Yellow Rose
- Reason
- Very small (91kB, 940x700), not very encyclopedic. An image that is this tiny should be extremely sharp, but the focus is soft.
- Nominator
- Cacophony
- Delist — Cacophony 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per Cacophony, low quality image. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Until we see a better rose image appear on FPC I think this one is still pretty good. <sigh> Looks like this will happen with all my Kodak pix... --
Fir0002
10:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you still do not see a better rose image than the one you want to keep? Because, if you do not I could go to the garden tommorow and take many pictures in the hope you will like one of mine better than yours.-- Mbz1 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist Well below the current FP quality, irrespective of whether we have a better rose yet. Don't take it too hard if this gets delisted Fir: you bear most of the responsibility for having raised the standard so high :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Low quality. 8thstar 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Not even because of quality, but because the picture is not special in any way and in my opinion has very low encyclopedic value, if at all. I took these and many more like these pictures today:
,
,
Do I like any one of them to become FP? No, I do not because in my opinion they have no encyclopedic value.--
Mbz1
00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist - The first rose picture Mbz1 posted is at least as good, and probably better. But not relevant. A high enc value of a rose should include more than a close up of the flower. This may be a very artistic shot of a rose, but it's not a very enc one at all.
Zakolantern 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I completly agree. Even, if somebody would have nominated a rose picture that I took, I would have opposed it. There's no value in these pictures. Roses are way too common. I do not think any should be FP. -- Mbz1 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist for low encylopedicity. Unlike Mbz1, I have hope that a FP-quality photo of a rose is possible, but this ain't it. Spikebrennan 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delisted MER-C 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yellow Rose
- Reason
- Very small (91kB, 940x700), not very encyclopedic. An image that is this tiny should be extremely sharp, but the focus is soft.
- Nominator
- Cacophony
- Delist — Cacophony 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per Cacophony, low quality image. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Until we see a better rose image appear on FPC I think this one is still pretty good. <sigh> Looks like this will happen with all my Kodak pix... --
Fir0002
10:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you still do not see a better rose image than the one you want to keep? Because, if you do not I could go to the garden tommorow and take many pictures in the hope you will like one of mine better than yours.-- Mbz1 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist Well below the current FP quality, irrespective of whether we have a better rose yet. Don't take it too hard if this gets delisted Fir: you bear most of the responsibility for having raised the standard so high :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Low quality. 8thstar 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Not even because of quality, but because the picture is not special in any way and in my opinion has very low encyclopedic value, if at all. I took these and many more like these pictures today:
,
,
Do I like any one of them to become FP? No, I do not because in my opinion they have no encyclopedic value.--
Mbz1
00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist - The first rose picture Mbz1 posted is at least as good, and probably better. But not relevant. A high enc value of a rose should include more than a close up of the flower. This may be a very artistic shot of a rose, but it's not a very enc one at all.
Zakolantern 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I completly agree. Even, if somebody would have nominated a rose picture that I took, I would have opposed it. There's no value in these pictures. Roses are way too common. I do not think any should be FP. -- Mbz1 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist for low encylopedicity. Unlike Mbz1, I have hope that a FP-quality photo of a rose is possible, but this ain't it. Spikebrennan 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delisted MER-C 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)