Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia. 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. Promoting an image If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. 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. Delisting an image A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December. Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured topics Featured picture tools: Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured picture candidates archive Featured pictures thumbs Picture of the day Picture of the day archive Random featured picture

Step 1: Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2: Create a subpage For Nominations To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. For Delists (or Delist & Replace) To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.

Step 3: Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list ().

How to comment for Candidate Images Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional. Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly. You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case. Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. 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. How to comment for Delist Images Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture. Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture. Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture. You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}. Editing candidates If 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 (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor adjusted 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. Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight 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 (roughly 75–150 cm) 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 the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.

To see recent changes, .

Current nominations

Napoleon's invasion of Russia

Original

Reason

I was surprised to see that this image had never been nominated before, considering that it is a classic in the field of information design, and Tufte's assessment. I first came across this image years ago in Tufte's book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, and it has stuck in my mind ever since. He says on p. 40 of the book, "Minard's graphic tells a rich, coherent story with its multivariate data, far more enlightening than just a single number bouncing along over time. Six variables are plotted: the size of the army, its location on a two-dimensional surface, direction of the army's movement, and temperature on various dates during the retreat from Moscow".

Proposed caption

This 1861 diagram by Charles Joseph Minard illustrates the advance and retreat of Napoleon's army in Russia from 1812 to 1813. The thickness of the line indicates the size of the army. From left to right, the thick line on top shows the army crossing the Neman River with 422,000 men, advancing into Russian territory and stopping in Moscow with just 100,000 men. From right to left, the lower line shows the army returning west, including the disasterous crossing of the Berezina River. Only a small fraction of Napoleon's army, approximately 20,000 men, survived. The lower portion of the graph shows the temperature during the army's retreat, in degrees below freezing on the Réaumur scale. In his book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, statistician and information graphics designer Edward Tufte says this map "may well be the best statistical graphic ever drawn."

Articles this image appears in

Information design, Scientific visualization, French invasion of Russia (1812), Information graphics, Victory disease, Russian Winter, Battle of Berezina, Charles Joseph Minard

Creator

Charles Joseph Minard

• Support as nominator Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The graphic is, of course, worthy of an FP. But this scan is small and extremely hard to read. I think we could reasonably expect to get a better copy of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because the writing is in French and we're running an English encyclopedia, also as Adam noted the writing is very small --Hadseys 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• I have found sharper versions but I need to make sure that there are no copyright problems. I'm going to move this to the Suspended Noms section while I investigate. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• OK, sorry folks, I got so excited about this picture that I rushed to nominate it. I'm realizing now that the original includes some colour, and I can't find a high-quality colour version on Google so it will take me some time to get hold of one. I'll re-nominate then. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Aerogel with Peter Tsou

Original

Reason

This is a little undersize for a normal FP, I know, however, Aerogels are not available in any quantities outside of NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and related agencies, so the image is essentially irreplaceable. This is one of my favourite science images, and I think well-deserving of an FP. Vanished user ^talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed caption

Peter Tsou of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory holding a sample of aerogel - an extremely lightweight substance created by replacing all the liquid in a gel - usually silica gel - with gas, by means of supercritical drying, a process similar to freeze-drying. This creates a nanofoam, a foam with most of its bubbles under 100 nanometres in size, giving the aerogel its unusual properties: Silica aerogel is the lowest-density solid yet created, actually lighter than air when in a vacuum (outside of a vacuum, air fills the pores, upping its density to slightly greater than air). It is also the best insulator known. Due to its unusual appearance and light weight, it has gained the nickname "frozen smoke".

