Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions
moving four noms down |
Bewareofdog (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. |
Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Virginia Opossum}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple osteospermum}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple osteospermum}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Sunrise_over_Central_Park}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Sunrise_over_Central_Park}} |
Revision as of 23:41, 15 March 2007
Commons Picture of the Year 2006: Results |
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support. Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are votes of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page, and also vote tabulations. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
|
Featured picture tools: | |||
Nomination procedureNomination procedure
Too complicated?If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates and mention that you would like to submit your image to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively, you can request a regular FPC editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talk page.
Supporting and opposing
Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to voting, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution). Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. Is my monitor calibrated correctly?In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info. Editing candidatesIf you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc) and describe the modifications that have been applied. |
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
- Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.
Current nominations
- Reason
- It's an amazing picture of a opossum
- Articles this image appears in
- Virginia Opossum
- Creator
- Cody Pope
- Nominator
- Bewareofdog
- Support — Bewareofdog 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've had trouble viewing the fullsize version, but I can view the alternates and they are very sharp.--HereToHelp 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Debivort 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice.--ragesoss 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support (original image)
What's with the interface between the tail and body in the original? If someone can explain to me what is going on there, and convince me that there are no edits to the actual opossum in the original (finger placement, tail, ect.) I'll support. Otherwise, I oppose. It is a very pretty picture, but I don't think featured pictures should be misleading about their subjects.One minor thing that bothers me is how its eyes look; not having seen an opossum in the daytime, I think it might just be that opossums have funny eyes, but does anyone know? Enuja 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)- CommentNot sure about the eyes, Enuja. He was out during the winter and he was out during the day neither of which are normal for opossums. --Cody.Pope 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The tail is going behind a twig first and then the big branch that's all. No edits at all, only some minor color tweaking when converting from RAW to jpg (also cropping, obviously). Also, concerning the full size version display, I tend to save my jpgs as 5-scan-progressive which means that your browser will load the image five times, which each scan getting progressively clearer (you won't notice this at all on fast connections); so you may need to wait a sec for a clearer version (the advantage being that the file sizes tends to be smaller for the same quality image, I think). --Cody.Pope 06:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support awesome possum! I've seen opossums during the day before, although it's rare (usually you just see them dead on the road or not at all) and this is a great depiction of one. The way he's sitting stock-still in a tree like that is absolutely typical. I once almost walked straight under one without seeing it until a friend pointed it out. Mak (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support
and comment(original)Like HeretoHelp, I too seem to have difficulty downloading the fullsize image, and not just because the download takes a long time. It just stops, says done, with nothing on the screen. This should be worked out before nomination.However, I think the picture is very good quality, especially in capturing an opossum in daylight. --Asiir 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I had the same trouble, but I purged the page and then purged my cache and it was fine. I wonder why the problem is persisting. Perhaps a re-upload is in order? Mak (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support all!!!! Tomer T
Comment. I can't vote on the original since it isn't loading for me. It just stops. I've tried clearing my cache, but nothing works. Anyway, I don't support alternative or alternative 2. While the face of the animal is in focuse, much of the lower half is not. It seems as if the twig in front of the animal grabbed the focus, so the animal's tail and feet are all blurry.--Mad Max 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support original. --Mad Max 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh I'm not really sure why there are so many problems with viewing -- progressive scan is supposed to be a standard. On
SundayMonday I'll re-upload as jpeg basic. If you're having problems, could you please leave a message on my talk page, telling me what browser/OS you're using. Thanks. --Cody.Pope 07:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)- Update The main image has been re-uploaded as a jpeg basic. It should load fine now. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Cody.Pope 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Great shot! FCYTravis 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but has anyone noticed the hot pixel in the right eye, or is that just the reflection of the sun? howcheng {chat} 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Opossum 2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- beatiful flower with gorgeous colours
- Articles this image appears in
- Osteospermum
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Nominator
- Alvesgaspar
- Support — Alvesgaspar 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- support
needs an extended caption per new FP criteria. Debivort 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Nice. Debivort 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) - Comment I put an extanded caption.Bewareofdog 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Me too... Alvesgaspar 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great image and sufficient caption.--HereToHelp 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose Beautiful picture, but not very encyclopedic. Yes, flowers are most the important diagnostic feature of flowering plants, but it helps to be able to see other parts, as in the oft-quoted cut lemon shot. In the case of pictures to identify plants, I think we should insist on foliage, although some way to include roots and seeds would be superb. Also, I'm not a big fan of the pale, slightly washed out lower and left petals, especially in the larger versions. Enuja 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The over-bright petals on the left spoil it for me - Adrian Pingstone 08:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons stated above. --Mad Max 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose as per Enuja. -- Balster neb 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think the 'x' created as the sun rises looks picturesque behind the row of skyscrapers.
- Articles this image appears in
- Fifth Avenue
- Creator
- Conor Campbell
- Nominator
- Conor Campbell
- Support — Conor Campbell 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose - Glare obscures too many buildings, blurry in shadows, no extended caption. Debivort 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Very weak oppose, this would probably be great on commons, but as an encyclopaedic image I'm just not seeing it here, sorry. :( --Golbez 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A lens glare art does not make. Personally, I don't find beautiful things that make me flinch or wince (it looks so bright), and I don't see how it's particularly encyclopedic. Very few buildings can actually be made out, and it looks like there is dirt or smudge on the lens, making the shadowed buildings even harder to see. Enuja 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose An interesting pic but sadly not FP material. It's unpleasant looking at the glare and the focus is poor - Adrian Pingstone 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Adrian Pingstone. --Mad Max 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Try putting the sun *behind* you next time. That will avoid the unpleasant lens flare and overexposed centre part of the image. Stevage 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The lens flare hurts my eyes, everything is out of focus, and it's just downright ugly. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think it is a good picture of the San Francisco bay. It was seconded on peer review.
- Articles this image appears in
- Northern California and Port of San Francisco
- Creator
- Digon3
- Nominator
- Digon3
- Support — Digon3 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Nelro 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Technical shortcomings ruin it for me. Edge unsharpness and slight overall blurryness, flat shadow without details, but considerable noise, and a slight tilt (especially noticable on the right edge of the frame). --Dschwen 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Same comments as Dschwen - Adrian Pingstone 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Colors look flat and washed out, not much contrast. Kaldari 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose E4T5A8 Very atmospheric shot, but not very high technical quality, and among the gazillions of photos taken every year in SF it's certainly not the most encyclopedic shot of the Port. ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Seconded at peer review by Nelro.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sausage biscuit, Breakfast sandwich
- Creator
- Renee Comet (USDA)
- Nominator
- ShadowHalo
- Support — ShadowHalo 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Overexposed, artifacts. --Tewy 06:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Exposure looks perfect to me. Just the right amount of accent white. Also I didn't notice any artifacts. Fg2 07:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The exposure looks pretty good to be too, but look at the bottom - the white areas fade into the artificial background and it is difficult to see the definition of the biscuit. Also, it looks a bit 'overcooked' (no pun intended) - there are some definite dithering and posterization issues in the detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll defer to the experts here. Fg2 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do see what you mean about the bottom blending in with the white background (which I presume is a light table). Fg2 10:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) But at full res, it looks distinct. Fg2 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The exposure looks pretty good to be too, but look at the bottom - the white areas fade into the artificial background and it is difficult to see the definition of the biscuit. Also, it looks a bit 'overcooked' (no pun intended) - there are some definite dithering and posterization issues in the detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Nelro 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Illustrates the subject in question, but is not among Wikipedia's best work in my opinion (and it doesn't make me want to eat a sausage biscuit).-Wutschwlllm 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough background contrast. posterization. -Fcb981 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose E4T4A2 I realize the fact that this thing looks extremely unappetizing actually enhances the enc of the picture, but still, yuck. ~ trialsanderrors 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- So about this new template...a little too black and white, don't you think? It reminds me of a straw poll. --Tewy 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Yuck. It makes people avoid eating a sausage biscuit instead of wanting to eat one. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. High-quality shot and it really does look quite tasty. Don't know what everyone else is talking about --frotht 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- It has a good caption, it's pleasing to the eye, and it's of high quality.
- Articles this image appears in
- Papal regalia and insignia
- Creator
- F l a n k e r
- Nominator
- Bewareofdog
- Support — Bewareofdog 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- support per nom. Debivort 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Basar 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the shadowing. ShadowHalo 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, great use of SVG. --Golbez 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support E8T10A8 Looks better than the one on the Vatican webpage. Now the caption only needs wikilinks and we're done. (PS Any chance we get a version on the red shield too?) ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Suspending my support for the moment, there are a number of differences between the one on the Vatican website and this one, and I'd like to see non-Wiki sourcing that establishes the accuracy of this version. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see what you mean this one might not be accurate.Bewareofdog 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I requested expert input from the Heraldry WikiProject. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see what you mean this one might not be accurate.Bewareofdog 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Suspending my support for the moment, there are a number of differences between the one on the Vatican website and this one, and I'd like to see non-Wiki sourcing that establishes the accuracy of this version. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per nom and trialsanderrors 'WiiWillieWiki(talk) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - great example of the proper use of SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Amazing. Just so much detail. This is what I call proper use of vector graphics. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per above Bernalj90 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose until I can figure out what exactly this is representing. It's brilliantly done... but all of the source images are for different emblems. Nothing tells me that this SVG represents an emblem officially used by the Vatican. If it is it will have a strong strong support. I should note that I don't think it's supposed to represent any of its three sources or the image trialanderror linked to... but, is this a specific pope's emblem? We just need more info. gren グレン 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's this one, scroll down to "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". There are some differences, but I can't tell if they're relevant in Heraldry. Artists have a certain amount of license when creating their versions of coats of arms. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is license in this regard... this is not just differences in proportions.... this is differences in colors, etc. and they really need to be explained. It looks nice and they did a great job on it but it needs to represent something in reality to be used in an encyclopedic article.... we can't just go around changing heraldry emblems. gren グレン 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's this one, scroll down to "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". There are some differences, but I can't tell if they're relevant in Heraldry. Artists have a certain amount of license when creating their versions of coats of arms. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, if only to piss off people who hate SVG logos. One question, should the hanging tassel in the center be in front of the one going side to side? It is in the vatican's version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The one without the red shield has one, the one on the red shield has two. ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Partial support. The papal emblem looks fine and is well done. However, it does not belong on the page Coat of arms of the Holy See since it is not the coat (missing important elements required by heraldry conventions & Vatican law; see my note below). Maybe use it on the Pope page? Perhaps also use it to explain the differences between the two? Pmadrid 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)- Support as it is now. Very well done. Pmadrid 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, is this accurate? Moving to "suspended nominations" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would love to support, but I think it's not accurate and it can be done a bit better (maybe a matter of taste). --Arad 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- In heraldry a large amount of flexibility is allowed for the artist's imagination - it's accurate if it corresponds to the blazon, which is "two keys in saltire or and argent, interlaced in the rings or, beneath a tiara argent, crowned or." How the lappets are curled, or whether the ropes pass in front or behind, doesn't matter. How specifically is this considered inaccurate? Gimmetrow 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The crown looks way different. It's like putting Pahlavi Crown on head of Elizabeth II. And I think the ropes can be done better. Otherwise a very good image. --Arad 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's still recognizable as a "tiara argent, crowned or." If it's the jewels, they can be found on the personal arms of quite a few popes, and Image:John_XXIII_coa.png, Image:Paul VI coa.png, Image:JohnPaulICOA.jpg and Image:John paul 2 coa.svg show a wide variation. If you find the image artistically deficient, that's fine, but this image seems within the range of artistic license allowed in heraldry. Gimmetrow 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's pretty much the answer I expected. I know there is limited freedom in rendering heraldic symbols, I just wasn't sure how much. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The crown looks way different. It's like putting Pahlavi Crown on head of Elizabeth II. And I think the ropes can be done better. Otherwise a very good image. --Arad 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- In heraldry a large amount of flexibility is allowed for the artist's imagination - it's accurate if it corresponds to the blazon, which is "two keys in saltire or and argent, interlaced in the rings or, beneath a tiara argent, crowned or." How the lappets are curled, or whether the ropes pass in front or behind, doesn't matter. How specifically is this considered inaccurate? Gimmetrow 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- This image was removed from the article Coat of arms of the Holy See with the following edit summary: "the emblem was not a coat of arms and was incorrectly blazoned" (diff). --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I asked the editor to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "coat of arms" displays the symbol on a red shield ("gules" in the blazon). Gimmetrow 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I reinstated it then, since the press office website shows both versions. ~ trialsanderrors 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The papal emblem is indeed used on the Holy See's coat of arms, but with two important differences. (1) It is displayed on a red shield, as gimmetrow properly acknowledged. (2) It's interlaced cord is changed to gold (interlaced in the rings or in blazon) in order to comply with heraldry rules. If you note, the papal emblem (not the coat) is displayed on the Vatican flag with the red cord, so I really have no problem with the image as displayed here. I just don't think it goes on Coat of arms of the Holy See since the blazon in the fundamental law requires a red field and a gold cord, and this image omits both. It could be used somewhere else, though, as it's a fine rendition of the papal insignia despite it failing as the coat of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City. Pmadrid 21:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds more like the article should be expanded or merged than that the nomination withdrawn, especially since the website uses them in conjunction (similarly, the Coat of arms of Germany shows the Bundesadler both on golden shield and neutral background). I don't have access to the actual codex (which I just added as reference), so I don't know how reliable the Vatican website is in that regard. I'd say the best solution would be to also create a version on red shield, but sadly the creator hasn't respondend to a request to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although the Vatican site shows both the emblem and the coat together, this isn't necessarily something to follow. The Vatican site does not distinguish the Vatican arms from the arms of the Holy See, although other authors do. Also the Vatican site shows the "coat of arms" with a red cord on a red shield, and the ropes untied. The coat of arms is sufficiently confusing that the emblem just adds to the confusion, unless it were contrasted and explained very well. Gimmetrow 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Trialsanderrors, your solution (creating a version on a red shield) would work; however, the cord would need to be changed from red to gold. Otherwise, you'd not only have a coat of arms violating a fundamental heraldry rule (no color on color) but also not conforming to the blazon prescribed by law (interlaced in the rings or). While heraldry gives artists considerable license in rendering the arms, it does not give them licence to ignore prescribed charges or tinctures.
- Besides, this is a fine rendition of the papal insignia as it appears on the Vatican flag, and I don't think it should be defeated merely because it is not a proper rendition of the Holy See's coat of arms, which is not on the Vatican flag. I think a solution for the time being might be to place the picture on Papal regalia and insignia, remove the emblem from Coat of arms of the Holy See, and start working on an svg version of properly rendered arms. This would also allow the nomination to continue. Pmadrid 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't see a problem with this as the emblem. (Was it taken from a svg version of the flag to begin with?) Determining the accuracy of both Image:Coa Vatican.svg and Image:Holysee-arms.png is a separate issue. The Vatican site says in text that the rope can be red. Also the personal coats of arms of popes usually have the rope untied, so this may be significant on the corporate arms. Gimmetrow 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the author of the image (Trialsanderrors call me in my Italian thalk page). I've done it from this image and this one. If you need some corrections, please ask me and I manage to satisfy your requests. Cheers, F l a n k e r 09:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we figured it out, but if you're able to create an svg of the coat of arms that would be much appreciated. Thanks for stopping by. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the author of the image (Trialsanderrors call me in my Italian thalk page). I've done it from this image and this one. If you need some corrections, please ask me and I manage to satisfy your requests. Cheers, F l a n k e r 09:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't see a problem with this as the emblem. (Was it taken from a svg version of the flag to begin with?) Determining the accuracy of both Image:Coa Vatican.svg and Image:Holysee-arms.png is a separate issue. The Vatican site says in text that the rope can be red. Also the personal coats of arms of popes usually have the rope untied, so this may be significant on the corporate arms. Gimmetrow 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "coat of arms" displays the symbol on a red shield ("gules" in the blazon). Gimmetrow 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I asked the editor to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- (De-indent) If the Vatican was concerned about little things like this, they'd publish an official version (probably raster) that we could faithfully vectorize. If they don't publish an official copy of the emblem, who's to say this isn't accurate?--HereToHelp 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is of course an official text: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Supplement, 01.02.2001, Attachment B. I don't think the good people at the Vatican are quite as web-savvy as the average Wikipedian though. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the onus is on us not to commit original research. My opinion in brief: I feel very wary about creating any emblem/logo that we don't have an example to copy from because, it may be in the guidelines, it may not be. Maybe someone should e-mail the Vatican PR and say "is this a proper version of your emblem" --gren グレン 09:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is not "a proper way" because is a very old emblem-coat of arms, so it is been represented on portals, documents, monuments, flags, and many more things, in many different shapings (like many others coats in Italy...). That's all. And it is not a big deal. --F l a n k e r 12:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Checking into what the Acta says would not be original research. It would simply be going to the primary source (legislation) and checking as to how far it specifies the design, whether by color picture, blazon, or whatever. If you object to going to primary sources and are insisting on reliance on secondary sources, then there is at least one herald, the late Archbishop Heim (the personal herald of Pope John XXIII), who distinguishes between the Papal emblem (tiara, crossed keys, red cord, not on a shield but could be on a lot of stuff like the flag of the Vatican City) and the Coat of Arms of the Holy See (red shield, tiara, crossed keys, gold cord). See his book Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origins, Customs, and Laws. So at least one heraldry scholar of repute denounces a red shield-red cord or a no shield-red cord version of the Holy See's coat of arms and supports the idea of a red-cord Papal emblem, and thus supports the proposition that this picture is an accurate depiction of the Papal tiara/crossed keys emblem.
- Other secondary sources are extraordinarily ambiguous. The text of the blazon from the Holy See's own website supports a differentiation, since for the coat of arms it uses a blazon which specifically says interlaced in the rings or (put a gold cord between the rings) and has examples that are not the Holy See's coat of arms (such as the Vatican flag and John Paul II's personal arms) using a red cord version. Despite this differentiation, right above the blazon it displays a red cord red shield version. What is up with that??? Later on the same page says the cord can be red or blue. Both of these contradict the explicit text of the blazon provided on the page. So, either both the provided blazon and Archbishop Heim are wrong or the website is wrong. This is why simply using secondary sources in this case is unacceptable. There's too many ambiguities, and going to the Acta, the primary source on what is the coat of arms and what is the emblem, would be useful to resolve the discrepancy.
