Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hammer and Sickle

Hammer and Sickle edit

Original - The hammer and sickle is a part of communist symbolism and its usage indicates an association with Communism, Communist Party, or Communist state. It features a hammer superimposed on a sickle, or vice versa. The two tools are symbols of the industrial proletariat and the peasantry; placing them together symbolises the unity between industrial and agricultural workers.

Reason: This image adds greatly to the encyclopedia by showing what many people consider to be the symbol of communism everyhwere. As this is an svg formatted file, the size should not be objectionable, and as a historian in learning I feel that an image like this should be featured if only for the sake of the history behind the emblem.
Articles this image appears in: Communism, Hammer and sickle, and a lot of others that I am not going to add here becuase doing so would take forever.
Creator: Zscout370 (file is on commons)

Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not nearly enough WOW to be FP, same as above. ~~I might even recommend a Speedy Close for the two.~~ Clegs (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if you're going to take that position, it should be just the opposite: let this run for all of the allotted time then cite it as an example of why such images aren't FPC material; otherwise, other contributers may write this off as "an exception" and not "the rule". TomStar81 (Talk) 04:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per same rationale as that for national flags - easily replicated SVGs of simple geometric patterns are too run of the mill to be FPs. de Bivort 03:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rational you should oppose the nuclear blast image since it is essentially a circle on top of a line if the line was the top of a square in front of the circle thus cutting off the view of the bottom of the circle or a dozen other images that are essentially geometric shapes. Your logic is flawed in this case or you're only selectively applying such logic. Cat-five - talk 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't follow your geometric description, but the difference is that these images are made geometrically (and simply) from scratch, and the nuclear blast image is a photo which happens to have geometric elements
Oppose per Debivort. Matt Deres (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Crassic! (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if people can oppose this per above I guess I'll support this per my votes on the biohazard symbol however to reiterate it is a well done encyclopedic illustration of an encyclopedic symbol and it is not a photograph and should not be held as such. Cat-five - talk 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the risk of appearing facetious and violating WP:POINT, would this logic not mean that the Flag of Libya should be promoted as a featured picture? Pstuart84 Talk 15:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm resisting the urge to nominate it now that you mention it because it would probably be construed as a WP:POINT violation but since it is ineligible for copyright as long as you got a larger image of it so that it fits the minimum guideliens I don't see why not. Nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flag of Libya, it is an encyclopedic illustration of a flag and is used in numerous articles, there are of course some size issues but I'll try to upload a new version later that takes care of that. Cat-five - talk 03:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the topic of WP:POINT it's odd that you mention that especially since if I went down the list and opposed every non flag, non symbol, and non anime nomination I would be violating WP:POINT and be condemmed if not banned for it however when people are currently going down the line and opposing images that fit the above criteria just for those criteria they are exercising their right to "vote" their opinion. Gotta love how hypocritical Wikipedia and especially it seems FPC have become lately. Cat-five - talk 03:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]