Articles this image appears in

Peter Tsou, Aerogel

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Vanished user ^talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose resolution is too low to see if the Guy has some hair inside his ears. Ericd 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ...That is a truly unique oppose. Vanished user ^talk 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • ...My pleasure is to watch hirez pictures a full-rez. No matter of the topic ;-). Ericd 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I stop joking, in fact I think the other one is better. Ericd 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - This other aerogel FP shows the transparency just as well, but also demonstrates its amazing strength. This non-FP also shows its transparency but also its amazing thermal insulation properties. I'm just not sure what this nom demonstrates that those others don't. The only reason I might consider it is because it is rather a famous image of the stuff. --Sean 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know - the matches picture is confusing, as it has the glass disk atop the aerogel, and the thing holding it up is hard to spot. And the Brick one doesn't really show much of the Aerogel, just a glimpse of it under the brick. I suppose the one with crayons might work, but.... Vanished user ^talk 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not as good as the other aerogel FP and I'm not sure why you think it's irreplaceable when we already have an existing FP and other pictures besides. This picture shows none of aerogel's interesting features (strength, insulation, etc); it might as well be a cube of jello. Matt Deres 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nice picture, but the other two Sean linked are both far more encyclopedic. Since this one is too small, it doesn't really seem up to the FP level. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose What with there being another FP of the subject material that showcases its characteristics a little bit more. SingCal 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sun and VY Canis Majoris

PNG version

SVG version

Reason

"If our sun were replaced with such a star, its surface could extend to the orbit of Saturn." That pretty much sums it up. Fascinating! Especially after an appreciation of just how massive the sun is, and the staggering volume within saturn's orbit.

Articles this image appears in

VY Canis Majoris

Creator

User:WindAzure (png)
User:Mysid (svg)

• Support as nominator froth^t 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow, I didn't imagine there could exist stars that large: the stats are truly staggering. But I dont see how the image contributes to the article: it adds nothing that isn't already summed up verbally in the second sentence "the radius of VY CMa is between 1800 and 2100 solar radii". I don't see that the image itself adds anything to the article at all. ~ Veledan • T 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Many people can't translate words into images in their heads; poor imagination if you will.--Svetovid 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• support--Mbz1 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Support SVG Wow, that's a big star.--HereToHelp 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support SVG I don't understand the size at all - think you can stick a person in for scale? :) thegreen J Are you green? 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • He'll be a pixel if the image was blown up to be the size of a billboard. The earth might be a pixel if the image was the size of a large poster.--HereToHelp 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I want a quark for scale. ;) Jumping cheese 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If all I had nominated was the SVG, would you still be awed by the star's size? I think the effect is greatly reduced if the sun and the big star aren't compared side-by-side.. it's difficult to visualize the difference (which is the whole appeal of the image) with that "magnifying glass" trick that IMO gives you very little perspective. Go png! --froth^t 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose SVG - undecided on the PNG, for now - the SVG renders differently for me in the thumb and the full size. For instance, in the thumb, the font is something like Arial, but at the full size, it is a typewriter font, moreover, all the gradients disappear at the full rez. SVG is just too flaky in this case. FWIW, I'm running updated firefox on Mac OS X 10.3.9. Debivort 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• oppose - it doesn't make me want to know any more about the article, it doesn't even make want to click on the image, because there's nothing you can't see from the thumbnail Mcrawford620 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both Not very interesting. I though I was looking at some random orange circle at first. Even after I clicked the image, I wasn't that impressed. It'll be much better if VY Canis Majoris actually looked like a star (with pretty solar flares larger than the sun and stuff), instead of a perfect circle. The SVG version is a bit better...since there's some color variation, but not by much. Sorry. Jumping cheese 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose a circle and a dot? It may be technically accurate and informative, and a great addition to some articles. But there's just not much information being conveyed here. —Pengo 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose though it does aid with the articles its appears in the quality of the image is not featured --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Childzy. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose PNG - it's a long way short on the aesthetics side of things. Also, I just don't think it's practical to attempt to use a single pixel to illustrate something. The SVG version is more informative. Stevage 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support SVG - Several reasons, but probably the strongest is its combination of simplicity and clarity. It just illustrates the point without frills. The inset is nicely done so that it's not showy, but clearly represents and expanded view. Nicely done. -Harmil 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth wanted poster

Original

Alternative

Alternative 2

Reason

Historic 19th century wanted poster.