- Let's not forget though, as Gimmetrow has accurately pointed out, that this page's debate should not be about whether this picture is an accurate depiction of the coat of arms of the holy see. It should instead be whether this depiction of the tiara and keys, a traditional emblem of the Papacy used in many contexts other than the principal charge on a corporate coat of arms (flags, behind Papal personal arms, etc), is proper. I think it is. Pmadrid 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- F l a n k e r, I'm not saying that there is a proper way and I (have come to) realize that there are many ways to represent the old, non-standardized emblems. I believe we could use any version that has previously been used in history and it would be fine. My worry is that--even if it may be a possible proper representation of the papacy--the first time this version has ever been used is on Wikipedia which makes me uncomfortable with its usage. I am not disputing anything of what you have said about it being proper heraldry, I am just worried that without this version having been used before it (while accurate) is still creating new work. That being said, if I am the only one still very wary about this do not let me keep this nomination held up. gren グレン 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can see the problem, but I can't see the solution. If someone can find a good image (good for all of you), I can try to make a new emblem. --F l a n k e r 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is not "a proper way" because is a very old emblem-coat of arms, so it is been represented on portals, documents, monuments, flags, and many more things, in many different shapings (like many others coats in Italy...). That's all. And it is not a big deal. --F l a n k e r 12:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mhm, this image is already present in Commons, so I don't need to make another. You can use it instead of the one mine. --F l a n k e r 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I've always liked seals and coats of arms. This is crisp and clean and I love that you did it in SVG. --Valley2city₪‽ 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question. Looking at the official coat of arms, is the SVG not incorrect because the gold key points right instead of left, and vice versa for the silver key? Pstuart84 Talk 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The gold key must points to the right in the Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City, the same for the flag. In the Coat of Arms of the popes I've noticed the different disposition but I can't explain why (www.vatican.va). --F l a n k e r 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- To answer my own question: "The coat of arms of the Holy See. That of the State of Vatican City is the same except that the positions of the gold and silver keys are interchanged." [1] - Pstuart84 Talk 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the line thicknesses seem to vary, which looks a little off to me. —Pengo 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This one's still here? What are we waiting for? vlad§inger tlk 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Very easy to see and not complicated. --Hirohisat Talk 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The accuracy issue is what is preventing this nomination from passing. IS there a solid conclusions yet?!? Jumping cheese 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted Several issues and no consensus. Please feel free to nominate this image again in future after considering the feedback. --—Pengo 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support -We need some flag FPs -Nelro 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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. HereToHelp 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)- 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)
- 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 --frotht 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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 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)
- Oppose. If we promote this, we might as well promote all of the other flags. --Tewy 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Flags would make ausome FPs -Nelro 10:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Interesting picture, high resolution, certainly encyclopedic.
- Articles this image appears in
- Compass rose, Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base
- Creator
- NASA
- Nominator
- WiiWillieWiki
- Support — 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A better, extended caption is needed before some people will support this picture. It is a FP criterion. What are those small white lines throughout the picture? Basar 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So sorry... I found this while surfing from one Wikarticle to another, via "See Also...". Anyway, since it is a satallite photo, I assume the white lines are similar to the ones in this photo, used by the techinicians at NASA for measuring distances. I think they are called "reticles". Does this exclude the pic from FPC status?
- Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude when I said it would need an extended caption, it's just that some people have recently decided to be stricter about that. I don't know if the lines exclude the picture. Perhaps there is a version where they aren't present or maybe someone could edit them out. The picture is also not very prominent in that article right now. Maybe it could be used in the Edward's AFB article too. Basar 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's already used there and in one other article. Basar 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude when I said it would need an extended caption, it's just that some people have recently decided to be stricter about that. I don't know if the lines exclude the picture. Perhaps there is a version where they aren't present or maybe someone could edit them out. The picture is also not very prominent in that article right now. Maybe it could be used in the Edward's AFB article too. Basar 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So sorry... I found this while surfing from one Wikarticle to another, via "See Also...". Anyway, since it is a satallite photo, I assume the white lines are similar to the ones in this photo, used by the techinicians at NASA for measuring distances. I think they are called "reticles". Does this exclude the pic from FPC status?
- Support Why is it in black and white; it's still there isn't it? And it does need a better caption: those lines actually exist! It looked Photoshopped at first. I support nonetheless.--HereToHelp 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment / additional info To see what it looks like in color, and for a better sense of scale, I found it on Google Maps here. Spebudmak 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose because the vanilla Google Maps satellite image is in color and at comparable resolution; surely there must exist a high-rez, color, satellite image of this that would be more suitable for FP. It's a really cool subject though. Spebudmak 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit - I personally don't think that color adds much to this image, and the visibility of the actual subject of the picture -- the rose -- is much lower in the Google version. I took out the yellow whiskers. --TotoBaggins 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support- A very interesting photo that was probably taken from aircraft. Highly recommend over others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.36.130 (talk • contribs) ← No anonymous votes plase. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)- Oppose 1. Needs a caption. 2. Not very encyclopedic, not particular high quality, and not that eye-catching: E4T5A6. (The subject OTOH might be feature-worthy with a better picture.) ~ trialsanderrors 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment OMG GIGANTIC CROP CIRCLES!!! This is definitive proof that a) Aliens use crop circles to navigate, b) The government knows about it, and c) Worst of all, the government supports it! 66.109.229.101 (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -the balck and white version is better -Nelro 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification - The color version is a copy-vio-illegal-for-the-front-page-or-any-other-page... thing. I only put it there to encourage people to finda a fair use or some such copyright-free image... The black-and-whites are the noms here... 'WiiWillieWiki(talk) 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good quality, and an overall interesting image. I would probably go for either of the first two, not the colored version. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. As nom. — OwenBlacker 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great image, although a better caption could help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidkupec (talk • contribs).
- Support original. Very encyclopedic and probably the only perspective from which you can see the entire compass rose. howcheng {chat} 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Jfader dryden.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- David Garrick was one of the most painted individuals of his time, but this is really the most arresting image of him. Garrick was one of the first actors to use a naturalistic style of acting and while we only have descriptions of his performance and paintings of him in character, this image comes the closest of any of them to portraying the power of his performance.
- Articles this image appears in
- David Garrick, Richard III, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane
- Creator
- Ganymead
- Nominator
- *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?
- Support — *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose because of low resolution and compression artifacts. I'd support a high quality scan, though. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Nelro 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)- Suport Alternative, Oppose Original -i didn't realize that there was a better one -Nelro 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment huh, did you know that we have another, much large copy of this at Image:Garrick as RichardIII.png? Won't comment as to quality, just seems odd. Mak (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral high quality, oppose nom. Malemi's version is larger (the other is too small to qualify) and has better colors. It also has a layer of colorful noise on it.--HereToHelp 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose both, the first is too low resolution and seems to have odd coloring. The second has odd blue dots. gren グレン 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose both per gren -Wutschwlllm 13:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- An example of the entire post-processing effort used to make a viewable "HDR" image in one depiction (if requested, all exposure brackets can be uploaded).
- Articles this image appears in
- Tone mapping
- Creator
- Cody.Pope
- Nominator
- Cody.Pope
- Support — Cody.Pope 07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: it looks to me as if you could have gotten the same result by just tweaking the gamma curves of the 0.0/f offset exposure. The subject isn't really calling for such a long exposure series and HDR as far as I can see. More details on the tonemapping algorithm (and the software) used would be a plus for the caption too. --Dschwen 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Dschwen here. It looks like there were no blown highlights on any of the exposures apart from +1.33. You could have achieved much the same result from post-processing the +1.0 exposure I think. In fact, apart from a more subtle gradient from left to right in the sky, I don't see how the end result is significantly different from the +1.0 exposure apart from being a bit soft from the stacking... A very aesthetic scene (where is it?) but doesn't really do justice to tone mapping for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd almost agree, accept that no matter how you tweak either the 0.00ev or the 1.00ev, details are always lost (especially along the coast and in the sky as you said). You can grab the originals (Nikon RAW) at 0.00ev NEF or 1.00ev NEF. The point of this blending was to to find the subtly in color without making a surreal image -- hence the actually small exposure range. Also, it's Lake Michigan inside the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
- Thre range is small in terms of f-stops, but large considering the number of shots. Was that really necessary, wouldn't two or three exposures have been enough? --Dschwen 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd almost agree, accept that no matter how you tweak either the 0.00ev or the 1.00ev, details are always lost (especially along the coast and in the sky as you said). You can grab the originals (Nikon RAW) at 0.00ev NEF or 1.00ev NEF. The point of this blending was to to find the subtly in color without making a surreal image -- hence the actually small exposure range. Also, it's Lake Michigan inside the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
- I agree with Dschwen here. It looks like there were no blown highlights on any of the exposures apart from +1.33. You could have achieved much the same result from post-processing the +1.0 exposure I think. In fact, apart from a more subtle gradient from left to right in the sky, I don't see how the end result is significantly different from the +1.0 exposure apart from being a bit soft from the stacking... A very aesthetic scene (where is it?) but doesn't really do justice to tone mapping for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No opinion on the image yet, but time to crack down on lack of a caption. ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, what do you mean by lack of caption? I can make the caption more detailed as requested, but it is certainly present. Cody.Pope 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just compare the captions used for the pictures of the day for instance at WP:POTD/March 2007. ~ trialsanderrors 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, what do you mean by lack of caption? I can make the caption more detailed as requested, but it is certainly present. Cody.Pope 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Image does not give a good example of tone mapping as the dynamic range of the subject is not that large. I can release this HDR series into a compatible license if there is interest. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Response I can see many of your concerns and I appreciate the feedback. The one thing I would say is that the small range is actually very helpful when it comes to blending the image. Most tone mapping software actually suggest 9-15 images to get the best results; since the blending is pretty complex, the more data the better results. A lot of hazy and murky tone-mapped images are a result of too few exposures and/or poor blending software/settings (think murky black skies). I good tone-mapped image should actually be -- at first glance -- unnoticeable and natural. And a lot of the HDR-tone-mapped-images aren't usually like that all. That being said, I still would like to see a good tone-mapped image presented in a similar matter as this. It's more the format of the image that I was promoting. In the future, I'll try to get a image with a higher overall range, but I'll still make sure to get a large number of shots. --Cody.Pope 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. I don't think you need a large number of images. You just need images with a reasonable amount of overlap. Tone mapped images that end up with problems such as murky skies are usually the result of poor settings and trying to squeeze too much dynamic range into a limited output rather than a low number of source images. Your image does look quite natural but that is mainly due to the fact that the scene didn't really HAVE a large dynamic range requirement in the first place. Any time you try to fit significantly more dynamic range into a typical PC output, you're going to either lower overall contrast, create halos or at least display a scene that on first glance looks a bit fishy and strange. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Not only is this the only picture in Wikipedia that depicts the Tapantí National Park in Costa Rica, but it's also one of the most beautiful depictions of a tropical rain forest in Wikipedia. This picture grabs the viewer's attention and incites him/her to read more about the article. The picture has a relatively high quality and resolution (2080 × 1544 pixel) and any blurriness in the background is caused by the naturally forming fog from the waterfall and the water vapour exhaled by the trees and wet ground (not to mention that it was raining the day the picture was taken).
- Articles this image appears in
- Ecotourism, List of national parks, Tapantí National Park
- Creator
- Bernalj90
- Nominator
- Bernalj90
- Support — Bernalj90 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture has alot of potential if it is taken properly. That waterfall catches my eye but its depiction isnt very good. Overall, the picture has bad composition and I really hate the fog. I find it takes away from the picture. --Midnight Rider 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually we have to put up with the fog if we want an encyclopedic picture of Tapanti. It's a cloud forest. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad timing and composition. Generally it is bad to shoot landscapes during the day especially overcast noons, and are best taken dawn or dusk when the dynamic range is much more balanced. Composition wise, I have no idea what you trying to show here, other than a montain with a fall with some foliage close to the camera. --antilivedT | C | G 07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Nelro 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.--HereToHelp 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The photo has too much of a purplish tint, and the heavy fog just completely ruins it. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is a great image of Simón Bolivar
- Articles this image appears in
- Simón Bolivar
- Creator
- Unknown
- Nominator
- Ricardo Ramírez
- Support — Ricardo Ramírez 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but it's too small and obviously not the best of Wikipedia. We can have a larger size for sure. Needs a crop at the bottom --Arad 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is definitively too small. Bernalj90 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I've cropped it, but there's not much else that can be done.--HereToHelp 00:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- An encyclopedic image, that details really well about the different pasta kinds
- Articles this image appears in
- Pasta
- Creator
- ChiemseeMan
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Size requirement not fulfilled, unpleasant background, (one) german annotation. Also it clearly seems to be a derivative work and it is a bit fishy that this isn't mentioned anywhere. --Dschwen 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Inadequate size, Flash reflection and unclear acknowledgement --Mfield 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small (read the FPC rules!) - Adrian Pingstone 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Way too small, very little detail for any of the noodles. ShadowHalo 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small, and I really don't like the background glare in the middle/bottom of the picture. Also, this seems like a small subset of pasta types that don't include most of the ones I'm interested in. Enuja 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above (Too small, there's a glare, kind of exclusive) WiiWillieWiki 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose very low quality, high glare and in thumb it is highly unreadable. ~ Arjun 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion If your goal is to take a featured picture with pasta kinds as a subject, I suppose you could lay out different pasta noodles and take a higher quality picture in the style of "Lemon" at right. Good luck. -- Sturgeonman 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another possibility is to do something like the coquina variation image that Debivort did: take individual pictures of pasta noodles and stich them all together into one single picture, so you avoid the flash reflection. howcheng {chat} 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- A very important thing is to use bounced/indirect flash instead of direct flash. Just hold a mirror in front of the flash and reflected to a white ceiling or somewhere and crank the flash level compensation (or exposure compensation if that's not available) up to avoid under-exposures. --antilivedT | C | G 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- A picture that adds significantly to the SF 1906 earthquake article - the very first shelters were tents, before the Army built more permanent shelters. A high quality scan (1381 by 1078 px) of a 1906 snapshot that has survived in good shape for over 100 years. A snaphot, yes, but with high historical significance.
- Articles this image appears in
- 1906_San_Francisco_earthquake
- Creator
- Unknown, from uploader's family album. (Third person from left is a sister of my great-grandmother.)
- Nominator
- Janke | Talk
- Support — Janke | Talk 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the image illustrates the clothing of the period very well, but doesn't do much to illustrate the tents, nor the article in question. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-12 16:21Z
- Oppose, until there is a good extended caption to place the image in historical context.--ragesoss 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto Brian. I couldn't tell from the picture that this is near SF, related to an earthquake, or even a shelter. For all I know this could be a camping vacation in sweden. Just commenting on the picture, this doesn't mean that I doubt your word if you say it is what it is, Janke! --Dschwen 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Still a great find though!
- Unfortunately, our great-aunt died many years ago (at the ripe age of 98!), so it's impossible to get any more info about the picture, or the location, other than what's written in the album. She lived in California for over a decade back then, and we have many of her pictures from SF. I doubt anyone can pinpoint the exact location of this shot, without having access to records of displaced people - such records may (or may not) have been kept back then. --Janke | Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, compared to some of the other quake FPs this isn't so great. gren グレン 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this doesn't show the quake, it shows the displaced victims in front of their tent shelter... ;-) Seriously, I think it adds some human perspective to the article. --Janke | Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose with regrets. This is a nice picture, with the right amount of patina to convey "old", but as has been mentioned before, the occasion of this tent outing remains unclear. Also there are a bunch of technical problems, e.g. the elder gentleman on the right has no eyes. And finally, no caption. I'll give it a E4T5A9. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I may be missing something, but I don't see how the picture demonstrates that they actually are quake victims. They could be anyone in 1906 merely standing in front of a tent. -- Sturgeonman 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another political image of sorts. In 1943, Adams visited the Japanese-American internment camp at Manzanar and took a series of photographs, many of which are considered among his best portraits. He has been criticized for putting a positive spin on the subject, but when he gifted the set to the Library of Congress, he defended his decision:
The purpose of my work was to show how these people, suffering under a great injustice, and loss of property, businesses and professions, had overcome the sense of defeat and dispair [sic] by building for themselves a vital community in an arid (but magnificent) environment. — Ansel Adams, 1965
- I believe this picture perfectly encapsulates this intent.
