Backspace is the computer key used to delete prior text.
Reason
Simple, yet refreshing photography. While the focal point remains on the Backspace key, the rest of the image manages to make it pleasing for the eyes. While not in its typical natural environment, it IS in a natural environment nonetheless.
Oppose Are you serious?!? It's a backspace key popped out and placed on a rock. I don't see how it adds to the backspace article (as you said, it's not in it's natural environment) and certainly not encyclopedic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you mean it doesn't add to the article? It is a very profound and deep photograph. I am moved by its overall message. How even in the deepest wilderness, full of confusion and frustration, we can find a small Backspace key, which can undo everything. It gives us the chance to start over. Communist4706:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Um, ok ... but this isn't a website for philosophical pondering, it's an encyclopedia. That's not where you'd typically find a backspace key, so it's not an encyclopedic photo. Oh, and as if that wasn't enough, the whole key is not in focus, and the highlights to the right of the key are blown. --Herald Alberich06:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is of very limited encyclopedic value because does not add to understanding of the subject. Backspace keys are found on keyboards, not on rocks. Cacophony06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture! I agree with the above notes (rocks on your desk?), but the picture is a beauty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.198.196 (talk • contribs) 05:02, June 11, 2007
Oppose Slight DOF problems on front of key. Also there is nothing to indicate scale; perhaps the key should be beside a guitar pick or orangutan. If these problems were addressed I would support. --Bridgecross14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I'd have to agree that it is a great photo. It juxtaposes a bit of modern technology against the backdrop of a natural setting. I would also like to point out that it is not resting 'pon a rock but on the stump of a severed tree, an artistic symbol of the environmental movement. However, since one does not usually find a backspace key in the middle of the woods on a tree stump, this photograph is a poor representation of the concept of "backspace". Although it would be excellent subject to be featured by an encyclopedia of artistic photographs, it would be an inappropriate choice for a featured picture of an encyclopedia of facts.Colerado08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the idea, but placing the key out of its keyboard context means its encyclopedic (rather than philosophical) value is rather non-existent. - Mgm|(talk)09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the picture is blurry; I can't tell if the it's the backspace key from a laptop or just shot at a weird angle. I think a plain white background would have been better, but even that would not make it among Wikipedia's best work. --Pixelface17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Backspace keys do not belong on rocks. It is an easy to recreate picture. Perhaps a different background. May I suggest a keyboard? Maddie was here04:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. First off, when you bring the photo to full size it is not blurry. In fact, it has a beautiful depth of field. They key set upon a piece of bark (No! It is not a stump or a rock. It appears to be a fallen tree!). Because this depth of field is so shallow, one is able to feel the size of the object due to the size of the grain of bark and massive clump of trees in the back ground. Also, this photo is able to bring our focus constantly back to the key, for the key is so stark against such a vibrant background. Apart from that, the trees and the grain of the bark lets ours eyes travel upwards, but are stopped abruptly by the horizontal atmosphere the key creates--drawling our eye once again to the key, further emphasizing backspace key. All and all this is a wonderful piece and would make one want to read the article that would be attached.Freemarie4sale was here10:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No not the comment, the crazymarie4sale signature. And unless i'm unknowingly schitznophrenic(sp?), that not my sock puppet who contradicts me.Maddie was here04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean...I though you were talking about the comment. Yeah, Freemarie probably copied you signature. I was kind of confused too. =) Jumpingcheese19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