Proposed caption

Broadside advertising reward for capture of John Wilkes Booth (the assassin of United States president Abraham Lincoln) and his co-conspirators John H. Surratt and David E. Herold.

Articles this image appears in

John Wilkes Booth

Creator

unknown. Source: Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division. Uploaded by User:Davepape

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC). Also Support alternative 1. Spikebrennan 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. No reason it should be this blurry, but great historical value. I wonder how they possibly found anyone with such generic pictures on the wanted posters? --froth^t 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just having photographs was an enormous advance. Also, Booth was roughly the Brad Pitt of his day. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: There must be a better version.--Svetovid 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  Support alternative 1 - and the caption should note that two names are spelled incorrectly - Surrat instead of Surratt and Harold instead of Herold.--Svetovid 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Very interesting, but size / quality not good enough for FP in my opinion whether or not there is a better version in existence. ~ Veledan • T 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• support--Mbz1 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Support if replaced with this --NauticaShades 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I concur.--Svetovid 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I concur as well. Jellocube27 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Would anybody mind if the image on answers.com was just uploaded over the current picture? Thats what the upload new version is there for afterall, i'd do it now but i dont want to suffer a backlash for being bold.. --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The answers.com version is not just the same poster, it's the same physical document. (The wrinkles and tears are in the same places). I would support the answers.com version being uploaded over the existing one (even though it's in BW and not a sepia-tint). Spikebrennan 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC). I just also noticed that the poster spells the name of "John Surrat/Surratt" two different ways. John Surratt is presumably the correct spelling.

• Oppose, somewhat dramatic, somewhat historic, but poor quality negates its value. BTW, the Answers.com image is a cleaned-up version of this presumed digital original, and is probably much closer to the appearance of the physical original (unlike the parchment-paper ones you can get at museum shops, such as the one I worked in as a kid). --

Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Alternative I uploaded the other one instead, decided not to upload over the original so that people can see the contrast --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rant Does noone bother to check the sources? The answers.com one is from the Library of Congress. Which also have a much better version of the colour one, where the Surrat image is much more visible than in the b&w. [1] Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Alternate 2 Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose not as large and it isnt straight --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternative I like the sharpness on this one. Alternative 2 is a bit blurry. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alt#1 fascinating. Debivort 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternative 1 The text and images are easier viewed on the black and white version. --Puddyglum 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alt. 1 - best is viewed on the black and white version and the sharpness is much better than on the other two. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. By the way, can someone fix the tilt on the B&W version? NauticaShades 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose All The two alternates are good, but Alt 1 has been converted to B&W from the original sepia while Alt 2 is not straight and is smaller resolution. Normally, I'd support either one of these images, but the fact that they both exist (plus the original) means that a full colour version of Alt 1's resolution is not asking too much and in fact is probably out there somewhere (eg. whoever scanned in Alt 1). Why not wait until it turns up? Matt Deres 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:John Wilkes Booth wantekd poster new.jpg MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Blind-Man's Buff

Original

Reason

A different subject matter for a 19th century newspaper engraving

Proposed caption

Cartoon criticising the police for their inability to find the Whitechapel murderer. From Punch, 22nd September 1888, page 134. Artwork by John Tenniel.