- Articles this image appears in
- Manzanar, Calisthenics, Born Free and Equal
- Creator
- Ansel Adams
- Nominator
- trialsanderrors
- Support — trialsanderrors 07:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Both quality and background, great! --antilivedT | C | G 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 13:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I looked through this database on several occasions for images to nominate. Good choice! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-12 16:23Z
- Support. This is an issue that resonates highly with me. My wife's family was interned during the war and I've visited Manzanar several times myself. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, until the image page has a good extended caption.--ragesoss 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Female internees practicing calisthenics at Manzanar War Relocation Center, Owens Valley, California. In 1943, Ansel Adams followed an invitation by newly appointed camp director Ralph Merritt to photograph the everyday life of the Japanese American internees in the camp. Unlike his colleague Dorothea Lange, whose pictures for the War Relocation Authority focused on the hardship and humiliation of the deportation and internment, Adams's intent was to "show how these people, suffering under a great injustice, (…) had overcome the sense of defeat and despair by building for themselves a vital community in an arid (but magnificent) environment." (Ansel Adams, 1965)
- I think we should make this mandatory for all nominations. PS I also started an entry on the book: Born Free and Equal. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very good caption. I agree about making extended captions mandatory. Even for photos of mundane things, information about location, provenance of the subject, etc., and a basic description is helpful.--ragesoss 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It might also help cut down on the number of ill-conceived nominations we get if editors are required to write a paragraph on the picture they nominate rather than just exclaim "beautiful shot". ~ trialsanderrors 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are mandatory as one of the FPC requirements, but woefully underenforced. The Macarthur picture doesn't even have a source! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very good caption. I agree about making extended captions mandatory. Even for photos of mundane things, information about location, provenance of the subject, etc., and a basic description is helpful.--ragesoss 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Nice shot, quite touching --frotht 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. ShadowHalo 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, that man could take photos gren グレン 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I wonder how he made pictures look so good. Basar 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice historic photo by famous photographer -- Chris 73 | Talk
- Support Yowza, what a great photo we've found here :D although its encyclopedic value may be dubious, it is nonetheless a famous (and I dareday fantastic) photo of good technical quality! Jellocube27 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per all above -Wutschwlllm 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Badgerbadgerba... er, I mean support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mad Max 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Manzanar calisthenics 0016u.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality photo of the entire city and surrounding terrain
- Articles this image appears in
- Zürich
- Creator
- Sxenko
- Nominator
- Sxenko
- Support — Sxenko 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The haze prevents a clear view of the subject, and the wing distracts from it. This looks like a typical snapshot, not like the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Tewy 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose edit 1. The wing and haze are probably the biggest problems, and cannot be significantly fixed in an edit. --Tewy 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tewy. I think it is crooked too. Basar 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Crooked, blurred, no contrast - Adrian Pingstone 11:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only for the already mentioned reasons, but I also think a picture from space of the area would be much more significant.Bernalj90 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose -Only opposing because of the wing, other then that its great -Nelro 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support of Edit Not bad. A little hazy, but otherwise great shot. -- Sturgeonman 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose -- It just doesn't look right with the wing in the way. Otherwise, it would make a great featured picture. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopedic, and a well taken picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pig, omnivore
- Creator
- Scott Bauer
- Nominator
- RyGuy17
- Support: per nomination. RyGuy17 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose original, it needs a caption. There also appears to be jpg artifact at the bottom, fuzziness, and a little up and left of the big-pig's head you see a scratch line. gren グレン 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I removed the scratch line and a whole slew of scanner artifacts. The background is far from perfect, but the subject is in focus and the composition is good enough to support. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I added my own edit and support that. ~ trialsanderrors 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose See reasons above Penubag 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
OpposeSupport I can't get over the background. I think it would be a nice picture if the mud was just brown. Basar 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- Are you saying that as a matter of aesthetics or because you think the mud is blown out? gren グレン 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess aesthetics; it just seems a little distracting. Why, are those blown out reflections or is that just a bunch of white stuff on the ground? It also might be nice to have more DOF. Basar 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like some heavy frost or light snowfall. anyway Support, highly enc (nursing, farm, pig, etc.) good quality. -Fcb981 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite certainly frost. I checked for blown highlights but didn't see any digital white. Even the very light areas have structure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I never thought of frost, maybe that's because I'm from California. I think it's OK now. Basar 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite certainly frost. I checked for blown highlights but didn't see any digital white. Even the very light areas have structure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that as a matter of aesthetics or because you think the mud is blown out? gren グレン 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. I find several distractions in the picture. The sow's tail is docked, and she has an ear tag. The sow is not washed or cleaned. I would expect to see a better looking pig competing at my local county fair. At least the piglet is clean and extraordinary looking. The picture as a whole doesn't strike me as an extraordinary picture of a pig (as my grandpa had these Yorkshire pigs when I used to help at his pig farm). The snow in the background doesn't provide a great contrast like some nice green grass or mud would. Royalbroil T : C 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That may be so, but isn't it nice to have a pig looking like a pig and not all prettied up? I think that mud would be nice too, but if pigs live in frost, then I think it's enc. Basar 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- come on, if you want a perfect picture of a pig someone can make an .svg picture. This is a great animal shot, full of life (for a change) Good lighting, composition, clerity is great. Tag on ear is Enc to farm. -Fcb981 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A FP should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It's just a dirty pig to me. It's probably more than mud if you know what I mean. Look at these clean pigs and tell me that they don't look much better: Hampshire Duroc a clean Yorkshire . Either that, or go to a
dirtymuddy pig like this one. Notice thatitthey stillhas itshave their tail intact and no ear tag. Royalbroil T : C 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- I cleaned up my wording above a bit to better reflect my thoughts. I realize that my words are quite harsh (which is unusual for me), but I expect a featured picture of any animal to feature show quality animal. FP is a high standard. Royalbroil T : C 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? The criteria require accuracy, not prettiness. Would you also reject pictures of cats unless they're best-in-show? ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both aesthetics and encyclopaedic value are required. The line of reasoning "it's hard to take a pretty photo of X" is bogus, sorry. Stevage 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not my line. I think the dirty pig rocks and would def'ly take it over a washed one. ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- umm, it's not mud. Mud requires the temperature to be above freezing, and the snow indicated otherwise. It's 4 letter word that starts with S. I could be in favor of a pig with a muddy snout and/or muddy legs. That is not the case here. There are other breeds of pigs that look a lot nicer with some s... on them like I linked to above. I bet you couldn't even see the s... on the red breed called Durocs. Royalbroil T : C 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? What? Who are you talking to? ~ trialsanderrors 22:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- umm, it's not mud. Mud requires the temperature to be above freezing, and the snow indicated otherwise. It's 4 letter word that starts with S. I could be in favor of a pig with a muddy snout and/or muddy legs. That is not the case here. There are other breeds of pigs that look a lot nicer with some s... on them like I linked to above. I bet you couldn't even see the s... on the red breed called Durocs. Royalbroil T : C 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not my line. I think the dirty pig rocks and would def'ly take it over a washed one. ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both aesthetics and encyclopaedic value are required. The line of reasoning "it's hard to take a pretty photo of X" is bogus, sorry. Stevage 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? The criteria require accuracy, not prettiness. Would you also reject pictures of cats unless they're best-in-show? ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned up my wording above a bit to better reflect my thoughts. I realize that my words are quite harsh (which is unusual for me), but I expect a featured picture of any animal to feature show quality animal. FP is a high standard. Royalbroil T : C 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A FP should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It's just a dirty pig to me. It's probably more than mud if you know what I mean. Look at these clean pigs and tell me that they don't look much better: Hampshire Duroc a clean Yorkshire . Either that, or go to a
- Support Both Tomer T 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I thought about it for a bit, but no. It's glarey, with not much contrast, and the quality just isn't great. The composition is nice, but it's let down by so many other things. The bright background is just too displeasing. Stevage 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Aesthetically painful to look at. It's just used to illustrate "pig" and "omnivore," there is no reason to have an ugly sow with an ear-tag and a distracting background. Enuja 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I just feel there are better pictures of pigs out there and so, this is not one of Wikipedia's best works.Bernalj90 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose In my opinion, this is just an ordinary picture of a (muddy) pig. I don't see anything special about it. -Wutschwlllm 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Beautiful encyclopedic picture in high quality. It is hard to take a picture in Shivta without picturing the shadows.
- Articles this image appears in
- Shivta, Nabataeans
- Creator
- ST (here or here)
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bad lighting (overexposure and harsh shadows). Should be taken at another time of the day. Alvesgaspar 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- By arbitrary I meant that the way the photo is taken does not depict the site in a unique way (or show its unique features) that makes it distinguishable from other ruins of an ancient civilizations. I did not intend to belittle the subject itself at all. --Dschwen 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm seeing artifact around where the building turns into the sky... and what Schwen said. gren グレン 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose- Anyone can find a pic like this on the internetPenubag 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Thats easy to say, but I think we give should the contributor some appreciation for uploading the picture under a free license... --Dschwen 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is a picture that was pictured by a Wikipedian Tomer T 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats easy to say, but I think we give should the contributor some appreciation for uploading the picture under a free license... --Dschwen 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Not concerned about shadows, which would be hard to get rid of without artificial lights (bleh) or if the sun was directly behind the subject, and that might not be possible based on positioning of the subject and lends itself to overexposure, which I see none of here. (That long and still a fragment! My English teachers would be proud.) But the view does not lend itself to showing the layout of the whole site (where am I?), and the focus, while good, could be better. This may be due to the camera itself.--HereToHelp 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Support I agree the shadows are well proportioned in this picture and I can't complain about the quality or resolution in any reasonable way. Also, I love the fact that it depicts a little-known yet immensely important ancient historical site. Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Nelro 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Artifacts all over the place. The shadows look interesting, but overall this image is just not that striking to me. The lower third looks too bright. Not really Wikipedia's best work. -Wutschwlllm 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is beautiful.
- Articles this image appears in
- Historic church of Cúcuta
- Creator
- Qwerty2
- Nominator
- Ricardo Ramírez
- Support — Ricardo Ramírez 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Nelro 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Almost the whole sky is white and the colours are washed out. -Wutschwlllm 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, low quality of sharpness, shadows show little detail and lots of noise. --Asiir 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose bad sky color — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penubag (talk • contribs)
- Oppose per above. Basar 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is excelent.
- Articles this image appears in
- Park of the Greater Colombia
- Creator
- Qwerty2
- Nominator
- Ricardo Ramírez
- Support — Ricardo Ramírez 21:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -i like it Nelro 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - It looks good, but I feel it doesn't really show much of the park. It would be better if the picture had something important to the park, not just a brick sidewalk with trees. If this picture, hypothetically, had made it to FP status, nobody would know where that place is. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per JuWiki. Basar 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: my knowledge on photography is basic, enough to say that this picture is nothing compared to other featured pictures. Has nothing special or at least a technique. Sorry guys but I'm pretty sure Colombia has better views. --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The white balance is way off- way too bright. Also, why are there trees growing all over the sidewalk in the background? --frotht 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose the subject of the picture isn't clear Penubag 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great illustration of the horse anatomy.
- Articles this image appears in
- Horse, Horse anatomy
- Creator
- User:WikipedianProlific
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question Doesn't "locomotive system" include the muscles? Seems to be mis-titled. —Pengo 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. This is another good diagram by WikipedianProlific, but it's in PNG. --Tewy 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Alas, only photographs and svgs are passing these days… This might be hard to vectorize because of the shadow and texture of the bones can be rather irregular.--HereToHelp 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...and there are possible spelling errors, so right now it's more of a conditional weak support. --Tewy 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Not my favourite diagram but proud of it none the less, it's as good as any FP wikipedia has, and better than most imho. I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion about the pro's and cons of SVGs and JPEGs. But the reality of the situation is that this image is 2000 pixels square thereabouts and no PC monitor looking at wikipedia can display even near that. It can be printed on A3 paper at around 200 DPI, it's really not an issue. Its one thing to request new diagrams be done in SVG, or painfully small ones, but theres no point wasting time that could be spent making new diagrams on tracing old ones into a new format with no real benefits. And no, locomotive system doesn't refer to muscles. Muscles are, interestingly, part of the muscular system. And even if muscles were part of the locomotive system, i'm bemused as to a good way to show both the bones and muscles as one would cover the other. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main argument for SVG is because someday somewhere someone might have an application off of the computer screen. I'd have loved to bring your horse to science fair on a glossy 4 foot wide piece of paper. I think simpler ones should be SVG, but the shading on this would make that rather difficult. That's why I thought SVG was supposed to be better than large monitor filling PNG gren グレン 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe there are four spelling mistakes - tuber ischm should be tuber ischium, tubuar sacrale should be tuber sacrale, humerous should be humerus and coccygeal vetebrae should be coccygeal vertebrae Can someone confirm if I'm right? - Adrian Pingstone 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to bring about a PNG/SVG argument, but SVG would be able to easily correct this. --Tewy 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support if it's factually correct. Very nice looking and if someone with the ability and time wants it could use a nice image map. gren グレン 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Just get rid of pink backgroundPenubag 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Pink? Try a different monitor; it looks very light brown to me. --Tewy 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well okay salmon colored XD Penubag 06:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Pink? Try a different monitor; it looks very light brown to me. --Tewy 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support if the spelling is checked/fixed. I'd also prefer a white background. Otherwise I think this is a very good illustration. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a little surprised to see support for an image that (at the time of my writing this) still has four spelling errors. A count of Support at this moment might make it a Featured Pic!! - Adrian Pingstone 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's what user talk pages are for. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why would I put my comment on the uploaders Talk Page? I'm commenting on the FP image and we do that discussion right here - Adrian Pingstone 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure if you point the mistakes out to him, he'll fix them. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why would I put my comment on the uploaders Talk Page? I'm commenting on the FP image and we do that discussion right here - Adrian Pingstone 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's what user talk pages are for. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a little surprised to see support for an image that (at the time of my writing this) still has four spelling errors. A count of Support at this moment might make it a Featured Pic!! - Adrian Pingstone 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Image has now been updated with a white background and fixed spelling. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Purge the cache to see the change). --Tewy 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks like all the conditionas for the conditional supports above are met. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Horseanatomy.png --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- High enc, good looking, high quality scan.
- Articles this image appears in
- Astronomy, Star chart
- Creator
- Frederik de Wit
- Nominator
- Janke | Talk
- Support — Janke | Talk 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — I love these sorts of old maps/starmaps but even at 1804 × 1236 pixels, it is still not high enough resolution for the detail to be visible, sorry. —Pengo 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Pengo.--HereToHelp 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, the reproduction I've scanned from is only about 8 x 12 inches in size, and doesn't show any more detail than in this scan. If anyone has a better original, pleace replace. --Janke | Talk 08:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel kinda bad opposing for resolution when it's 1804x1236px, but there isn't enough detail to be able to read some of the text. ShadowHalo 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you can't really read the small print on the existing FP "Carta Marina" [2], either, even though it's over 5000 px wide... --Janke | Talk 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can read just about all of the text pretty easily, and the major captions are larger and clearly visible. I think it's more of a problem that I can't read the names of the planets (I'm presuming that's what they are based on the corresponding symbols) in the center-top circle. ShadowHalo 06:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you can't really read the small print on the existing FP "Carta Marina" [2], either, even though it's over 5000 px wide... --Janke | Talk 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- First, this is a very striking picture. The statue itself is very expressive and the light pool surrounding the were-jaguar baby gives it an otherworldly glow. Second, this statue is very important archaeologically, and a drawing or photograph of this appears in nearly any book on the Olmec culture. Third, the clarity is such that, at highest resolution, the incised icons on the statue can be clearly seen. In summary, this is the best photo I've seen of this statue, and one that Wikipedia is very fortunate to have. It's less in focus in the chest area than the face, and I myself wish the glow were a little less bright. Nonetheless, I do think the combination of its encyclopedi-osity and striking beauty makes this a fine candidate.
- This photo was taken by an amateur photog from Mexico at the Museum of Anthropology in Xalapa, Veracruz, where the statue is on display. I saw it on Flickr and contacted the photographer, who graciously allowed me to upload it under CC 2.5 Attribution. For comparison sake, here is another photo of the same subject.
- P.S., I also think that the subject matter is a nice counterbalance to the many wildlife, landscape, and cityscape shots we see here in FPC. Thanks, Madman 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Olmec and Las Limas Monument 1, as well as the Spanish and French Wikipedia Olmec articles.
- Creator
- Cadeva
- Nominator
- Madman
- Support — Madman 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. It seems nice to me. Basar 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it needs some editing to remove the lines and dots in the background. It may still be too low resolution and I'm not sure why such lighting is best to illustrate this sculpture. I'd probably oppose after editing but I think it could help. gren グレン 21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding background, I will have to depend on the kindness of strangers to do this, but I'm sure it can be done. Regarding the resolution, the criteria states that one side must be at least 1000px, and so this does qualify. And, I'm not sure that this lighting is the best to illustrate this sculpture, but the lighting does emphasize the religious nature of the statue and perhaps shows why this statue was venerated in modern times as a Madonna. Too often artifacts like this are shown in a dead, antiseptic light, and that's what makes this photo exciting to me. In addition, museum photos are difficult since amateur photogs do not control the lighting, placement, etc., and often risk getting chased out by the authorities. The results usually end up like this.
- Thanks for your comments, Madman 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever enc you lose is more than made up by by the composition. I would support an edit to remove the non-black patches, and to make the black blacker. The idea is there, but a bit of editing can bring out the full potential. I will abstain until such an edit is created.--HereToHelp 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay...but somehow the sharpness is lacking. Alas, I have been spoiled by Diliff, Fir, etc. and their professional equipment. I still congratulate the photographer, though.--HereToHelp 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have requested that the folks at the Graphics Lab take a shot at these fixes. Thanks, Madman 15:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- That was fast! Check out Edit #1. I have used the Graphics labs folks in the past to improve several photographs. As mentioned, it is very difficult to get good shots of archaeological artifacts and they are really brought out the detail in this shot of Maya glyphs. Madman 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever enc you lose is more than made up by by the composition. I would support an edit to remove the non-black patches, and to make the black blacker. The idea is there, but a bit of editing can bring out the full potential. I will abstain until such an edit is created.--HereToHelp 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Distracting lights in the upper-right corner. Also the the lighting doesn't exactly help enc --frotht 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, great subject, not a terrible shot, but the image quality just isn't that amazing. Seems... not very sharp? And to continue the argument above, the subject itself is only about 710×970 pixels, which would barely qualify. Would be great if someone with a high-end camera got a shot of this using a tripod. —Pengo 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support once the background is fixed.·Maunus· ·ƛ·
09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThe edited one is much better. I don't think the concerns about bad lighting are justified, on the contrary the lighting adds to the picture. I believe that there are good reasons for using effectful ligthing when taking a picture of a three dimentional artefact, inbstead of always using a straight flash or a diffuse lighting. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
oppose-bad lighting User:penubag 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Oppose Lighting, no size reference. -Fcb981 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am puzzled by the comment. I am unaware of Featured Picture which has ever had a "size reference". Madman 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose what Fcb981 is saying is that there is nothing in the picture to give an indication of scale - the statue could be 1 foot tall or 20 feet tall, the picture is no guide. However, the picture needn't be a guide as to scale, that information could be in the caption and/or the article, which ought to be sufficient. Pstuart84 Talk 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think any additional size reference would distract from the quality of the image. It may be sufficient to write the size in the caption/comments of the image -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support This picture definitively intrigues me, catches my eye, and makes me want to read more about its article. The quality is quite good and seriously I can't really see the difference between both the original and the edit. Bernalj90 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - No doubt it is a bad lighting, with blown parts and harsh shadows, affecting the clarity of the image and its enc value. However, without this type of lighting the mistery is lost... Alvesgaspar 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 2, satisfies my featured picture requirement -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, mainly because of the blown highlights right in the middle of the subject. It really detracts from an otherwise compelling image.--ragesoss 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- It seems well enough to be nominated, good view of park. It also demonstrates how straight-down Houston bayous can be.
- Articles this image appears in
- George Bush Park
- Creator
- JuWiki
- Nominator
- JuWiki
- Support — JuWiki 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - compression artifacts in water, and purple fringing on tree limbs. Debivort 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see any purple fringing. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 14:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose All I see is some water and some shrubbery (no pun intended). ~ trialsanderrors 03:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nowhere near striking enough for FPC - Adrian Pingstone 10:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Would Image:George Bush Park 1.JPG be good? It seems better fit... — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 14:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that alternative version is too bright. Tomer T 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per debi --frothT 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Composition; quality; subject; etc.
