Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jolly Roger

Jolly Roger

Reason: I think this is a good use of the SVG format, and it is a commonly used and encyclopedic flag.
Articles this image appears in: Jolly Roger, Piracy, List of flags, Maritime history of California
Creator: Liftarn and ed g2s
Nominator: Basar

Support — Basar 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -We need some flag FPs -Nelro 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at this page and you'll see why that's a rather silly reason to support this picture. I oppose, as it doesn't properly meet the size requirement. PhoenixTwo 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - I don't feel it properly represents the subject. It seems very childish in a way. It's also only 800x500, which doesn't meet the size requirement. The upside-down heart for a nose doesn't really look to great either. 24.239.185.95 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Here T oHelp 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is a scalable vector image which means that its resolution is unlimited. Only the preview version is 800x500 px. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Come on folks its an svg it has no size. But I oppose because it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me unless it's the flag of a specific pirate or something --⁪froth^t 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with Froth. I think the picture is rather simplistic and childish- unless there was evidence that a flag looking exactly like that was used, I think it is a no. Otherwise, it should be portrayed as the flag of that individual or group, rather than a generic Jolly Roger. J Milburn 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I chose this version because I felt it was the most encyclopedic. There is a whole, and rather large, article on this flag. It is also the basis of all the other permutations of similar flags such as the one of Calico Jack. Many good SVGs exist for the different permutations of this flag that are particular to a pirate, but articles are not written on those; this is the main flag. Basar 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we promote this, we might as well promote all of the other flags. --Tewy 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Flags would make ausome FPs -Nelro 10:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize there were so many good flags. Perhaps flags should be exempt from FP; if that is the case, consider this nomination withdrawn. Basar 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think they should be exempt, but we should go through the svg designs and look for the one that shows a high level of creative effort, accuracy and provides detailed info on the image page. ~ trialsanderrors 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, featured pictures are the best images Wikipedia has to offer, and this applies to the flags as well. If there is an exceptional flag, as you described, then it may be nominated. I just don't feel that this particular flag is exceptional. --Tewy 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought I remembered a discussion about NOT allowing flag images. Someone had nominated a Union Jack (or something similar) at one point, but now I can't seem to find the discussion in the archives. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Union Jack (discussion). --Tewy 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've seen a lot of Jolly Rogers in my day, and I must say this is the cutest version I've ever seen. Problem is, the Jolly Rogers isn't supposed to look cute! It's supposed to look ominous and foreboding. Maybe even intimidating. Kaldari 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have thought about this a lot, and I have decided to stick with my vote. If we accept this, we are setting a precedent that flags will get through. Though I admit some definately are featured picture worthy (Image:Austria Bundesadler.svg, for example) if we accept this, then almost all of the flags in the linked category (including flags such as the Japanese one, which would be ridiculous) would basically have a 'right' to FP status. J Milburn 11:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]