Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MK46 torpedo launch.jpg

File:MK46 torpedo launch.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 05:31:47

•  Info created by Mass Communication Specialist John L. Beeman - uploaded by DanMS - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Visibly tilted and I'm not happy with the war glorification. Lycaon (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  InfoIt's tilted so that the Torpedo (the focus of the shot) is straight. You can tilt it so that the boat is level, but that makes the image seem (in my view) worse. If you feel that the tilt detracts from the picture, may I direct you to a pertinent guideline from Wiki. As for war glorification, neither my views or yours seem to have changed since our last meeting, so I'm not going to waste our collective time debating the issue; viewers are invited to make up their own minds. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment It is not the ship which is tilted, but the torpedo and especially the horizon. It gives the whole thing a snapshot quality: straight from the camera onto the net, which is not really FP material. Lycaon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why are these guys standing on an inflatable boat? --botzeit (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably to recover the torpedo, which is quite expensive. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I made couple things to the photo. —kallerna™ 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose like Lycaon --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - A reminder that we are always preparing for war (as for HIV)? Yes. But not a glorification of it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't agree. There is a sort of technically fascinating pictures which present military action as a high-tec-game, never showing the destructions caused by the systems. These pictures are professionally produced with high effort. This one belongs to a genre presenting a shot with the flying torpedo, mine, rocket on it. They are sometimes fakes and their basic idea is the fascination of young men for speed, power, hightec. The United States forces produce many of them and place them in films, photos, newspapers as an eyecatcher and a perfect promotion of their work. I'm not against military defence but against the idea to use the commos FP as a container for army-promotion-pictures. Pictures of military action IMHO should show the dirty side of destruction, too, not transform reality in a scene which could be part of a computer game. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to argue the point that this is a training device, not a real torpedo; it will make no difference in the end. I'm all for showing the horrible side of the military an conflict (and have a few pictures in mind to nominate), but those are not pictures I've really looked into yet. I've only just started my look through the (huge) military galleries, and I've begun with what interests me most; the equipment. Can I just say that I'm not here to nominate pictures that glorify war, I'm nominating pictures that interest me, and (in my opinion) fulfil the guidelines set by Commons.

Might I also make a point? There are a large number of animal pictures considered for promotion (most of them justifiably so) but I have yet to see any uploaded media nominated which show the various bites, welts, wounds and diseases that animals can inflict. Why is it that people can see the beauty and grace of Kodiak Bear, but seem to shut off as soon as the military become involved? Both are equally impressive in my eye, and both deserve their place on Commons. My apologies for the long post, but I had thought that Commons was about promoting quality and interesting pictures, rather than trying to express one's views about the military-industrial complex. Protesting against a nomination isn't going to make war go away, as much as I wish it would. so why don't we take advantage of the photo opportunities given to us? Give our viewers credit; simply because I think an F-15 is a great and interesting piece of machinery does not mean that I not aware of the destruction it can deliver. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It depends at whom it is fired. It can serve the justice ends as well. Army is necessary, but just for defence and haunting down the aggressors (i.e. Nazis, perpetrators of genocides etc. - these should be stopped and what will you do if you don't have army or weapons - just let them do what they want?). --Roman Zacharij (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)