- Articles this image appears in
- Little Egret
- Creator
- Birdman1
- Nominator
- Birdman1 talk/contribs
- Support — Birdman1 talk/contribs 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Great Compostition -NelroNelro 11:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The composition is good, but there are artifacts, it's blurry, and the lighting is dull. A downsizing might help. --Tewy 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's blurry in the foreground, if that's what you mean, on purpose. It focuses on the subject. Please explain. How would a downsizing help? --Birdman1 talk/contribs 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Viewed in full size, the subject itself is a little blurry (look at, for instance, the eye). A downsizing would increase the overall sharpness of the image, even if it makes it smaller. --Tewy 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and don't get me wrong, it's a great picture, just not quite a featured picture in my mind. --Tewy 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's blurry in the foreground, if that's what you mean, on purpose. It focuses on the subject. Please explain. How would a downsizing help? --Birdman1 talk/contribs 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose- great picture and all, but just not FP stuff(even I could take that snapshot if I had a camera)Penubag 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- It's easy to say, but practically it's harder. Tomer T 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I don't think it's quite good enough for a FP. It just isn't very striking; I think it might be because it's a little busy; maybe it lacks some important lines or coloring, something that would bring the picture together. The reflection almost does it, but it is disturbed by the weeds. Basar 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not particularly sharp, and artifacty. Dull lighting could be overlooked, but not the technical flaws.--ragesoss 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very nice and appetizing picture :)
- Articles this image appears in
- Fish and chips, Take-out
- Creator
- User:Solipsist
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Is this picture of fish and chips or a beach? The nerve! ;-) Mrug2 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that there are a lot of good pictures that thier subject is a beach. What's bad with a picture that its subject is Fish and chips? Tomer T 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Not a very good picture -Nelro
- Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Meat-and-potato picture. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with a food picture? This one is featured. Tomer T 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is not that it depicts food, but that it depicts it in a not very attractive, encyclopedic, or technically outstanding way. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with a food picture? This one is featured. Tomer T 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only is the horizon tilted, it's also curved. Either make the pic unacceptable as an FP - Adrian Pingstone 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose just noticed some worrying DOF problems on the back of the fish. In fact, almost all of the fish is at least a little out of focus.. FPs should be razor sharp --frotht 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Don't know what everyone else is talking about- seems like a nicely enc (and very sharp and high-res) pic of fish n chips. But it doesn't belong on a beach; the beach background makes no sense. Put it in a fast food place or something --frothT 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)- Froth, in many parts of the world where fish and chips is most common (ie UK and Australia, not so much the United States), it is pretty common to have them at or on the beach. See the image caption in the fish and chips article. Your own American bias may place fish and chips in a fast food restaurant but that isn't necessarily the case, particularly since this is a British image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I didn't know that but I was referring to the incongruity of having fast food just sitting alone near the beach, as if it washed up on shore or grows naturally in nature or something. Something like this provides a more realistic context --frotht 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Froth, in many parts of the world where fish and chips is most common (ie UK and Australia, not so much the United States), it is pretty common to have them at or on the beach. See the image caption in the fish and chips article. Your own American bias may place fish and chips in a fast food restaurant but that isn't necessarily the case, particularly since this is a British image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm going to buck the trend here and support it. Ideally it could be higher res and the horizon could be straightened somewhat but it isn't vital since it is OOF and of secondary importance to the beach and the foreground. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose', the composition doesn't work for me, why are the fish and chips just sitting there on the foreshore, and where are the seagulls?--Peta 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support-don't know why, made me laugh (Also support beause it is a very original, unique pic)Penubag 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Support, please, you're makin' me hungry. I actually didn't know what fish and chips looked like before seeing this picture, so very encyclopedic. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The light on the sunward side of the food seems too bright. Plus the composition seems odd to me. This just looks like someone left their order on a wall or something. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree that the light seems too bright. I think the beach is also very distracting. ShadowHalo 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The beach is blurry enough not to be the focus of the picture, but is also clear enough to distract the viewer from the fish and chips. Better focusing would improve the picture. -- Sturgeonman 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting shot, but no FP material. -Wutschwlllm 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I love it when I find fish and chips sitting on the beach! Kaldari 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Historical image, enc value showing clearly the Anti-Iranian feelings in USA in the months of Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 following the revolution in Iran The hostage crisis was one of the most known, important events of its kind in world history. And plus that, the image has a very good quality and composition IMO. It's not the usual cliché "black" racism photo.
- Articles this image appears in
- Iran hostage crisis Racism in the United States Anti-Iranian sentiments
- Creator
- Trikosko, Marion S.
- Nominator
- Arad
- Info Please specify the version you prefer. Thanks in advance for your votes. --Arad 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Both With preference to edit — Arad 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support It looks somewhat grainy to me and there's not as much focus on the subject as I might like, but I like the picture overall. ShadowHalo 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support ack ShadowHalo. Well put.--HereToHelp 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I don't find this racist picture very striking, but I do find it offensive. —Pengo 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (changed to strong oppose as no specific details for this image can be given). —Pengo 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, IMO, the point is that it's so offensive toward Iranians that it's striking how people can be so racist on something that is not even the Iranian people's fault. --Arad 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Historic, striking, well composed etc. --Cody.Pope 04:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support (Edit 1). Hate the racism, but love the depiction of it. And I have to say that I disagree somewhat with ShadowHalo regarding the focus of the subject... Having the subject so distant gives a "lost in the crowd" feel, and the people surrounding the subject add to the chaotic atmosphere. tiZom(2¢) 14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Very offensive. Imagine that you are an Iranian, and you see this picture on the main page or even the FP's icon in the upper part of the picture's page. I think you wouldn't like to visit Wikipedia anymore. Tomer T 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure Iraqis would be more offended that you think they are the same thing as Iranians. -Fcb981 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm already offended as an Iranian that you think they are the same. (joking) Well now seriously, Iraq was a part of Iran before but not now. They are different nations now so don't confuse them. --Arad 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I'm trying to defend Iranians by showing this image and the problems they had in those times, which is good for people to see on main page. --Arad 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- My fault. Arad, I think that the picture's presence on the main page wouldn't really make any Iranian happy. Tomer T 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's fine. Well, those who are intelligent enough with enough knowledge will see the image and think that racism is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would take the image as "Yes it's a good idea to deport Iranians". At least I hope people will not think about it like this. Do you? --Arad 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope too, but who knows? (: Tomer T 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- You convinced me, but I'm not totally excited of making this picture a FP, so I'm now neutral. Tomer T 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope too, but who knows? (: Tomer T 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - does the sign have something else written on the other side? It looks like "release all americans now" - which is a bit distractiing. Apart from that, great image — Jack · talk · 15:33, Friday, 9 March 2007
- Weak support - Support only because of enc relevance, quality is quite poor. Historical or journalistic documents may indeed be considered offensive specially when the events are relatively recent. However that fact should not affect their scientific value or prevent anyone to use or disseminate them. This is of course, the opinion of someone who believes in the freedom of expression, an important value of the western democratic societies. But the scope of Wikipedia is much larger than that, I know... - Alvesgaspar 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Alvesgaspar, as long as the image is contextualized in a proper historical prospective, denying it FP status because it might offend is against the NPOV policy. --Cody.Pope 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportI really don't see any reason why an Iranian person should be offended by seeing this as a featured picture. It's not like Wikipedia supports racist behaviour by promoting this image. -Wutschwlllm 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- By putting this on the main page it will likely give many people the (hopefully mistaken) impression that Wikipedia does support racism. Already Wikipedia is dominated by American viewpoints, and US-Iran relations are currently at their lowest point since the crisis. Note that Iran was one of the three countries of George Dubya's so called "Axis of evil", and Iranians are currently treated with suspicion in the US, generally requiring additional checks at airports, etc. —Pengo 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I cite policy, the fact that the image can be seen as offensive is not enough to negate it's use or deny it FC status. If on the main page, the caption should clearly state it's historic context -- if it does in NPOV way, it should be allowed. --Cody.Pope 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm completely with Cody.Pope on this one. In my opinion, this is really ridiculous. Let's just say this image of Adolf Hitler gets promoted and it appears on Wikipedia's main page, does this make Wikipedia a neo-nazi club, or what? This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform, and I hate (unnecessary) self-censorship, just because of some weird opinions on political correctness.
- "Note that Iran was one of the three countries of George Dubya's so called "Axis of evil", and Iranians are currently treated with suspicion in the US, generally requiring additional checks at airports, etc." I know exactly what you mean. Since I watch Al Jazeera English I hate all the American news channels. Even CNN (I don't really need to mention Fox News) is so biased, they don't even invite Iranians to contribute to discussions (what Al Jazeera does, by the way). The bottom line is, I detest this sort of self censorship. -Wutschwlllm 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we could give it FP status but not put it on the Main Page?--HereToHelp 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hesitate, since that seems only to confirm that wikipedia is censored by saying this significant image is important but too offensive to be displayed. At least from an ideological stand point that seems far worse to me. --Cody.Pope 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but I would like to see here what the caption for the PotD should be. ~ trialsanderrors 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hesitate, since that seems only to confirm that wikipedia is censored by saying this significant image is important but too offensive to be displayed. At least from an ideological stand point that seems far worse to me. --Cody.Pope 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we could give it FP status but not put it on the Main Page?--HereToHelp 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I nominated the image and I'm Iranian. I wanted it to be on the homepage to show that how people could be so ignorant and racist against other nationalities. I hope people will take it in a good way, not that racism is good or that we are promoting it. If you guys think it's offensive to Iranians, then I would prefer a withdrawal. But I thought in this situation that Iran has currently with this Bush vs. Mullahs thing, it's a good time to show the image. I hope the captioning will be informative and not provocative. It wasn't Iranian people's fault that the hostage crisis happened. It was the government and I want the world to know that it still the same. It's not Iranian people's fault that their dictator government supports terrorism. They are trying their best to overthrow the government. But it's not easy. --Arad 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a news picture, and as such a witness to history. The image itself isn't POV, but it can be interpreted as such, in two ways: 1. As offensive to Iranians, and 2. As offensive to Americans. That's the essence of prejudice, to project the bad behavior of a subgroup onto the group as a whole. I don't think we should reject it based on its sensitive nature, but we should be careful in the way we put it in context. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment & Question As far as pictures portraying racist sentiments go, this one is even worse. My question here is really whether this image presents a historic occasion or is historic by itself. I don't remember this one being used, but then again I was twelve when the hostage affair happened. ~ trialsanderrors 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't even born when it happened. I'm going to bring some Iranians and to get their opinion. --Arad 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Tomer T 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion regarding censorship is silly in my opinion. In the lynching article there is an actual picture of lynching with a teenage boy hanging from a tree. It shows the horror of the situation in a way text could not. In an article on the Iranian hostage situation how can one justify not having a picture showing how some Americans felt during that time? How could anyone interpret this photo as a Wikipedia endorsement of Iranian deportation? The caption should be written carefully so as not to paint all Americans with the sentiments shown in the photo. This situation is not unique on Wikipedia and has been handled many times. I don't understand the furor in this case.Meniscus 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no furor. This is a perfectly valid discussion that should be held before the picture goes up on the front page. Try to be more civil please. ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with trialsanderrors. We're just having a "friendly", not "furor" discussion here about this matter to get a positive result out of it. --Arad 02:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no furor. This is a perfectly valid discussion that should be held before the picture goes up on the front page. Try to be more civil please. ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, for the moment. I like the image a lot and am willing to support it, but I would like to see a solid description (providing that context others have demanded) on the image page before I cast my !vote. A good extended caption is one of the featured picture criteria, and one that we have been letting slide for too long, especially on historical photographs. --ragesoss 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Temporary opposeper ragesoss, I also like to see evidence that this picture is historic. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | Amended, see below. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)- Support original (neutral edit, I think it loses some sharpness, harder to see man's features), nice image of important times. While this even in itself is probably not of great importance the hostage crisis is and this seems to be a good picture. Why? 1) it's from 5 days after the start of the crisis. 2) It's from MST. U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection. Notable even from a notable magazine plus high quality image. It seems to work for me, although knowing more specifics wouldn't hurt. gren グレン 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Obviously its a historic photograph! It is even located in the US govt archives: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/09800/09800r.jpg which if you go here: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/09800/ you will find tons of other historic images from that time period. I don't have time to dig there, but assuredly there is a description somewhere on that website. Furthermore this image is of strong importance (strongly disagree with Grenavitar above) as this is one of the very few clear instances of anti-Iranian racism in the US. Usually in the Diaspora Iranians, mostly due to widespread secular background and easy assimilation into the wider culture, cannot be distinguished from the rest of the populace and thus do not suffer attacks the way has happened with non-secular Muslim Arabs, Indians, and Pakistanis. Even after 9/11, how many reports do we find of racist attacks against Iranians? Most Americans couldn't tell an Iranian if one were staring them in the face, unless the Iranian was dark-skinned or wearing some kind of Islamic dress and then the American would not be thinking "Iranian" but "Muslim" and if he were racist, the American would think something even more ignorant such as "camel jockey." So in that case the bigotry is against the religion, and not the ethnicity since he is unaware and thinks that "Muslim" is a race! And also when Iran has been attacked in recent times, it has not been of a necessarily racist character but against the country and government. So clearly racism against Iranians in the US is a rare phenomenon, and even rarer is masses of Americans calling Iranians "camel jockeys" and demanding that we be deported. For this reason there is no question that the picture is notable and evidence of a rare and ugly historic phenomenon, which unfortunately may resurface due to the ignorants who continue running Iran and give these type of bigots an excuse. Khorshid 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The front page for the collection is here. There are 1.2 million pictures in the collection, donated by U.S. News & World Report, and the fact that the collection is owned by the LoC now doesn't make all of them historical. It's very likely that most of them were never even used. "Historical" in this context means that it is a picture viewers would recognize as an iconic represeentation of that particular event, like Migrant Mother or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. ~ trialsanderrors 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean to say is that the hostage crisis does not have one single iconic image that should be featured as does the Battle of Iwo Jima. The same clearly goes for anti-Iranian sentiment. Not being the important image does not make it unimportant or unfeaturable. (I hadn't read Trial's above when I wrote this) gren グレン 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Obviously historical photograph of great significance, also very troubling and thought-provoking. Definately FP material, and I agree- I detest wiki censorship due to political correctness. --frothT 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify Guys please indicate which version you like the most. The edit or original. Thanks a lot for all the votes. --Arad 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm looking through Google image search to find historicl images of the crisis, and it seems to me these pictures of the crisis are more iconic, at least in the English-speaking media: 1, 2, 3. The question is really if (assuming free licanse and quality photo) we would be prepared to feature picture #1 on the front page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support It would be nice to have a better description though; I wasn't able to find any more information on the LOC site, so I'm not sure more information is available. Basar 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support with caption (edit 1) Excellent photo and extremely historical. As others have said, iconic. I would like to see an extended caption, if possible. On the issue of contect, which I think should not affect its featured status: sure, it depicts American racism, and I think that is reason enough to feature it so that we don't forget the past. --Asiir 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Mardavich 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support It means a lot and deserves promotion.(Edit 1) Sangak Talk 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'll stay out of the whole racism debate. Either way its a great picture that demonstrates an important historic event. RyGuy17 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Switched to Oppose. The picture, which depicts at best a footnote to the Iran hostage crisis, fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. For one, no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the image itself is historic and has even been used in news article. In fact, it doesn't seem to be used at all outside Wikipedia. It elevates a reprehensible response to the crisis to a widespread response without any evidence that this sentiment was held by more than a small minority. (On the more prevalent response to the crisis, see loc.gov). In simple terms, it tries to shift culpability. On the artistic/technical merit, clearly the picture wouldn't even be considered if the sign said "Oppose Measure 16". ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that probably wasn't the most widespread response but it does an excellent job of conveying the extreme tension felt in the united states over the crisis.. there was a lot of fear and hatred flying around --frotht 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but are we documenting this as it was covered by authorative sources or are we creating a reality for ourselves? Looking around on Google image search, I find many striking contemporary images, blindfolded hostages, the ill-fated rescue effort, yellow ribbons, the jubilant return. Between the two policies no censorship and no soapboxing we can only make sure this falls under the former and not the latter by showing that this is a historical relevant photograph or shows a historical relevant scene, as determined by authorative sources. I don't see anything like this here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that probably wasn't the most widespread response but it does an excellent job of conveying the extreme tension felt in the united states over the crisis.. there was a lot of fear and hatred flying around --frotht 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Clearly and obviously notable and deserving of FP status as so many fine contributors here have demonstrated. To above user, please see WP:AGF. Your unfortunate comment comes across as a strongly bad faith and provocative insinuation. Please have some respect for others. metaspheres 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You yourself might want to read the full discussion here before making ill-considered bad faith acusations. I have no doubt that Arad offered the picture in good faith. It still fails both core policies for lack of evidence against the problems I pointed out. ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose-how is this featured quality? Don't get me wrong, it is good though, just not FP qualityPenubag 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Comment. In case anyone's curious you can see the ink on the other side of the sign.. check out the pic --frotht 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - an excellent illustration of the anti-Iranian feeling. Warofdreams talk 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think I'm qualified to weigh-in on the image quality or the historical status of the picture. But I do not believe it's racist to document racism, as long as it's done carefully and the context is clear. In fact, I think it's quite necessary to document it so that it doesn't get whitewashed. I realize I probably haven't put any arguments to rest, I just felt like contributing my two cents on the matter. --Paul 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- support a good illustration of reactionary behavior in America. "ReLease" Americans? I didn't know we could be rented in the first place. Debivort 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- lol. Good one. --Arad 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's actually like that, it's not my mistake but his! --frotht 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah we know. It's pretty a funny mistake. --Arad 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A racist guy holding a sign, not a particularly notable event, and the aesthetics aren't so great either. Spebudmak 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support My support gets stronger day by day. In my opinion it's not necessarily important if the image itself was important at the time it was taken, but just how it portrays a subject matter, like racism and how some people react completely irrationally (because it is irrational to "deport all Iranians", just because of the hostage crisis). -Wutschwlllm 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support i don't think that making this picture a FP means wikipedia supports racism. i'm jewish but if there was a really good picture of a death camp (from WW2) i would support it -Nelro 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent picture. --208.67.142.225 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm suprised to see so many here describing this photo as a depiction of racism. Call it bigotry, prejudice, extremism, nationalism, jingoism, ignorance, xenophobia, isolationism, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc., but it doesn't seem to qualify as racism per se. With respect to all, the sign is rather specific in attacking members of a particular nationality, not a race. Please, no flames - I'm no apologist, but prefer precision in language. It's harder to denounce unethical behavior if we can't properly describe it. -Tobogganoggin talk 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Same thing. Big deal. Prejudice we may call it then? Because Iran is made out of many ethinics, then it is in a way racism. It's racism to Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Parths, etc,etc. and all who live in Iran. That is in my opinion. --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still think we should have a PotD caption before we close this discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Same thing. Big deal. Prejudice we may call it then? Because Iran is made out of many ethinics, then it is in a way racism. It's racism to Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Parths, etc,etc. and all who live in Iran. That is in my opinion. --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
More information required MER-C 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- strong oppose, first I am Iranian and may have some kind of "conflict of interest" here. (me myself don't think so, but I am OK if you uncount my vote). let me frank, I don't see any good reason for seeing this Pic in the first page of Wikipedia; It may be offensive to some people, If you accept that it may be offensive, please stop this voting. regards,--Pejman47 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support Edit#1 Great picture, great imagery, classic. We need such a picture for Wikipedia, especially because of current events. No whitewashing, show the truth. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: im concerned if we promote this, whether people will see Wikipedia as promoting racism and anti-Iranian sentiments. Just a thought however. Ahadland 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Controversial, uncomfortable, and regrettable images bring the most attention to cultural mistakes such as this one. Do not place blinders on society to accommodate the easily offended - one sometimes must to see the needless hate of yesterday to understand the needless hate of today. - --Forzan 04:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. We don't know who this guy is, where the protest was (one might assume it's the Iranian embassy, but it's best not to assume these things), how massive was the protest, how much coverage this guy got, etc. In short, it's lacking a good extended caption that explains the facts around this picture. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who are reading into it and applying their own assumptions. Now I don't think we need a POTD caption per se, just something that gives us more context. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original — This isn't a racist photo; this photo shows racism. There is a huge difference between these two things -- that is why this image gets my support. I've looked for information on this photo or this particular protest, but the closest thing I came across was a Nov 12, 1979 Washington Post article, which I don't have access to. So, I don't know if we'll be able to find the exact location of this protest, but it is really irrelevant, as the purpose of this photo is to illustrate anti-Iranian sentiments during the Iran hostage crisis, not to discuss a particular protest. I also added a couple of different captions, maybe they'll sway you naysayers. ♠ SG →Talk 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Absent evidence that the picture is historic or shows a historic event this is still pushing an angle of the crisis that is, in comparison to others, fairly minor. Pictures of the blindfolded hostages and the downed aircrafts went around the world. This one, from all the silence by the support voters, went nowhere. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The caption is well-done as far as it goes, but reveals the lack of much specific significance for the photo, and much specific knowledge about the photo's context.--ragesoss 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Depicting racism is not a bad thing to do, but as trialsanderrors pointed out there is little evidence that this photo is historically significant. Most political protests have their share of signs written by whackjobs. If we were writers of a newspaper article or a history textbook, we would choose to depict a slogan representing the typical sentiments of the crowd, not the nuttiest slogan in sight. Kla'quot 07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I believe the historical context was indeed very significant. That particular time in history was also important in development of Islamic fundamentalism and it's relationship to the West and America. This picture a great example to show how all of a sudden two allied nations suddenly became enemies --Rayis 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above 8thstar 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original. WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not censored make this fair game for the main page, and Main-Page-ability is not a WP:FP criteria anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Man_holding_sign_during_Iranian_hostage_crisis_protest%2C_1979.JPG +27/-8 Neutral 2 --HadzTalk 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!
Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.
- Reason
- This is a great shot of a bee. The vivid colour of the flower the bee is resting on is dramatic, and reflected nicely in its eyes. The tight focal length on the bee's face gives it a personality that would be lacking in a blander photograph.
- Articles this image appears in
- Eastern carpenter bee
- Creator
- Pollinator
- Nominator
- Hex
- Support — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF is tiny. there's some glare on the eye and the subject is cut off. -Fcb981 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too much of the pic is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too low DOF, subject cut off. --Tewy 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose pretty much exactly per Tewy --frothT 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Shows in great detail the animalPenubag 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Oppose as per Tewy --Benjamint444 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Nelro 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Superb quality svg with very high enc value
- Articles this image appears in
- Eye
- Creator
- Chabacano
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support — Arad 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Now new and improved without the circles around the numbers... ~ trialsanderrors 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great SVG and enc.--HereToHelp 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support A exemplary picture! An attractive and informative composition. A+++ SELLER FAST DELIVERY Jellocube27 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support
ifeither an image map version is made, or a labelled-with-words version is made. (It's a great picture and i'm sure it will pass anyway). I wish I had bought that journal where they'd done a study which showed exactly how much more effectively people learnt when labels were closer to the picture. I also wish I had a word for the "close label effect". —Pengo 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC) - Support. Also, I suggest creating either an "image map version" (first I've heard of this), or simply a second version with English labels instead of numbers. I've never understood the arguments for one or the other: just make both. Stevage 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position above: yes, having a numbered version is equally important :) —Pengo 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The numbers are universal. They will be even more important in a Commons nom.--HereToHelp 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I've gone and filled my own request, and made the image map: Template:Eye diagram (not currently transcluded anywhere). —Pengo 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This image has parts that are not visible on a white background. This might be obvious to people with good monitors when you see the grey checkerboard, but my screen's contrast is pretty crap, So i've made a red backgrounded version to highlight it instead. Umm.. Does anyone else find this odd? (detail especially on the left side of the eye is lost with a white background) —Pengo 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting. Perhaps the white bits could be surrounded with a black outline? Stevage 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please no black outline, but a more neutral color for the background would help, since red is already used in the illustration. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm seeing perfectly those transparent parts on white background. It look great. The quality of this pic is amazing, idk how can it be improved. --Arad 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just checked and those bits are visible when the colours are inversed, so it must just be my old LCD screen. My apologies. —Pengo 08:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm seeing perfectly those transparent parts on white background. It look great. The quality of this pic is amazing, idk how can it be improved. --Arad 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please no black outline, but a more neutral color for the background would help, since red is already used in the illustration. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting. Perhaps the white bits could be surrounded with a black outline? Stevage 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, the image map of this looks amazing! gren グレン 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, looks amazing. --Mardavich 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support see above reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penubag (talk • contribs)
- Conditional Support - It looks great. But I'm not so crazy about the background being the same colour as many elements in the subject. A light cyan might be better, since it really isn't present anywhere else in the image, and is light enough to allow labels to be seen. --Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Also, does SVG support embedded metadata? (I'd be surprised if it didn't , since it's XML-based.) Because I preferred the version with labels. However, if the descriptions for each numbered label were in the metadata, it would make the picture independent of any page it might be embedded in. It's a pet peeve of mine to see images with label descriptions or colour keys that are in the referring page instead of the picture itself (though in this case, having the descriptions in the picture itself would make it too noisy, which is why I'm suggesting the use of metadata). --Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, SVG supports metadata but I don't believe there's a standard way to embed caption information, or at least any standard way to read it back again (someone please, please correct me). There is a standard [way to include href links, but unless Wikipedia begins to support them, or has a way to convert SVG link tags (with CURIEs) into image maps, then, well, it's all just an exercise in futility. Perhaps you'd just like the labels named or given IDs that reflect what they point to. I doubt it would help anyone though. —Pengo 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Eye-diagram no circles border.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a nomination partially to advertise two rich and underused resources: biolib.de , a repository of old, mostly out-of-print biology books, and Otto Wilhelm Thomé's work on German, Austrian and Swiss plants in particular. I picked one that is both attractive and easy to clean up (since most original scans have the common dark edges). There are two versions: I prefer the version with the yellowed, somewhat uneven paper, but there is also an edit with white background. (The original is here.)
- Articles this image appears in
- Pomegranate
- Creator
- Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
- Nominator
- trialsanderrors
- Support — trialsanderrors 07:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Version 1 I like it. Nice and clean, high-resolution, no noise, yada-yada etc. etc. — 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original Tomer T 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Either. This is another pomegranate FP, but it is a photo, so no need to fear overlap.--HereToHelp 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support version 1, sharp clean image.-- Dakota 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original. That is indeed an excellent resource.--ragesoss 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original only. The second one looks anachronistic, since paper was never completely white like that before bleach. Chick Bowen 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- In 1885, paper was (sometimes) plenty white; color like in this "original" (which has been retouched already and may have had an unknown amount of color correction to enhance the red even before trialsanderrors worked on it) would be a combination of aging discoloration and a not-super-white but probably much whiter original color. Still, I mostly agree with you.--ragesoss 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear--yes, the paper will have darkened considerably, but the background of the second picture is, essentially, blank—i.e., not like paper at all. Chick Bowen 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The original of my edit is directly from the biolib source. Looking at their gallery as a whole, they certainly didn't do any editing to their images. Of course the scanner setting might have contributed to the high saturation, but I don't see eveidence that all their images are oversaturated. I agree with Chick that the white background is digital white. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Illustration Punica granatum2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is one of those 'famous' paintings that many people recognize, and as such I thought it would make a good Featured Picture. Of course, before it gets to be an Featured Picture it has to clear this selection process first :)
- Articles this image appears in
- George Washington, History of France, Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, Siege of Yorktown, John Trumbull, United States Capitol rotunda, France, George Washington in the American Revolution
- Creator
- John Trumble
- Nominator
- TomStar81 (Talk)
- Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Historic -Nelro
- Please sign your post using four tildes: ~~~~. Pstuart84 Talk 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It needs to be slightly cropped. Also, what's with the upper right corner? Is that in the original? ~ trialsanderrors 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral A good picture, but it's a bit blurry. Tomer T 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Beautiful painting in high quality
- Articles this image appears in
- Constantin Hansen
- Creator
- Constantin Hansen, was uploaded by Thuresson
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support— Beautifully detailed. I've added an image map so you can click on their faces. Onlytwothree of the subjects don't have Wikipedia articles already. —Pengo 11:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)- Changed to weak support only, due to compression artefacts. —Pengo 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Flawless scan, image maps are great.--HereToHelp 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose There are quite a lot of compression artifacts. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Great! -Nelro
- Oppose I like the picture, but someone needs to put serious effort into improving quality before this is supportable. Both versions have dust particles all over the place. ~ trialsanderrors 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- I looked at the article and saw this picture, which clearly explained and showed in a nice, attractive manner the order the states entered the union. It even shows W.V. and Maine splitting from Virgina and Massachusetts. Having this as a featured piture would compliment the featured list it is in. The Placebo Effect 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- List of U.S. states by date of statehood, United States, U.S. state
- Creator
- User:Astrokey44
- Nominator
- The Placebo Effect
- Support — The Placebo Effect 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support -i think there must be a better way to show Maine becoming a seperate state from Massachusetts -Nelro
Weak oppose- This is a nice and illustrative animation. But no being an American, it would be an useful improvement to show the names of the states when they appear. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- Weak support - Change my vote, the "weak" goes to the grey time scale and the aliased lines - Alvesgaspar 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: I'm terrible at U.S. History, but... is that exactly what each state looked like AS it joined the union? In other words, did any of them change boundaries after they joined? tiZom(2¢) 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The only states that did are virgina, and massachusettes. The Placebo Effect 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nevada changed too -Nelro
- It did, but it changed to the boundries it has now before any other states were added. The Placebo Effect 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- So did Missouri. Texas may have as well, and Kentucky was originally part of Virginia. --Golbez 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I realise it doesnt include the historical borders, it was made after a request on commons:Image talk:US states by date of statehood.PNG --Astrokey44 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- So did Missouri. Texas may have as well, and Kentucky was originally part of Virginia. --Golbez 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- It did, but it changed to the boundries it has now before any other states were added. The Placebo Effect 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I would like to see the name of each state in its location at the "map". Now it's not really understandable for readers who don't know a lot about the U.S., its states and its geography. I think that in its current condition, it is not an attractive picture for most of Wikipedia's visitors. Tomer T 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated it to include the states names. --Astrokey44 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I feel that adding names would clutter this map, and initials wouldn't add much to those without much knowledge about the US.KenBest 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Provisional Support, I would like to see the year in question written in a large font - currently it only really shows the sequence of statehoods, to see what year the state received statehood you have a lot of trouble reading the years on the slider-bar at the bottom.
Witty lama 10:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I tried updating it with the dates before, but the thumbnail image refuses to work. Probably this is because of the larger filesize.. it is now located here --Astrokey44 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Agree with Witty lama. Also, why is the time scale grey (instead of back or dark blue)? By the way, the states names are nice. Alvesgaspar 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- the blue bar might be harder to see if the key was black. im glad you like the names :) --Astrokey44 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support very nicely done. Cat-five - talk 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong opppose the borders are not even attempting to be anti-aliased. Circeus 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- anti-aliasing makes maps harder for other people to edit --Astrokey44 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is it really that likely the date of statehoods will change? The image should look good at full size. It absolutely does not.Circeus 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- anti-aliasing makes maps harder for other people to edit --Astrokey44 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support very encyclopedic, nice job RyGuy17 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support educational and nicely done kstern 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit or original? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Edit. I doesn't hurt to have the dates and states in the image, and it's not detracting, really. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Edit It gets the message across even better. The Placebo Effect 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:US states by date of statehood3.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- A beautiful high resolution phograph that illustrates Earth's atmosphere very well. Some image noise and minor compression artifacts are visible in the dark areas but I don't this is a very big problem.
- Articles this image appears in
- Atmosphere, Earth's atmosphere, Kármán line
- Creator
- NASA
- Nominator
- KFP (talk | contribs)
- Support — KFP (talk | contribs) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support A great shot, very illustrative- although perhaps somewhat uninformative. It is a pity that the sky has so much noise. Also, the horizon is tilted.Jellocube27 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - I'm not sure what this image represents, but it is not for sure the top of the atmosphere, whatever the way we define it (the air density decreases exponentially with height). The "normal" clouds may extend from near the surface to the tropopause (the top of the troposphere), which is about 10 km high. At heights of about 80 km, the top of the stratosphere, the air is barely dense enough to scatter light to a visible degree. However, the atmosphere extends much higher than that, with measurable effects (like the auroras, which may occur at 1000 km). The question is: if, in the present picture, the cloud tops are 10 km high, what is the altitude of that line separating the blue from the black: 20, 30 km? But it is a beatiful image though the quality could be much better. - Alvesgaspar 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The naming of this image as "The Top of the Atmosphere" on NASA's site is apparently based on the Kármán line which "is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space." According to [3], this photograph was taken from an altitude of 335 kilometres. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support Alvesgaspar, see accompanying text at [4]. I like the faint moon in the picture (should be noted in the caption though, at first I thought it might be a reflection). I don't have much problem with the noise or the tilt, but the color gradation gets a bit stripey in the mid-resolution version. ~ trialsanderrors 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment – Using simple geometric reasoning, and based on the apparent curvature of the Earth in the photo, I have made a gross estimation of the scale of the image, which is of the order of 1:300 000 (this is a lower estimation, the true figure might be 1:150 000 or even more). This means that the height above the clouds of that line separating the blue from the black is of the order of 10-20 km (12 km according to my calculations), very far from the Karman line’s 100 km. Anyone interested in making a better estimate? - Alvesgaspar 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see a sourced claim that this is the Kármán line. Are you saying that the image incorrectly presents the gradual color change in the atmosphere, and the fade into blackness should occur at higher altitudes? I don't see any argument in the accompanying text that the atmosphere ends where the picture turns black. We should be careful when writing our captions for the image not to imply this, but for the most part the image visually represents the gradual thinning of the atmosphere. ~ trialsanderrors 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Photographically, it's as good a picture as I've seen of the upper atmosphere. KFP has given us a good overview of the source's information, and it seems to portray the facts well, even if Wikipedia's editors can't agree on what they're seeing (I'll take NASA's word on the altitude over "a gross estimation of the scale of the image.") The composition is excellent, and it relates well to encyclopedic content. -Harmil 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good upper atmosphere picture. - M&NCenarius 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A very nice picture - Booksworm Talk to me! 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Very good -Nelro 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting picture. -Wutschwlllm 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful image. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Top of Atmosphere.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Self-nom. After seeing the happy responses and suggestions for my Canada map (Below) I decided to try it out on the Confederacy. This is much less a 'territorial evolution' map and more an 'animated timeline' but I'll stick with the naming system. ;) I added a days-of-the-month timeline because there are a few months where a large number of events happen. I wonder, should it be there the whole time, or only during busy months? Anyway, let me know what you think. --Golbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Confederate States of America
- Creator
- User:Golbez
- Nominator
- Golbez
- Support — Golbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Very good and informative -Nelro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.46.208 (talk)
- Comment What is the top counter (that goes from 1 to 30) referring to. perhaps you could label it? Witty lama 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Day of the month; since some months, particularly in 1861, had multiple things going on, I figured that was the best way. --Golbez 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Can you put commas in between the day of the month and the year? Neutralitytalk 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question Are the colors based on a cartographic precedent? I have to admit I find them poorly matched and not very telling (for instance USA and CSA could be separated by different color schemes, with different levels of brightness or saturation establishing different levels of incorporation). Also, I don't see the need for the day-of-the-month timeline or the thick line between USA and CSA. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The colors are based on all of the hundreds of maps I've made up to this point, and I haven't yet been shown a better scheme. :) As for 'different levels of incorporation', I'm not quite sure what you mean; like showing how much control the CSA held at a certain time? That would be more of a war timeline, whereas this is more of a political timeline. --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a term I made up on the spot for want of a better one. It roughly means a state in a union is a higher level of incorporation than a territory, so a possible color scheme would be:
- State of the Union
- Territory of the Union
- Independent state
- Territory of the Confederacy
- State of the Confederacy
- It doesn't have to be these exact colors, but it's easy to signal affiliated states by using different color depths. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I might try that out at some point, but for now I like my system. :) though it did get a little out of whack here, I used my normal "disputed" color for the CSA territory. --Golbez 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a term I made up on the spot for want of a better one. It roughly means a state in a union is a higher level of incorporation than a territory, so a possible color scheme would be:
- The colors are based on all of the hundreds of maps I've made up to this point, and I haven't yet been shown a better scheme. :) As for 'different levels of incorporation', I'm not quite sure what you mean; like showing how much control the CSA held at a certain time? That would be more of a war timeline, whereas this is more of a political timeline. --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. In reference to Trialsanderrors. I don't know (care) so much about colors. I think the day of month thing works because there is plenty of room and I can't think of anything more worthwhile. I think the thick line is good because it's claiming to be a national boundary... not just a state boundary. gren グレン 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I haven't looked at this in enough detail to make any criticism of the quality (looks pretty good on first glance) but I don't really think an animated GIF is an ideal way to show this progression. There are simply too many steps and the animation is therefore too long and lacks user control. This would be great as a Flash applet with forward/back controls and a speed slider for the automation. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a Flash implementation for Wikipedia so I can't really suggest a constructive way to make this better - I just think it's too long at present, and too likely that someone would want to go back a frame or two and not be able to. --YFB ¿ 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, as with my other animated timelines I'll eventually make a list article, I simply haven't done that yet. And yeah, this is rather long. And no, I will not be making one for the United States, that animated gif would be over 5 minutes long. =p --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. Is there a way to make it so you click on a little tab with a year and it changes to another (preloaded) image. I know this can be done... but I'm not sure if the code is allowed in Wikipedia. I think that would be ideal (providing there aren't too many years. But, can it be done? gren グレン 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can have a template linking a series of maps, see commons:template:USA territorial evolution --Astrokey44 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, very nicely done, I like how it shows the confederacy separate from seceded states. Although it might be good to also show the borders of the US territories. Also, should Indian Territory (oklahoma) be confederate too as in this map, or at least shown as disputed? I tried doing something similar several months ago made from maps on wikipedia, interestingly with colors like those suggested by trials&errors above and showing part of the war borders. I had previously thought that writing would not work in an animated gif, but it does work very well here. --Astrokey44 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My original version did have the U.S. territories, but there are too many changes in the time period that it distracted from the focus, which was the CSA. --Golbez 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- And that one includes Indian territory, but I specifically omitted that from mine, because even though it started under CSA control, it was never formally annexed or organized by the CSA, unlike Arizona Territory. --Golbez 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My original version did have the U.S. territories, but there are too many changes in the time period that it distracted from the focus, which was the CSA. --Golbez 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very well done animation, shows the image's intention well. The image is very informative with its descriptions and dates. Hello32020 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- weak support very informative, but I would prefer something like the color scheme in the non nominated example. Debivort 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would recoment pending above recomended color scheme (blues and greys); also your "day of the month" bar kind of threw me off (I thought that it was going to be a slide counter, as in "map 1 of 30".) Otherwise, I am totally digging this map, and hope to see your continured involvement with Wikipedia. OverMyHead 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The Canada one does a better job at representing this kind of an animated map. This one here is too cluttered, the day-of-the-month timeline is unintutive and unexplained, and the color scheme is unhelpful and unattractive. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:CSA states evolution.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- High enc value. Good svg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Osmosis Plasmolysis Hypotonic Hypertonic Turgor pressure
- Creator
- LadyofHats
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support — Arad 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Very high quality drawing, but not very exciting. —Pengo 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support We are lucky to have a free license on a diagram that aethetically seems (IMHO) worthy of a quality biology textbook. Spebudmak 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is infact worthy. --Arad 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support This is pretty well done, although I'm not sure why the background is grey and what the significance of the green and yellow arrows is (both easily fixed, I suppose). "Weak" only because I see number of more impressive illustrations on LadyofHats' user page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The arrows indicate the direction water is moving in, but the colors suggest the arrows indicate the movement of two different substances. I will support an image in which the arrows are the same color. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weakly Oppose The yellow arrows indicate the diffusion of water into the cell's vacuole, the green arrows show water diffusion out of the vacuole. This is obvious if you think about it, but not immediately clear. I agree that the quality of the diagram is extremely high; however I do not really think that the image holds enough interest to be featured. -- Ninjakannon 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Really well illustrates Holdridge's life zones, and is visually pleasing.
