Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:London Underground Zone 1.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:London Underground Zone 1.png, Not Featured
[edit]
Nominate
Wikimania Media Competition 2005 finalist. Jon Harald Søby\no na 18:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\no na 18:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)- Support LoopZilla 19:48:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Oppose not very special --Massimo Finizio 19:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)- Oppose nothing special --Huebi 20:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support I like the whole project more than this specific image, but I'll support. --Quasipalm 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- ADSR6581 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Regarding to the fact, that there are lots of pictures from this software for even this project, there is no reason to me to feature this very map norro 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Of all the maps, this is by far the most useful to anyone actually using the tube. It also took consideribly more work positioning the text, and overlapping the lines. The others aren't really FP quality in that respect. ed g2s • talk 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support – I like good maps. – Rex 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 03:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I would like to know where the film "Creep" was made. I cant even see info about abandoned stations. its a huge metro system I know but, I would like to see it all.-PedroPVZ 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that is actionable; this isn't a map of that, and FPC is about judging images of things for what they are, not what they could have been if only they'd been taken by someone else on another day looking in another direction and taking a 'photo of a different thing. :-) (Disclaimer: I worked on these images.) James F. (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- ok... the pic should be informative (that's why it is actionable), but even considering the remaining, it is not enough for FP. It doesnt say a lot, one doesnt know what lines are in the pic for instance. I admit it gave you a lot of work. Congratulations for that. It is a pro's work, but... -PedroPVZ 02:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that is actionable; this isn't a map of that, and FPC is about judging images of things for what they are, not what they could have been if only they'd been taken by someone else on another day looking in another direction and taking a 'photo of a different thing. :-) (Disclaimer: I worked on these images.) James F. (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support – an informative map, without too much unneeded detail. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 06:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. (note: self-support). ed g2s • talk 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with norro. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special. —MRB 17:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like it. Doesnt use standard symbols (e.g. for National Rail). Don't know how accurate it is, GPS doesnt work underground. --Cyr 19:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- The GPS is taken from the station locations - which is close enough for the scale. And you're opposing it because it doesn't use a copyrighted logo? I thought we discouraged copyright violations on the Commons... ed g2s • talk 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the reason we didn't use the BR logo is that that would be a copyright violation. That is the only "standard symbol" that we both fail to use and could have used, unless you can spot another copyvio that we've avoided. And yes, as Ed says, "don't know how accurate it is" when the description page clearly says so is, well, an unhelpful comment. (Disclaimer: I worked on these images.) James F. (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't mean to be over critical, it's an interesting map, I was simply questioning if it should be put in the featured pictures section. I suppose I'm just used to seeing the "standard" (and copyrighted) map that any other version just looks wrong! --Cyr 17:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the reason we didn't use the BR logo is that that would be a copyright violation. That is the only "standard symbol" that we both fail to use and could have used, unless you can spot another copyvio that we've avoided. And yes, as Ed says, "don't know how accurate it is" when the description page clearly says so is, well, an unhelpful comment. (Disclaimer: I worked on these images.) James F. (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- The GPS is taken from the station locations - which is close enough for the scale. And you're opposing it because it doesn't use a copyrighted logo? I thought we discouraged copyright violations on the Commons... ed g2s • talk 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
8 Support, 8 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
