Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another Neptune diagram.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Another Neptune diagram.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2014 at 16:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Diagram of the planet Neptune
Well I was trying to separate the magnetic & rotational information from the physical features… either way I made it all white—better?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thx! --El Grafo (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: Kden. 😒 I wasn't even planning on drawing Uranus & Neptune when I made Jupiter, but given the reception on that one I decided to do the ice giants as well. So I guess the lesson here is to quit while you're ahead. & I'm not going to be doing any more planet cutaways anymore anyway. && Btw the real irony here is you're saying I should have made a set nomination when set nominations are currently suspended.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry like what was your point?? That I should stop making space pictures?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That I should be recommending a set when we just placed a moratorium on such noms. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: Ok I get what you mean but please don't call my pictures something that you are "getting bored of now". It takes a lot of effort to make them and I put a lot of polish on them & I go out of my way to make them efficient and easy to navigate & edit && the least you could do is offer {{Support}} or at least an {{Oppose}} for a better reason than "you already did the other three planets & this one is nothing special".
PS I nominated my cell organelle diagrams as a set but people were opposing just because they didn't like set nominations, so hb no—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd probably get bored of pizza if I had to eat it everyday. Regardless, I am not dismissing the effort or the result, but they are repetitive and intensely related. At least as a set we could have conferred a standard across them. I get the dilemma of Commons though... you will always find people that will damn you if you do and damn you if you don't. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. But I don't really get your logic—if Jupiter hadn't gotten the support it did, Saturn would never have been made, & so forth. && Since it looks like Neptune & Uranus aren't going to pass ( :/ ) I don't see how offering them as a set would make any difference. A major argument against sets was that they were letting in images that wouldn't have gotten FP on their own, so in an ideal set system, nominating all four giant planets as a set should cause all four to fail FP. && Some of the arguments for abolishing sets were voter fatigue from having to review several of the same image, but it looks like that's happening anyway.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be looking at this as a creator not a reviewer. Call it subject fatigue. If the four gas giants had been presented as a coherent standardised set they would have passed easily. Think of it like this. Someone offers you a small box of fine truffles sprinkled in dark coco. Wonderful and you walk away happy to eat them at your leisure! Now in another scenario, they offer you one. You eat it. Then they offer you another, you eat it. By the time the third one comes around it is getting a bit rich and your are satisfied, so you decline the offer. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tbh I would still eat them all 😋. But anyway each week FPC sees no less than two city skylines, four rustic European town panoramas, five orthogonal stone buildings, three overprocessed landscapes, one marble statue in front of the standard azure sky, two OMG-3-POINT-PERSPECTIVE glass skyscrapers, two church interiors (always from the same angle!!??), half a random sattelite image, two engravings, one small bird (with a great deal of bokeh), and three early-dawn wildflower photos. But nobody is telling the orthogonal building photographers to save all their building photos and nominate them all together as a set (and presumably then never contribute another building pic since "they shoulda nominated it in the set" (nvm it didn't even exist back then). Seriously do you think I draw all the planet diagrams I'll ever make all at once and then spread out the nominations over several months just to tire you guys out? Omg on the next backlit wildflower I see I am so literally going to comment "nice flower but you should really have nominated all your flower pictures as a set!".—Love, Kelvinsong talk 04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. Featured comment of this week. :) (BTW, we need more inputs for the new set noms. See talk.) Jee 17:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kelvin, the problem you have is you think I should care about how much time it takes you or how many you are willing to do. I seriously don't, nor should I. The fact you can't see the difference that "the planets" or "the gas giants" make for a logical set whereas every fucking building on the planet doesn't is your problem. This aside, my original comment was people will get bored of these as they have with other subject matter. If you want to run into that wall instead of availing yourself of a set nomination fill yer boots. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lol thanks!!—Love, Kelvinsong talk 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Another_Neptune_diagram.svg&oldid=128022492"