- Articles this image appears in
- Leslie Holdridge
- Creator
- User:Pengo (self made)
- Nominator
- —Pengo
- Support — —Pengo 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question What are the chances of increasing the text size? Even in full resolution it's barely readable. ~ trialsanderrors 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The numbers down the left and right sides (which I assume you're talking about) appeared larger (or at least clearer) in Inkscape before I uploaded. I'll have a go at fixing them. —Pengo 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The text labels could be bigger too, at least on the sides. I don't see any space constraints. ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've increased the size of most of the text labels now. —Pengo 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The text labels could be bigger too, at least on the sides. I don't see any space constraints. ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The numbers down the left and right sides (which I assume you're talking about) appeared larger (or at least clearer) in Inkscape before I uploaded. I'll have a go at fixing them. —Pengo 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support
ifyou can add to the image page all of the sources you used to create the image (to allow us to verify that it is factually correct). It'd also be nice if you could say what you used to make it... but, that isn't as necessary. gren グレン 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)- It was created entirely in Inkscape. It's an amalgamation of various sources. See the image page for links to 7 web-based sources and 2 textbooks referenced (Sorry, they weren't linked from the old image page). Textbook of Biodiversity can be viewed through google books, but the other book (Ecology) was my main reference point and AFAIK is only available hardcopy. The colours used are my own. —Pengo 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't so interesting in checking the sources myself, hah, but... I've just noticed people forget to source diagrams. I'd just looked at the old version it seems. Great job :) --gren グレン 03:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was created entirely in Inkscape. It's an amalgamation of various sources. See the image page for links to 7 web-based sources and 2 textbooks referenced (Sorry, they weren't linked from the old image page). Textbook of Biodiversity can be viewed through google books, but the other book (Ecology) was my main reference point and AFAIK is only available hardcopy. The colours used are my own. —Pengo 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question - Why are the life zones hexagon shaped instead of triangular, which would be the natural thing to do? Alvesgaspar 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't invent this diagram, I based it on existing diagrams, so I can only give a best guess. A hexagon better approximates a circle than would triangles or diamonds. E.g. a dry forest is has 500 to 1000mm precipitation (actually to 2000mm) and an evavotranspiration ratio between 1 and 2, which would fill a diamond on this diagram. However at the extremes of these parameters it might start to be considered a steppe or a very dry forest, so the hexagon better approximates this, while still giving rigid boundaries without gaps. —Pengo 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's why bees use hexagons in their honeycombs: they are the regular polygon with the most sides that still tessellates.--HereToHelp 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support v2 v3 Enc, SVG, larger labels visible in preview (important since many people don't have the ability to read SVGs).--HereToHelp 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak support edit Overall it is fairly well done and informative. It isn't remarkably striking, but it is probably about as interesting an image you can get with the subject matter. The use of color helps, and the shapes are dynamic. Isn't that useful in a thumbnail because labels are hard to see, but the edit helps the preview be more readable. SVG is a plus so it can easily be translated, edited, and updated by others.-Andrew c 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support if the alpine, subalpine, etc. labels are also increased in size. They're still barely readable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair call. Done (v3). —Pengo 12:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: image map is here: User:Pengo/zone (not yet in any articles) —Pengo 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Lifezones_Pengo.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very attractive photograph of the waterfall
- Articles this image appears in
- Vernal Fall
- Creator
- God of War (talk)
- Nominator
- MattWright (talk)
- Support — MattWright (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually like the asthetics of this picture, but I wonder if it might have too much noise in the sky. I would make a decision after seeing the opinion of a more capable user. JHMM13 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -great picture. the rainbow is really nice -Nelro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.137.170 (talk • contribs)
- You need to log in and use our tildes: ~~~~ to sign your comments. ~ trialsanderrors 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the rainbow is actually lensflair. :-D --Arad 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was there, the rainbow was quite real. That's why I took the picture.--God Ω War 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was joking. It's because of an earlier nomination which had a lensflair "rainbow". --Arad 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry - that was my idea, I feel stupid about that now. Mrug2 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why you feel stupid? Because of the rainbow? If i miss directed you, my apologies. --Arad 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was there, the rainbow was quite real. That's why I took the picture.--God Ω War 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Harsh shadows everywhere, grain in the sky, and it's nowhere near as sharp as it could be at that resolution --frothT 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a very artistic shot however could be more ENC. The focus and noise in the sky distract me more than the dark shadows. -Fcb981 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - Mrug2 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - M&NCenarius 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Photo IS of high quality. the shadows are NOT that harsh, and the shadowing ads emphesis onto the colour of the rainbow. The waterfall behind is quite beautiful and SHARP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syberwolff (talk • contribs).
Promoted Image:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a high quality scan of Ernst Haeckel's arachnid illustrations from Kunstformen der Natur. I think it illustrates the article arachnid very well.
- Articles this image appears in
- Arachnid, Kunstformen der Natur
- Creator
- Ernst Haeckel
- Nominator
- KFP (talk | contribs)
- Support, with preference for edited version. — KFP (talk | contribs) 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great illustration, flawless scan, but why are the links to the species (even on the talk page) all red?--HereToHelp 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because no one's written the articles yet. Not surprising considering there are some 70,000 named species. Mgiganteus1 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know red links mean a nonexistent article...but with that many species, I might be able to forgive that.--HereToHelp 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it's Haeckel-time again?! I'll support as soon as the species on the pic got articles. Otherwise it's more like eye candy. Oppose. --Dschwen 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it illustrates arachnid right? This seems like asking a panorama of New York city to link to articles of every building visible, not just the article on the city... Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder why you chose that example :-), as I happen to have an example for just that (but maybe you knew that...). Granted, its not every building, but the notable ones (better than none at all...) --Dschwen 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Haha no, that was a coincidence. That said, I think that image would have perfectly illustrated New York, without any blue links to the buildings - of course it's better with them though. Debivort 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support The picture is attractive and highly informative. That we have no articles on the species is the (very understandable) fault of article-writers. 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - it illustrates arachnid just as well as any one of the species. Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - What is this, the fourth Haeckel print to be nominated? Well, if it ain't broke... RyGuy17 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is I believe the 9th to be nominated, and looks like it will be the 7th promoted.--ragesoss 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Haeckel rocks. Witty lama 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Needs to be cleaned up a little bit around the edges though. ~ trialsanderrors 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderfully illustrated, very nice Anchorage 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could the borders which enter and leave the frame be cropped out? Leon 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to do, since some of the arachnids already touch the borders of the image. It might be possible to airbrush them out though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done, see edit. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to do, since some of the arachnids already touch the borders of the image. It might be possible to airbrush them out though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - These ones are always good. Also the red links link to Commons articles, not Wikipedia. It is very unlikely that we are going to have pictures on every one of those species, even if an article was written. Chris_huhtalk 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's possible that we do have articles on some of these spiders, just that the scientific names have changed since this plate was drawn. That's often the case with Haeckel's drawings. It can be very difficult to track down the new names just using the web (i've done so with a few of his drawings before). For example spider #1 (Tegeocranus hericins) gets only 3 hits on Google, all somewhat based on this image's description page. Not hugely helpful. Anyone who wants to have a go finding new scientific names or common names is welcome. —Pengo 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Supportedit by Trialsanderrors, nice visual image.-- – Dakota 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit, which should be uploaded over the original.--ragesoss 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems a little overbrightened to me (the numbers and the lines that should be close to black are a pretty light grey), but it's something of a matter of taste... and an improvement, in any case. By the way, I can provide something closer to the original scan if it will help (before I fiddled with it in Picasa).--ragesoss 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well technically the colored areas should not be affected (I spent about an hour creating a mask for this yesterday), but I toned it down a bit. I guess those darkened borders have a certain nostalgic appeal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems a little overbrightened to me (the numbers and the lines that should be close to black are a pretty light grey), but it's something of a matter of taste... and an improvement, in any case. By the way, I can provide something closer to the original scan if it will help (before I fiddled with it in Picasa).--ragesoss 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What's the hangup with this one? I could upload my edit over ragesoss's original if that solves the deadlock, since he already ok'ed it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg (edit uploaded over original) --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Older nominations requiring additional input from voters
These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.
- Reason
- Captures the magnitude of the Las Vegas strip
- Articles this image appears in
- Las Vegas Strip
- Creator
- Matthew Field
- Nominator
- Mfield
- Support — Mfield 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Very cool picture, but I feel like I'm seeing double on the far right side, there seem to be some doubles of buildings. Also, in the center there are two bright green spots in the sky which I can't account for. The are a couple other lines which I can't understand where they're coming from. I don't know whether these are due to stitching errors or what, but I wonder whether it's possible to fix them? Or at least minimize the doubling effect on the right side? It's an awesome picture in any case, just thought I'd ask though. Mak (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They are not stitching errors, they are actually reflections. The only way to get this shot is to take it from inside the Bellagio which necessitates taking it from behind a non opening dual paned window. This led to some slight reflections at the right hand end where the camera was at a very oblique angle to the glass for the extreme right shots. For photographic purposes I would crop the panorama down to remove any reflections but I decided to leave the shot with them in as for encyclopedia purposes I felt it was more useful to include the Project City Center construction on the right. Mfield 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, then the other random lights are probably also reflections, and are probably pretty inevitable. Support. Mak (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice. -Bluedog423Talk 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Great scene, but I'm afraid the reflections everywhere really kill it. Has anyone noticed a pair of blue lights, repeated about ten times across the whole length of the sky? Mrug2 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)- Comment Ah, I see them - hot pixels, I'll remove them and replace it Mfield 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Removed hot pixels and some reflections and replaced image. Mfield 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very good panorama -Nelro
- Support New original - Great panorama sans the hot pixels. --antilivedT | C | G 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Several minor issues. The color balance might be a tiny bit off towards too much yellow. I'd like to see the pano extended at the bottom. And there is that duplication effect from shooting through glass. Everything is doubled. The New York casino suddenly is the New York, New York Casino. --Dschwen 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- At this point I feel I should start spreading the news that it is indeed the New York-New York Hotel & Casino--Melburnian 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, that is of course how it is - thanks for pointing that out to people :) Mfield 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm yeah, as my edit summary stated, it probably was a little too subtle ;-) --Dschwen 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- At this point I feel I should start spreading the news that it is indeed the New York-New York Hotel & Casino--Melburnian 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is an odd halo effect around the blue dome near the center.. also there are still several hot pixels. Other than that, absolute rubbish just like the rest of your photos ;) heheh drumguy8800 C T 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Edit 1-But I still see hot pixels. And there are a few bleu dots in the sky. They look wierd. What are they?--Arad 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info Edit 1 - removed all hot pixels and the halo around the bleu dome and Eiffel tower of Paris Hotel. --Arad 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support new Original - Good job really. Amazing photo now. The edit 2 isn't much different. So I support both. --Arad 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 - I really like it now. Well done, Arad. Mrug2 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. You've got a really nice user page too ;-) --Arad 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose both I know it might seem odd for me to be opposing a picture I took, but I've just looked at it properly and realized how embarassingly badly the verticals are aligned and what a mess I made of something in the PP process which made it hazy. I am rebuilding it from scratch right now and I will replace my original so I am opposing both edits in the mean time. Mfield 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)- Oppose Edit 1 - have replaced original with complete restitch, now is vastly improved over all previous edits. Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - new version of original Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose edit1, weak support new original. Great job on the verticals, and I very much prefer the new version in terms of contrast/exposure correction. --Dschwen 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It looks as if the new origenal and edit arn't being voted on. Should it be renominated or something so that conscensus can form. -Fcb981 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Edit 1" or "New original"? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 ("new original") This one is far better than the first two. -- Sturgeonman 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't quite follow this "new original" stuff, so I'll just support which ever one is agreed upon by the community. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to get us much of anywhere…--HereToHelp 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support New Original --Arad 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 Ill support my oun edit as it now has some other support and I think it balances the image in terms of brightness better than the new original. -Fcb981 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support New Original Fcb981's edit is good, but it leaves an awful green glare at the left side of the MGM Grand building. Arad's edit leaves the image kind of muddy (looks like smog) with washed out colors, and it isn't as clear. --Mad Max 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Las_Vegas_Strip_panorama.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
A short interlude between insect noms :-) Quite a dramatic skyline of relatively uncommon clouds.
