnic's first post to this nomination states that this isn't competition for a before and after image of Battle of Passchendaele. Well all right; here are six superior files ready for restoration. Featured picture removals don't customarily carry any expectation of replacement: if something better is available that's well and good, but the question is whether the candidate meets current FP standards. This particular one is typical of what we've been delisting lately. Durova 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Precedent has it that size should not be the sole consideration in a delist nomination. This image is incredibly powerful and encyclopedic, so I think it deserves it's place as an FP. Besides, none of the other images proposed are as informative or effective. NauticaShades 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. By the way, if anyone is willing to spend ₤7.50, they can purchase the image from the Imperial War Museum. NauticaShades 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is the resolution on the image from the Imperial War Museum? Is it significantly greater than the one we have already? (I'm a little busy for searching for information right now. Basically, is it worth it? I'll buy it if it is.) --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was joking a little in my comment, but if you want to purchase it, go right ahead. I don't know what resolution they have, I suppose you'd have to email them to find out. If you did buy it, they'd probably send you a physical copy. Do you have a good scanner? NauticaShades 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is the resolution on the image from the Imperial War Museum? Is it significantly greater than the one we have already? (I'm a little busy for searching for information right now. Basically, is it worth it? I'll buy it if it is.) --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep until a better version of this image is found. Enc. value is much too high to give in to the size requirement. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-31 14:28Z
- Keep Aerial before-and-after portraits weren't exactly bountiful in World War I. Shii (tock) 20:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Although I agree that this has the potential to be a very valuable and interesting image, I can't see how it is useful in its present state. The top image shows some roads, some fields and what looks like some buildings. The bottom image shows nothing. In my opinion, the sentence "Some villages were completely destroyed by bombing." is just as useful. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the nothing in the bottom image is the whole point of it. In fact, it is. The sentence you use about "some villages were completely destroyed by bombing" is only used by you, so I'm not sure why you're saying it, then saying it's awful. If you don't say it, it's not necessary to discredit your own words. --Blechnic (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that it doesn't contribute much to any article. Criterion 5 is "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." I fail to see how a picture showing nothing is better than simply saying it. It definitely is not "worth a thousand words" when I can describe the image perfectly and in its entirety in just a few sentences. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree so strongly on this that I don't see how the two of discussing it will reach common ground--which is cool. Most other editors posting here thus far see it my way, also, though, that the image of destruction is far more powerful than simply the words. There were other villages destroyed in wars in the twentieth century. Some of them are known only for the visual impacts they have made through art or photography. I think it's human nature to want to see the destruction for yourself, which is why we have war books including almost no text, just images. --Blechnic (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that it doesn't contribute much to any article. Criterion 5 is "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." I fail to see how a picture showing nothing is better than simply saying it. It definitely is not "worth a thousand words" when I can describe the image perfectly and in its entirety in just a few sentences. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the nothing in the bottom image is the whole point of it. In fact, it is. The sentence you use about "some villages were completely destroyed by bombing" is only used by you, so I'm not sure why you're saying it, then saying it's awful. If you don't say it, it's not necessary to discredit your own words. --Blechnic (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)