Commons:Featured picture candidates/Standardgraph stencils by Lucasbosch
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Standardgraph stencils by Lucasbosch
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 21:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Created + uploaded by Lucasbosch, Group nomination by ArionEstar -- LB 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support All these are already FP on persian Wikipedia-- LB 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)- Support More objects! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Question @Lucasbosch: You want me to make a Set for you? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @ArionEstar: That would be great. Would you then also include this one and remove this nomination? Do whatever makes the best sense,. So there are four non-FP stencils left, including this one, see my User page. --LB 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch:
Done. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC) - I redirected Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Standardgraph 2522 2.5 to 7mm lettering guides.jpg because I think it would be better if the image is promoted here. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @ArionEstar: Thanks. I just tried to rename the page to "Standardgraph stencils by Lucasbosch" to make it more clear what they are (instead of just "Standardgraphs by...", but now I think I broke it, as the nomination doesn't show up on the FP candidates page. Also this page now is called "Standardgraphs by Lucasbosch" and the plural form isn't appropriate. Could you please see what went wrong? Thanks a lot for your efforts. --LB 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch: Done Spelling mistake corrected. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch:
- @ArionEstar: Thanks. I just tried to rename the page to "Standardgraph stencils by Lucasbosch" to make it more clear what they are (instead of just "Standardgraphs by...", but now I think I broke it, as the nomination doesn't show up on the FP candidates page. Also this page now is called "Standardgraphs by Lucasbosch" and the plural form isn't appropriate. Could you please see what went wrong? Thanks a lot for your efforts. --LB 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch:
- @ArionEstar: That would be great. Would you then also include this one and remove this nomination? Do whatever makes the best sense,. So there are four non-FP stencils left, including this one, see my User page. --LB 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Very well done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Question ArionEstar: can you please explain in which of the 4 variant does this set nomination fall? if you mean it is variant 4 (A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object) then I wonder whether these capture depit all existing variants of its sort or only a few of them. Poco2 19:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: It is only a group of all images with the same theme (standardgraph stencil), with the same quality and the same author. Whence that it is "by Lucasbosch". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, then let me
Oppose. The criteria to define this set is randomed to me. Yes, same author, good quality, no doubt about that, but just images with the same theme without any indication that the set is complete (I remind the expectation of a set: "a group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object"). Sorry, but we need to the more strict with sets and the criteria followed here is not convincing to me. Poco2 12:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: You think the images should be promoted separately then? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can do so, but to be honest, the originality plus of the first nomination would be gone and therefore I wouldn't be too optimistic in achieving further FP stamps (my particular opinion). Poco2 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I'm biased here, of course, but my opinion is that my first nomination, the lettering guides, was itself already kind of a set nomination, because the image showed four stencils at once, instead of one image per distinct subject. So I don't see a problem in having this set nomination to complete it. The rule about sets showing all possible variations would simply not be achievable with these objects, so I'm trying to do as well as possible. Are you solely concerned about the set nomination rules or do you think the first nomination (lettering guides) has been much more FP-worthy than the rest of the stencil photographs? --LB 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- For a single nomination it is not an issue whether you have a stencil of each category, your 5 favourites or the most sold of them. If you nominate these works as a set it is a different animal. We expect that the set as a whole falls into one of the 4 categories, and this nomination just doesn't meet any of them. Therefore this nomination is technically invalid (I am surprised about the supporting votes). It is not a matter of taste it is just not aligned with the existing rules, sorry. Poco2 08:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: Understood. I will try to nominate the images individually. Thanks for your explanations. --LB 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- For a single nomination it is not an issue whether you have a stencil of each category, your 5 favourites or the most sold of them. If you nominate these works as a set it is a different animal. We expect that the set as a whole falls into one of the 4 categories, and this nomination just doesn't meet any of them. Therefore this nomination is technically invalid (I am surprised about the supporting votes). It is not a matter of taste it is just not aligned with the existing rules, sorry. Poco2 08:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I'm biased here, of course, but my opinion is that my first nomination, the lettering guides, was itself already kind of a set nomination, because the image showed four stencils at once, instead of one image per distinct subject. So I don't see a problem in having this set nomination to complete it. The rule about sets showing all possible variations would simply not be achievable with these objects, so I'm trying to do as well as possible. Are you solely concerned about the set nomination rules or do you think the first nomination (lettering guides) has been much more FP-worthy than the rest of the stencil photographs? --LB 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can do so, but to be honest, the originality plus of the first nomination would be gone and therefore I wouldn't be too optimistic in achieving further FP stamps (my particular opinion). Poco2 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: You think the images should be promoted separately then? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, then let me
- @Poco a poco: It is only a group of all images with the same theme (standardgraph stencil), with the same quality and the same author. Whence that it is "by Lucasbosch". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Very interesting, valuable and educational (and...encyclopedic !!), but strongly per Poco.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm with Poco here. — Julian H.✈ 10:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination See discussion with Poco a poco, this set nomination sadly doesn't fit into any of the four categories, so I will try to nominate the images individually in the future. --LB 18:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