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Although the size of the right side forground black is on the big size I see no other problems with the picture. Keep up the good work. -Fcb981 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the contrast between the grayish white sky to the pitch black objects on the ground. The cloud looks surreal. However, I believe the alternative is better used for the article about the Mammatus clouds since only that certain cloud is featured while the original have maybe two or more other clouds. I might be wrong however.--BirdKr 13:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Full panorama. Very striking, and I agree that the contrast looks very nice. --Havocrazy 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- question -were the clouds at the bottom part of the sky really that dark? they are very very inky (for clouds). Debivort 08:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- My interpretation of the image is that it's raining in the distance where the clouds are so dark. This is an effect which is best seen in the plains (and which I hadn't seen clearly myself until I visited the desert in southern Idaho). Mak (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen mammatus clouds before several times, but never with such high contrast between their light and dark regions, but if you can verify it... Debivort 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies for late reponse, the clouds were an excellent example and had very good definition. With a polarizer and correct exposure values the captured image was pretty close to this. Not saying that I didn't use some contrasting to enhance the visibility of the clouds, but I don't feel that this detracts from the image at all. --Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, you need a description, etc. gren グレン 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support with better caption.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Conditional support originalSomeone get the cloud experts in to add a description. Also, you should stick to the template for creating FPC nominations. The "articles this picture appears in" info is missing. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)- As discussed when the new template generator thingy came in, it was by no means consensus to use it. Adding the "articles this picture appears on" is not a requirement and is rather ridiculous, as no one should judge the image on the thumbnail on WP:FPC, but should go to the image page, where interested users can easily see the File Links section. --Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not if someone removes the picture from the article while it's under discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't look like a better caption is forthcoming. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- As discussed when the new template generator thingy came in, it was by no means consensus to use it. Adding the "articles this picture appears on" is not a requirement and is rather ridiculous, as no one should judge the image on the thumbnail on WP:FPC, but should go to the image page, where interested users can easily see the File Links section. --Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- What more do you want from a caption? It states what it is and where it was taken - any more and that's what the article is for! As a side note I notice you're supporting the arachnid nom above this which has a total of 1 extra word (number actually) in it's caption than this. But oh well if you really want something bigger. But may I remind you this is WP Featured Picture Candidates, not caption candidates and the primary focus of this page is identifying the best images not the best captions. All the caption on this page should have is what would be necessary in an article where it is placed. And in this case it is silly to restate what the article says like the caption on the Tawny Owl nomination. I think when I get a chance I'll go into this with more depth on the talk page, but for now I've tacked on a little bit from the article to accommodate your demands. --Fir0002 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason to be come truculent. I see four editors here who have asked for a better description, and jfwiw, a good caption is part of the FP criteria, so the objection is perfectly valid. Oh and btw, the top quarter of the picture needs to be cropped. ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- What more do you want from a caption? It states what it is and where it was taken - any more and that's what the article is for! As a side note I notice you're supporting the arachnid nom above this which has a total of 1 extra word (number actually) in it's caption than this. But oh well if you really want something bigger. But may I remind you this is WP Featured Picture Candidates, not caption candidates and the primary focus of this page is identifying the best images not the best captions. All the caption on this page should have is what would be necessary in an article where it is placed. And in this case it is silly to restate what the article says like the caption on the Tawny Owl nomination. I think when I get a chance I'll go into this with more depth on the talk page, but for now I've tacked on a little bit from the article to accommodate your demands. --Fir0002 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original Tomer T 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose by questions went unaddressed.Debivort 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I don't find the subject particularly mind-blowing and the whitebalance is uneven across the picture, causing a slightly visibly stitching seam. --Dschwen 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this picture could be promoted if it had a better caption. Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support either. Move my vote if it's in the wrong place. The caption is fine, because as Fir said, any more would be reinstating the article. I agree with BirdKr in that the alternate would be better to describe the article, but the original provides some perspective. --Tewy 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's what captions do. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but not for the purpose of promoting an image or not. I think as long as the caption on the nomination page says what's unique about the image, or otherwise details the image itself, the POTD caption can supplement the nomination caption with information from the article. But not promoting an image because it doesn't have a full POTD caption doesn't seem like a good reason to me. --Tewy 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's a very good reason, because it shifts the burden of writing the POTD caption from the scheduler to the nominator. If you want your picture promoted it's perfectly fair to request that you also provide the context in which it will be presented on the front page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but not for the purpose of promoting an image or not. I think as long as the caption on the nomination page says what's unique about the image, or otherwise details the image itself, the POTD caption can supplement the nomination caption with information from the article. But not promoting an image because it doesn't have a full POTD caption doesn't seem like a good reason to me. --Tewy 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's what captions do. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original only, very nice image. No problem with the caption. ~ Arjun 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original But since some people are rather particular recently, I guess an extended caption would be appropriate..... -Wutschwlllm 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Bézier curve
- Creator
- Philip Tregoning (User:Twirlip)
- Nominator
- frothT
- Support anything but the combined version.
Not sure how this would work; maybe feature all of them as a set and link to the others on each description page?— frothT 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) - Support. You learn quite a lot by looking at the pictures. enochlau (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support all in one or trialsanderrors' arrangement Very informative, maybe combine them into one big diagram or hve 4 FPs from 1 FPC nom? --antilivedT | C | G 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support No idea WTF it is but one word sweet Voshvoshka 05:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support I'd say combine into a single animation. Why not? Debivort 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support - if we can get this into one image - needs to function as PotD on the front page, some day. (The linear version could be left out... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I say use just the quadratic on the front page and have it as a set.. I'll find/design the set template after classes today (or during classes if I get bored :P) --frothT 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- How did we end up doing that fractal series a couple months ago? Debivort 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, but that's exactly what I was thinking of --frothT 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is how Raven4x4x handled it. tiZom(2¢) 02:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I support the full nomination as-is (all 4 separately as a set). :o) tiZom(2¢) 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the fractals haven't shown up as POTD yet. howcheng {chat} 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess when the fractals go up we can do something like the thumbnail of the outermost image, the caption, and a "Click here to view the series" like the animation link. Then we can do the same thing for the beziers: have a frame of one of the animations (quadratic probably, maybe around t=.55?), the caption, and "Click here to view the series". --frothT 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the fractals haven't shown up as POTD yet. howcheng {chat} 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, but that's exactly what I was thinking of --frothT 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- How did we end up doing that fractal series a couple months ago? Debivort 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I say use just the quadratic on the front page and have it as a set.. I'll find/design the set template after classes today (or during classes if I get bored :P) --frothT 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support - Definitely. So that's how it's done! Perhaps just pic. 3 or 4 on its own, perhaps the last three combined? Mrug2 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- while #3 is pretty straightforward, I think #2 is essential also. Debivort 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support and Comment, I don't have the technology but I'd like to see one gif that is a 2x2 rectangle with time synced (putting "linear" on it's side and adding white space where needed so all four exemplars are the same dimensions). Can someone make something like this? --Cody.Pope 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe have 5 sets of identical points and apply each degree of bézier curve to each of them (ie. linear for the first, which would be sharp zig zag lines, etc.)? --antilivedT | C | G 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support These make quite interesting animations that aren't half as scary as the maths that goes with them. I think Antilived's idea that they should all have five points in a set pattern and then apply the different degree of curve to them would be good, perhaps should avoid too many right angles though. Terri G 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Holy cow, THIS is how Bezier curves work? I've always been confounded by these things, and here we are, a single animation that explains it all. Brilliant! --Golbez 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. You know, I've never had a problem using Bezier curves in Illustrator in Inkscape ... all the article did was make it a lot more confusing. :) howcheng {chat} 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support, holy crap this is one of the most intuitively informative images I've seen on wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support cubic. Quartic is slightly too complicated to follow, and also fairly uncommon. Quadratic is too simple. ed g2s • talk 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Uncommon? I thought that beziers were usually on the order of dozens of degrees for like edge tracing/smoothing, and that these were just for demonstration of how it works. Also, multiple degrees are important to show how the algorithm scales- otherwise it wouldn't be so "intuitively informative" so we shouldn't just feature one of them. And I have no trouble at all tracking quartic, although the one after the one after quartic is a little disorienting --frothT 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support all, but would it be possible to make them all the same size so they can be presented as a set? ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. I agree with Janke that the set should be fitted in a single image. Also, a little more attention should be given to the details, like the position (not over the lines, please) and size of the labels, and the thickness of the lines, which should be consistent in all images. It is a nice and quite clear animation but can be improved. Alvesgaspar 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- The size of the labels and thinkness of the lines are consistent in each one.. --frothT 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very cool. I like Antilived's idea (as much as I can understand it, which isn't much), and the Mendelbrot set is procedure should be used as a precedent.--HereToHelp 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, Strong support all-in-one version — I can see right now that my vote isn't going to change the outcome of this candidacy, but I think these images, even as animations, are FAR too small. We need higher resolution animations. Image:Bezier linear anim.gif would be a record for the smallest FP ever by a long shot. These are excellent animations, but they are incredibly tiny. ♠ SG →Talk 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- But do you actually gain any more information from a higher resolution image? These images could well have infinite spatial and temporal resolution with up and coming stuffs like svg animation but is it absolutely neccessary for them to be a few megabytes big just to have more than 1k pixels for one side? --antilivedT | C | G 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- If possible, svg animations would be really cool. It also means that the stills in the article could be vectorized. Still, there's nothing wrong with the rasters.--HereToHelp 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- SVG animation is supported in the standard but firefox and IE won't render it --frothT 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- If possible, svg animations would be really cool. It also means that the stills in the article could be vectorized. Still, there's nothing wrong with the rasters.--HereToHelp 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent work on the new version! Not only were all of the animations added into one, but they were also made much larger than previously. As it stands, I would prefer that THAT particular image gain featured picture status, while the other versions (though I'd still like to see them larger) remain to be used in the article as they are and be linked to from the all-in-one version's description page. ♠ SG →Talk 03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. Glad you all (well most of you:) liked my animations. I actually created them for another web page (that has never seen the light of day), and then uploaded them to wikipedia/wikicommons later. They were created using a rather hairy Bash script that outputs another script that invokes ImageMagick to create the GIFs and PNGs. I can resize, change colours, move the points around etc. pretty easily. About the only thing I can't do is increase the number of frames in the animations by much, because then the argument list gets too long! I think most complaints were about the size of the images and that they are different sizes. I created them for the Bezier Curve wiki page and not to a be Featured Picture, so I was trying to keep file sizes a small as possible while still getting the point across. I'll knock together another version, addressing these points. Oh, and if anyone wants the Bash script, they're welcome to it. --Twirlip 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- You should put it on the talk page for the images. It's great when we get not only great diagrams, but source code for them too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here's an image of 1st to fourth order curves. They don't work very well any bigger than this without increasing the number of frames in the animation, which I have problems with. I tried to keep this image true to to the ones on the Bezier Curve page, because that's what it's showcasing. Bash script on its way tomorrow... --Twirlip 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the all in one. It's too busy and confusing. Just making four images of the same width would clean it up fine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I'd much rather have separate ones of the same width. Combining the images would be highly unusual and quite unnecessary. Great work twirl, keep it up
- I've now put up some slightly bigger images an the originals (about the same size as they are in the combined image), and made them the all the same dimensions. Hopefully they'll make their way over from the commons soon... --Twirlip 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I'd much rather have separate ones of the same width. Combining the images would be highly unusual and quite unnecessary. Great work twirl, keep it up
- I don't like the all in one. It's too busy and confusing. Just making four images of the same width would clean it up fine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here's an image of 1st to fourth order curves. They don't work very well any bigger than this without increasing the number of frames in the animation, which I have problems with. I tried to keep this image true to to the ones on the Bezier Curve page, because that's what it's showcasing. Bash script on its way tomorrow... --Twirlip 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- You should put it on the talk page for the images. It's great when we get not only great diagrams, but source code for them too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
--frothT 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support I always wondered what the distinction was between these different types? I once bought S/N 000136 of the very first Adobe Illustrator a long time ago (bezier curves). Now I know how the others work. Very nice! Greg L 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, Support — While the images are very pretty, I don't think they're very effective at giving an intuitive idea of how a Bezier curve is constructed. The intermediate line segments don't seem to add anything of substance to the pictures - they don't seem to add any information. And the article doesn't give a good explanation of their purpose either. Take the quadratic case, for instance: I can choose a point P1-prime, distinct from and further out from the original P1, and arrange it so that the green line segment is tangential to the red Bezier curve for every intermediate state in that case as well. So, by this sort of geometric illustration, nothing about P1 uniquely defines the curve - two distinct points P1 can define the same curve. There needs to be more information in the picture; for instance, what determines the point along the green segment where it's tangential to the curve? --Paul 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)- I can see an argument that given three points P0, P1, P2, the Bézier curve needs to be uniquely defined, but how does that translate into an argument that that curve has to be distinct from one defined by P0', P1, P2? Also, the location of the tangent point on the green line is quite obviously defined by t. I don't even need to description to see that. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your first question: it doesn't. You're right, and I didn't articulate my point quite as well as I would've liked to. I was only trying to state the first part of your question: that given three points (...), the Bézier curve needs to be uniquely defined. But I don't think that's illustrated very well with the graphical technique used. The information that seems to be missing are the visual factors determining the enpoints, Q1 and Q2, of the green line segment. Without that info, the choice of Q1 and Q2 seems to be arbitrary for any particluar value of the parameter t, and we could trace-out any curve at all in the absence of this info. But then, maybe I'm splitting hairs here. After all, the position of (for instance) Q1 along the line segment P1-P2 would be decided by another parametric equation that's almost a projection of the original, and that would be difficult to illustrate in a more intuitive fashion. Perhaps the most important aspects of this have been successfully demonstrated intuitively, and I'm just trying to hash-out the details for myself. --Paul 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, that would be P0, P1, P2, not P1, P2, P3 (have another look at the diagram for the quadratic case). Perhaps that caused some of the confusion? --Paul 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Labeling fixed, thanks. The endpoints of the green line are defined in the same way as the pencil point on the green line, it moves from Q1 to Q2 at linear speed (i.e. it replicates the movement of the linear Bézier). That's the same principle that governs every single movement of a point along a line in all versions. I see nothing arbitrary about this. Simplified, if the starting point is 0 and the endpoint is 1, the position of the moving point at time t is t. (To make it clear, I don't have any prior knowledge of Béziers nor did I read the article in detail. The algorithm is perfectly simple and obvious from looking at the animation.) ~ trialsanderrors 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I totally missed the fact of all the motion being linear / constant-speed. *smacks forehead* (and yes, it's very obvious in retrospect) --Paul 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Labeling fixed, thanks. The endpoints of the green line are defined in the same way as the pencil point on the green line, it moves from Q1 to Q2 at linear speed (i.e. it replicates the movement of the linear Bézier). That's the same principle that governs every single movement of a point along a line in all versions. I see nothing arbitrary about this. Simplified, if the starting point is 0 and the endpoint is 1, the position of the moving point at time t is t. (To make it clear, I don't have any prior knowledge of Béziers nor did I read the article in detail. The algorithm is perfectly simple and obvious from looking at the animation.) ~ trialsanderrors 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- The actual algorithm for computing a bezier curve doesn't have to involve tangency. Take the quadratic one for example. The bezier curve is defined by the a point moving through space. This point is the midpoint of the green line. As time goes by, the endpoints of the green line go from P0 to P1 and from P1 to P2 respectively, at a rate of distance/time. For higher degrees of curve, P0 P1 and P2 aren't defined by the grey lines anymore- they're defined by a chain of parent functions that go all the way up to the grey lines through the same algorithm. So these intermediate line segments show how Bezier curves are algorithmically constructed, although mathematically the curve can still be expressed by
- I can see an argument that given three points P0, P1, P2, the Bézier curve needs to be uniquely defined, but how does that translate into an argument that that curve has to be distinct from one defined by P0', P1, P2? Also, the location of the tangent point on the green line is quite obviously defined by t. I don't even need to description to see that. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- --frothT 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the midpoint of the green line, the black dot (i.e., the "pencil") moves along the green line governed by the value of t. At t = 0, it's at the start of the green line, at t = 1, it's at the end. I haven't looked at the maths involved, but from eyeballing it's very plausible that it's always a tangent point. ~ trialsanderrors 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes of course. I don't know what I was thinking --frothT 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the midpoint of the green line, the black dot (i.e., the "pencil") moves along the green line governed by the value of t. At t = 0, it's at the start of the green line, at t = 1, it's at the end. I haven't looked at the maths involved, but from eyeballing it's very plausible that it's always a tangent point. ~ trialsanderrors 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've rescinded my original opposition. I think this does a damn good job at illustrating and giving an intuitive feel for how a bezier curve is constructed, in the ways that matter most. My initial objection was too pedantic. --Paul 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- --frothT 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support The all in one version. How exactly are votes going to be tallied, since it isn't really clear which of the several versions some people are voting for?--Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support all Tomer T 22:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
1. | 2. |
3. | 4. |
Bézier curves: 1. linear; 2. quadratic; 3. cubic; 4. quartic. |
Yep, exactly. More input required... MER-C 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- support any solution. It might be good to outline the front-running possibilities though. Debivort 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support, per my original vote, also, I'm comfy with any consensus choice. The combo image needs a little tweaking, the Po is touching the line in the first image. Having seen the combo, I really think the Quartic would be best as FP, with links to the others. --Janke | Talk 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- More comments: The combo above looks good, but the animations are not synchronized - but I don't know if that really matters. The linear could be drawn out a little, to fill the empty space in the upper left quadrant. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- They appear synchronized to me. Maybe it's your browser --frothT 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- They can be asynchronous the first time you download the page, since animated gifs start immediately after downloading. The second time the files are already in your browser cache, so they should start synchronously. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- They appear synchronized to me. Maybe it's your browser --frothT 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- More comments: The combo above looks good, but the animations are not synchronized - but I don't know if that really matters. The linear could be drawn out a little, to fill the empty space in the upper left quadrant. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Support combined version. Noclip 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support trialsanderrors version. Noclip 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I arranged the new versions in a table and Support that arrangement. ~ trialsanderrors 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support the same-sized but separate images. Feature them all. --frothT 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Please don't put the label "P1" over the segment - Alvesgaspar 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support "All together now" version, wow, I am learning. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose set, per my comment above - Alvesgaspar 13:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I support the combined image.--Paul 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Q So is this going to be our first featured set? ~ trialsanderrors 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, look at the description on this page --frotht 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- See the discussion and the new template on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, look at the description on this page --frotht 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still support cubic. Higher order curves a rarely used. "Quadratic and cubic Bézier curves are most common; higher degree curves are more expensive to evaluate. When more complex shapes are needed, low order Bézier curves are patched together." ed g2s • talk 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a set, the images are not used together in the article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support the all-in-one version. Very, very nice. And what an excellent visualization. We need a lot more images like this. --Cyde Weys 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The article where these images appear, Bézier curve, would probably have to be refactored if the combined version was promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support. My preference is for the four curves to be promoted as a set but kept as separate images. One can be selected as representative of the set when it comes to Main Page appearances etc. Pstuart84 Talk 15:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Promoted as a set, with Image:Bézier 3 big.gif as main image. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Closing procedure
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the October archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions. If any of those images were on Commons, be sure to tag the description pages with {{missing image}}.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
- Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the October archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 10 are listed at all times
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on right and remove the oldest from the left so that there are always three in each section.
- NOTE: Because animated GIFs usually cannot be resized properly, do not add them to this page.
- Don't forget to update the count too.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on bottom
- The caption should for a Wikipedian should read "Description at Article, by Photographer". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the photographer (or organization) does not have an article, use an external link. Additionally, the description is optional -- if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Photographer". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
- Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture|''Image name''}} (the "Image name" parameter will link back to the FPC discussion), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- If an alternate version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
Nomination for delisting
Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. Please leave a note on the original uploader and/or nominator's talk page to let him know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. Please use the tool below to nominate for delisting.
- Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.
- If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
{{*If consensus is to remove status then replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag }}with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|discussion page}} (replace "discussion page" with the name of the discussion page), also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Don't forget to decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures too.
- Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
- Reason
- This image is no longer used in an article. It formerly appeared at Madrid Metro but has been superseded by Image:Red de metro de Madrid.svg.
