Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Temple Saint Sava.jpg

Image:Temple Saint Sava.jpg - not featured

•  Info created by Fred waldron - uploaded by Fred waldron - nominated by Fred waldron -- Fred waldron 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Fred waldron 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I am not sure if it is sharp or striking enough for FP, but I felt it deserved an edit to correct distortions and crop out the unsightly background buildings. Mfield 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the edit is better indeed and I replaced the original ;) Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Question/ Comment
  1. I am confused about the categorization of the images. The first one is categorized to Category:Belgrade, which is a relevant category, but I would like also a category referring to the type of building.
     • I put back the category "church". That is the right term in english. But the official name is "Temple", and many languages use the term "temple" for non-catholic churches (for example in French, "église" would be used for a catholic church, and "temple" for a protestant or, sometimes, an orthodox church). A category "orthodox church" might be a good idea... Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. This brings me to my question: Is it a church or a temple? The image title indicates it is a temple, but the building bears symbols of christianity, which for me indicates a church?
  3. The edit has the additional categories Category:Churches and Category:Temple. Once the church/temple question is sorted out a relevant base category shall be selected and explored to a specific subcat relevant for this building. Note, by the way that the plural forms Category:Churches and Category:Temples are the correct base categories to explore, the ones chosen are in fact deprecated.
  4. I suggest the creator geocodes the original and edit. Adds value to the image page.
     • I geocoded it. Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I agree the edit is better than the original.
     • I agreed too, and even replaced the original : minor changes only, and real improve. Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I have looked at both images in full res and in the preview size of 400x600pixels. In the preview size there is a very clear fringe all way around the building - especially around the crosses in the blue sky. I do not know if this is an artifact caused by the Wikimedia software or whether it is a residue from non-optimal masking of building/sky in some postprocessing step (e.g., selective sharpening).
     • No sort of postprocessing was used on the original. And, by the way, I can't see that fringe :( ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. If the above issues are addressed in a satisfactory manner, I will be happy to support the edit. -- Slaunger 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
     • Are they ;) ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
       • Almost, expect for the categorization. Try to read again what I wrote about cats, explore the large Category:Churches base category for one or more specific church categories, which match the image. With pedantic regards, -- Slaunger 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
       • Oh, and regarding church vs. temple: In Denmark, where we mainly have protestentic churches, they are called...churches, not temples. -- Slaunger 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
         • I changed the categories and I think that will be okay now. Fred waldron 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

           Yes the specific cat for the temple is the right one. But you do not need the Orthodox churches cat as that cat is already a member of the categorization tree for the temple itself (I have therefore removed it), see Commons:Categories#Over-categorization for a more thorough explanation and an example. Sorry for being such a pedantic on this point, but I find it very important to categorize properly in order to maximize chances that other Wikimedia editors can actually find this nice image. -- Slaunger 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Support As promised. -- Slaunger 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness is average and the white haloes are disturbing. Good composition and light though. Lycaon 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Taraxacum 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support FRZ 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support the composition is really nice --AngMoKio 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)