- Nominator
- KFP (talk | contribs)
- Delist — KFP (talk | contribs) 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an unusual situation because it had a special en bloc nomination with all of my metro maps. If I had to be absolutely honest, I prefer my version to the one currently in the article. - Montréalais 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now I also prefer this version to the new SVG, maybe have a SVG version of this and replace the currently used one? --antilivedT | C | G 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Replaceand Q, is this a replacement nomination/ And if yes, shouldn't it be among the normal promotion nominations? ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)- Well, I didn't intend this to be a replacement nom as the SVG has some problems that would have to be fixed first. One such problem is that the background color for the lower left corner is different from the background for the rest of image. The SVG version includes some information that is not in the PNG, the "La Elipa" station on line 2 for example. There is also a third map, Image:Madrid Metro 2003-2006.svg, that includes planned extensions (thumbnail and preview versions of this image are currently not working, it seems). --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- If someone would tell me how to create an SVG version from a Photoshop vector image, I'd be happy to do so, or to send my version to someone who can do so for me. - Montréalais 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated my version (Arganzuela, La Peseta, La Elipa, Alameda de Osuna, Aviación Española). - Montréalais 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- And line 1 to Chamartín. - Montréalais 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- And Pinar de Chamartín. God, if only we could build metro anywhere near this fast.
- And line 1 to Chamartín. - Montréalais 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated my version (Arganzuela, La Peseta, La Elipa, Alameda de Osuna, Aviación Española). - Montréalais 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, then let's get the svg version up to speed and replace this one. Otoh, if this was part of a specual en-bloc nomination maybe it belongs to a "featured set" under the new proposed definition? ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, Madrid Metro 2003-2006.svg appears to be based on a ripped-off official map. - Montréalais 06:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- If someone would tell me how to create an SVG version from a Photoshop vector image, I'd be happy to do so, or to send my version to someone who can do so for me. - Montréalais 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't intend this to be a replacement nom as the SVG has some problems that would have to be fixed first. One such problem is that the background color for the lower left corner is different from the background for the rest of image. The SVG version includes some information that is not in the PNG, the "La Elipa" station on line 2 for example. There is also a third map, Image:Madrid Metro 2003-2006.svg, that includes planned extensions (thumbnail and preview versions of this image are currently not working, it seems). --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – original is much better than newer map (though the garish blue and red “Metro de Madrid” lettering at the bottom is pretty awful). --jacobolus (t) 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Kept MER-C 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Suspended nominations
This section is for Featured Picture candidatures whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.
- Reason
- I think this photograph of Matti Vanhanen, the prime minister of Finland, illustrates the article well. While the WOW!! factor may not be very high, the image does have encyclopedic value and the composition and technical quality are also quite good.
- Articles this image appears in
- Matti Vanhanen
- Creator
- G8
- Nominator
- KFP (talk | contribs)
- Support — KFP (talk | contribs) 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support I completely agree with the nominator on this. Very enc, however I am going weak do to the (as the nom said) weak Wow!! factor. ~ Arjun 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Why not? Per nom. --Tewy 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - There are some technical faults, but for an non-posed portrait, its pretty good. —Dgiest c 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak SupportChanged to Neutral - Also, why the wrinkles on his face look so wierd? They look more like compression artifacts. |:-D (My Middle Eastern smiley with a unibrow). --Arad 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)- Weak oppose, no wow, yes... but it's not really a good portrait, either. gren グレン 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose it does illustrate the article nicely, but FPs should also be technically sound. He's not looking at the photographer and the background is kind of bland too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose He's the Prime Minister, there are probably higher quality pictures taken of him every single day. Its fine for illustrating the article I guess, but are there no official state portraits of him?Meniscus 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are some official photographs available here, but they don't seem to have a license compatible with Wikipedia (see http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/kuvapankki/oikeudet/en.jsp). --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- They definately wouldn't be eligible for FP since they wouldn't be public domain --frothT 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
WeakSupport I agree with the "no wow factor" but what it loses there, it gains by capturing the human element of the subject. Coricus 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC) The guys below have talked up my opinion. The wrinkles mentioned above and distressed look are what make it work as a picture. Support.Coricus 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)- Support This is a great photo in terms of quality. I oppose the use of this image in an infobox, because it doesn't have an official air; however getting a photo of a politician in a somewhat distressed state of mind (let alone a public domain one) is fantastic. I think it brings out the humanity of the subject. 60.230.105.56 08:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (signing in ... Leon 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
- Support Outstanding non-posed photo. An official portrait is probably still more appropriate in the infobox on his page, but this is an eye-catching photo for use elsewhere. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - not the best portrait-wise or focus-wise, but I agree with the above. --Janke | Talk 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not interesting. The subject isn't even looking near the camera. A FP needs to be more than just technically sound. Royalbroil T : C 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - He's not even looking at us. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose/Comment -- It's never going to be featured picture quality, but this photo would be helped by cropping out some of the right and top, and maybe even a tiny bit off all sides. --jacobolus (t) 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - not in focus, as nominator said: "No WOW factor". Madman 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - high-quality photo of a very notable person; an image that "adds significantly" to its article. TSP 12:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The original version of this image is available at /media/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a2/20070213004359%21Matti_Vanhanen%2C_G8_summit.jpg . --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support It seems high quality to me, and although some people do not like its composition, I think it's nice to have a non-posed picture. Free images of people seem to be rather hard to come by which gives it additional credence in my opinion. Basar 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I think it would look less realistic if the subject was looking at the camera. Technically it's quite good, in my opinion... typhoonchaser 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great Photo! Tomer T 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Decent quality shot, but the face looks odd in close-up (Photoshopped?), the lighting is not very interesting, and it would look odd on the main page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the current version is shopped. The original is available here. Why would it look odd on the main page? --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can see the contrast enhancement but I have absolutely no idea how/why the noise filtering was done. I think the original has acceptable amount of noise for human skin while the edit looks like three layers of Clearasil. Don't you think it would be odd to have a head of state looking away from the camera with a puzzled expression on his face on the main page? ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, it's on the main page now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can see the contrast enhancement but I have absolutely no idea how/why the noise filtering was done. I think the original has acceptable amount of noise for human skin while the edit looks like three layers of Clearasil. Don't you think it would be odd to have a head of state looking away from the camera with a puzzled expression on his face on the main page? ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the current version is shopped. The original is available here. Why would it look odd on the main page? --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not very interesting subject matter.--God Ω War 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OpposeI think this is technically rather a poor image. 86.6.207.111 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)- Oppose not interesting --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I have liked this picture since the first time i saw it (a couple months ago i believe). It does make him look human. SECProto 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This image may require copyright status verification, the only statement I can find on the G8 website is "If you wish to re-publish photos, you must provide a link to www.g8russia.ru." --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can that be understood as a "copyrighted, but free use provided that credit is given" or, as CC-BY? --Janke | Talk 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is how it is currently interpreted on the image page ({{Attribution}} image copyright tag). However, the statement on the G8 website does not indicate that creation of derivative works is allowed. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can that be understood as a "copyrighted, but free use provided that credit is given" or, as CC-BY? --Janke | Talk 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Per this delist, this current nomination and two former failed nominations (this one and this one) it features the same cameo effect as the 4 other coins, abeit with heavy editing by other wikipedia editors. If we're gonna discuss more about this type of shop, we should also include this one to the table as well.
- Nominator
- 293.xx.xxx.xx
- Delist — 293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I also believe theirs one more shopped US Mint coin that also got FP status, but I can't find it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The cameo effect looks great and I can't see how it lowers enc --Fir0002 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Fir0002, plus it's huge. --Tewy 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify. If there's a version of the same resolution but without the cameo effect, I recommend that to be nominated for FP. But in the meantime there seems no reason to delist this image. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delist. Cameo and unnecessarily huge resolution. Not only is it oversampled to that resolution but I have a very hard time viewing it at full size- since it's just a coin there are very large fields of solid color --frothT C 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the maximum size (without compromising quality) is generally preferred (#5). Are you saying that the original was smaller? From what I can tell from the source, this was the original size. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like there's less image data than pixels.. I don't know how that happened though. Looking around the image intuition tells me I see maybe 1.1 pixel sized groups of samples --frothT C 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the maximum size (without compromising quality) is generally preferred (#5). Are you saying that the original was smaller? From what I can tell from the source, this was the original size. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Cameo proofs and US Mint photography style sometimes look tacky, but not in this case. Also, the cameo style is problematic with coins that are in regular circulation because most people see them in a scuffed, non-cameo form, while a bullion coin like this is meant to be sold to collectors and most specimens should look this shiny. —Dgiest c 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I say again elsewhere: Can you guarantee 100% that if I bought said coin, it'll look like that? I have seen examples of said coin in hand, and it DOESN'T look like the US Mint Picture.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Methinks the licence tag on all US Mint coins is wrong: [5]. This seems to be a "covered coin"", but the stament that the coin is ineligible for copyright is contradicted by the link. In particular the Sacagawea Golden Dollar has a copyright notice embedded in the picture. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The buffalo nickel seems to be covered by those additional terms. Anyway the only applicable term seems to be the last one and wikipedia does that very well: When the obverse and/or reverse design of any Covered Coin obtained from any United States Mint source is reproduced for publication, credit should be given as follows: "United States Mint image." The credit should be clearly legible and placed next to the coin design reproduction. The following may be used instead if a credit page is provided: "United States coin image [or images] from the United States Mint." --frothT C 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- So in other words this one is a copyvio since it's not a "Covered Coin"? → "This policy does not cover use of the design of any coin not specifically defined above as a Covered Coin. For example, it does not cover the Golden Dollar coin featuring Sacagawea." In any case, the licence tag should be corrected since it's clearly not true that US coins are "ineligible for copyright" and in the public domain. Currency in my understanding is always copyrighted by the Central Bank. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re-read your quote: "This policy doesn't cover use of non-covered coins. For example it doesn't cover use of the golden dollar." Therefore the golden dollar isn't covered by the terms.. but even if it was wikipedia satisfies the terms. --frothT C 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Covered Coins ← OK to reproduce with attribution, Non-covered Coins ← Not ok to reproduce, even with attribution. "The United States Mint will not object to use of the obverse or reverse design of (... long list ...) (each, a "Covered Coin" and collectively, "Covered Coins")" This one does not seem to be among the listed Covered Coins (since it's not the Buffalo Nickel) and so the US Mint objects and "does not grant any waiver, release, or written permission of the Director under 18 U.S.C. § 709i or 31 U.S.C. § 333". ~ trialsanderrors 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- That specific policy doesn't grant any release to non covered coins, but it doesn't mean that release hasn't been granted elsewhere. Presumably since that branch of the mint doesn't have jurisdiction over all coins. --frothT C 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- That argument sounds a bit, uh, manufactured, especially since the headline of the webpage is "United States Mint Circulating Coin Design Use Policy". ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hm.. well try this argument: The policy releases the specifically mentioned coins under certain conditions that make them ineligable for Public Domain. The policy also makes it clear that these conditions do not extend in any way to coins not mentioned (golden dollar for example). Since those other coins have no specific terms, and they're the work of the US Government, they're automatically released into the public domain. --frothT C 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- However works of the US govenment aren't eligible for copyright protection.. they're automatically released into the public domain unless withheld by additional conditions. see [6] [7] [8] --frothT C 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- $105, "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" applies here, as clearly stated on the US Mint website. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- But the copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, etc is only the Covered coins. --frothT C 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- $105, "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" applies here, as clearly stated on the US Mint website. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- However works of the US govenment aren't eligible for copyright protection.. they're automatically released into the public domain unless withheld by additional conditions. see [6] [7] [8] --frothT C 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hm.. well try this argument: The policy releases the specifically mentioned coins under certain conditions that make them ineligable for Public Domain. The policy also makes it clear that these conditions do not extend in any way to coins not mentioned (golden dollar for example). Since those other coins have no specific terms, and they're the work of the US Government, they're automatically released into the public domain. --frothT C 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Covered Coins ← OK to reproduce with attribution, Non-covered Coins ← Not ok to reproduce, even with attribution. "The United States Mint will not object to use of the obverse or reverse design of (... long list ...) (each, a "Covered Coin" and collectively, "Covered Coins")" This one does not seem to be among the listed Covered Coins (since it's not the Buffalo Nickel) and so the US Mint objects and "does not grant any waiver, release, or written permission of the Director under 18 U.S.C. § 709i or 31 U.S.C. § 333". ~ trialsanderrors 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- But you might have a good point about all US currency not being public domain since some of it seems to be released under conditions (albiet conditions that WP satisfies) --frothT C 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re-read your quote: "This policy doesn't cover use of non-covered coins. For example it doesn't cover use of the golden dollar." Therefore the golden dollar isn't covered by the terms.. but even if it was wikipedia satisfies the terms. --frothT C 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- So in other words this one is a copyvio since it's not a "Covered Coin"? → "This policy does not cover use of the design of any coin not specifically defined above as a Covered Coin. For example, it does not cover the Golden Dollar coin featuring Sacagawea." In any case, the licence tag should be corrected since it's clearly not true that US coins are "ineligible for copyright" and in the public domain. Currency in my understanding is always copyrighted by the Central Bank. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The buffalo nickel seems to be covered by those additional terms. Anyway the only applicable term seems to be the last one and wikipedia does that very well: When the obverse and/or reverse design of any Covered Coin obtained from any United States Mint source is reproduced for publication, credit should be given as follows: "United States Mint image." The credit should be clearly legible and placed next to the coin design reproduction. The following may be used instead if a credit page is provided: "United States coin image [or images] from the United States Mint." --frothT C 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be marked with Template:Money? --frothT C 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, whoa, since when did this turn into a debate on Wikipedia policy? --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- We can't feature fair use pictures. It's in the FP criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the designer and engraver credit listed is the designer of the 1913 Buffalo nickel, which is a "Covered coin". I think the only way this would not be PD is if there was copyright held by the photographer. Still it would be good to know for sure. —Dgiest c 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's a phone number on the webpage. I thought I saw an email address somewhere, but I can't find it anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's licensing@usmint.treas.gov but I'd rather not be the one to ask permission. In any case, with "Federal Fridays" I doubt we'll get an answer before Monday. —Dgiest c 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's a phone number on the webpage. I thought I saw an email address somewhere, but I can't find it anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the designer and engraver credit listed is the designer of the 1913 Buffalo nickel, which is a "Covered coin". I think the only way this would not be PD is if there was copyright held by the photographer. Still it would be good to know for sure. —Dgiest c 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- We can't feature fair use pictures. It's in the FP criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delist - cameo destroys enc, and should disqualify images in my opinion. Debivort 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is a bullion coin for collectors. A large fraction of them are cameo. —Dgiest c 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I may have used the term incorrectly. I meant to refer to the photoshopped background, and thought we have been using the term "cameo" to refer to that. In either case, I vote delist because of obvious photoshoppery in the background. Debivort 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think that it is just fine with the cameo in this case. It is an excellent picture of a collecter Buffalo Gold Coin. Why1991 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as this seems to just be up for delisting to bolster an FPC argument and to prove a point, this is hardly the place for either... the better place to mention this if you want to use this as an example why these shouldn't be listed would be just to mention it in the current noms for coins. Cat-five - talk 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why not list it? We're questioning the validity of another shopped US coin, which is completely unnatural in apperance and doesn't have any equilvelent counterpart in real life. This coin also has the same questioned criteria as well. Which might be a moot point, because of the pending copyright problem above. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin images are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kept Raven4x4x 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
After I closed this User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of this picture hasn't been resolved yet. I'm putting this here in 'suspended nominations' until it can be sorted out fully. Raven4x4x 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- This source gives the date of original engraving as 1913, which would put it into the PD as expired copyright, but I would think it's the burden of the original uploader to confirm this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then again, the design was "refreshed" for the $50 denomination, so that kinda leaves a grey area of sorts. The design might be PD, but the additions of the legends and denominations might lend the coin to be "copyright" by the US Mint. Just want to be 100% sure it's legit.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well then delist pending confirmation that the coin is available under a free licence. Contact info is above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no, because by keeping it here, we can get a clear understanding if it violates or fulfills Criteria #4. The FP tag hasn't been changed on the image page yet, and nobody has given a clear opinion on whats what. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just a thought on the refreshing of the design: in german copyright law there is the concept of Schoepfungshoehe which describes the amount of creative work. Trivial additions such as legendtext, contrast enhancement or putting numbers on the engraving would most likely not lead to sustainable copyright claims under german law. Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. --Dschwen(A) 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. You're joking right? :p --frothT 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then so must be Cornell Lawschool [9]:
- Any copyrighted expression must be “original.” Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). Although the amount of creative input by the author required to meet the originality standard is low, it is not negligible. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 362. There must be something more than a “merely trivial” variation, something recognizably the artist’s own. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 489 (9th Cir. 2000). The originality requirement mandates that objective “facts” and ideas are not copyrightable. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 99 (1879); Feist, 499 U.S. at 347; Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 1970). Similarly, expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium are not protectable under copyright law. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). --Dschwen 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. You're joking right? :p --frothT 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well then delist pending confirmation that the coin is available under a free licence. Contact info is above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then again, the design was "refreshed" for the $50 denomination, so that kinda leaves a grey area of sorts. The design might be PD, but the additions of the legends and denominations might lend the coin to be "copyright" by the US Mint. Just want to be 100% sure it's legit.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Two more things (always considering IANAL):
- In 1991 in the case of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (499 US 340) the U.S. Supreme Court basically rejected the Sweat of brow doctrine. I.e. just because something took a lot of work to create does not justify a copyright claim.
- Facts are not copyrightable. Ok I mentioned this before, but the denomination of the coin: fact, the year it was issued: fact, the issuer: fact. The arrangement of the letters: trivial.
- IMHO this case can be closed. And there wasn't any helpful input for one and a half months. It all boils down to the original artwork, which has already determined to be free. --Dschwen 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two more things (always considering IANAL):
I have uploaded this file to Commons and nominated it for deletion there per Cool Cat's advice on IRC. The Commons deletion discussion should be able to determine the copyright status of this image. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:American_buffalo_proof_vertical_edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Update I've been in contact with the U.S. Mint and have a phone call scheduled for tomorrow. So I hope we'll get some more info then, although I doubt it will be a decisive Yes or No. ~ trialsanderrors 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- How did it go? Tomorrow was two days ago. I still stand by my argument (which nobody bothered to comment on :-( ) that we should be fine keeping this pic. --Dschwen 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The phone call never came. I'll wait until tomorrow night and if nothing happens I'll summarize the e-mail exchange on the Commons page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info and my interpretation posted. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The phone call never came. I'll wait until tomorrow night and if nothing happens I'll summarize the e-mail exchange on the Commons page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- How did it go? Tomorrow was two days ago. I still stand by my argument (which nobody bothered to comment on :-( ) that we should be fine keeping this pic. --Dschwen 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, see above. --Dschwen 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept as a featured picture (finally). --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)