Articles this image appears in

Jack the Ripper

Creator

John Tenniel

* Support as nominator Spikebrennan 15:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but I really don't think this one is of sufficient quality or size or encyclopedic value. On a wider issue, we've had many 19-century newspaper engravings nominated recently and I'm wondering whether a few (including ones I've supported myself) have benefited unduly from the relaxation of quality rules for historic, irreproducible images. After all, pretty much every 19th century newspaper is available on microfiche and perhaps we should be demanding the same standards we do of contemporary photographs. Just a thought. ~ Veledan • T 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it should really be remembered that there aren't usually a large number of engravings of any one subject. I'm all for raising the bar a bit, but we should be reasonable, and consider how many illustrations of a certain subject there are likely to be. That said, I think this scan is a little small - I think it's reasonable to expect to be able to pick out all lines in an engraving. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too small, scan quality subpar, and I just don't think it's an interesting or important cartoon. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn and move for speedy close. After reconsideration, I agree with the oppose votes. No reason to have this one clogging up the queue. Spikebrennan 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scene from "The Princess"

Original

Reason

I think it's a nice engraving, the play is relatively important given what it later developed into, (and after 6 bloody hours fixing all the printing errors, I want everyone to see it.)

Proposed caption

In 1870, W. S. Gilbert's musical farce The Princess premièred, a parody of Tennyson's epic poem The Princess: A Medley. Tennyson's tale of a prince cross-dressing in order to get access to a princess who shuns the world of men proved fertile ground for satire, and the cross-dressing prince and his companions, portrayed by women pretending to be men pretending to be women, added another layer of silliness to Gilbert's play. Though some elements of the farce have not aged well - Tennyson's poem is now forgotten, and Gilbert's satire of women's education is no longer politically correct - the play lives on in a later comic opera revision: Princess Ida, the eighth Gilbert and Sullivan opera.

Articles this image appears in

The Princess (play); Princess Ida.

Creator

D.H. Friston, with rather extensive retouching by me to fix a rather abominable printing (Alas! The only printing! One does wish that newspapers could make sure the six blocks that make up their woodcut image were positioned properly so that researchers a century and a quarter later wouldn't bewail their fate.)

• Support as nominator Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- Ssilvers 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think you went too far in your editing. Those white lines delineate the separate, but probably glued-together pieces of wood that build up the woodcut. Removing them alters the historical original, and that is unacceptable, IMHO. If the lines were there in 1870, they should still be there! --Janke | Talk 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's always hard to judge these things, and it'd be reasonable to go either way. Hence why I provided both versions. But for simple illustration of the play, the lines are distracting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support despite my string of opposes today on 19th-C engravings: this one is of good quality and compelling composition. When I started typing this I couldn't quite support, per Janke, but on reflection I think that neither the articles it illustrates nor the subject would benefit from reproducing the printing errors, and the fact that the image page clearly describes the amendments made is sufficient in my opinion. If it were nominated for its contribution to an article on printing, I'd think differently. Compliments on the excellent caption by the way. ~ Veledan • T 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye: It seemed more useful, given where it's being used, to go with a version that removed obvious flaws, even if they're interesting from a typographic point of view. But I did provide an unedited version as well, since it has historical significance. I just don't think it's as useful for illustrating the plays. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - good, clear, high-resolution engraving of a very interesting subject. I also agree with Veledan, nice composition. -- Chris.B 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:The Princess - W. S. Gilbert.png MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of George Washington.jpeg

Original

Alternative by User:Chris.B. Wider crop, more colour vibrancy. Stiched together from another source.

Alternative2 by User:Chris.B. Tweaked colour.

Reason

Striking, near-photographic portrait of Washington, much better in these 2 regards than the existing portraits of him in uniform currently in use on Wikipedia or on Commons, which are full-body; resolution is 972 x 1184, so it still fits within the size guidelines.

Proposed caption

Porthole portrait George Washington in military uniform, by Rembrandt Peale

Articles this image appears in

George Washington, Man, Revolution, 18th century, 1789, Continental Army, Rembrandt Peale, among many others; this portrait is used in Template:US-poli-bio-stub, so it appears in more articles not directly relevant to Washington, albeit drastically reduced in size and at the bottom of said articles

Creator

Rembrandt Peale

* Support as nominator BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 07:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question - has it been cropped, or is it the painting? As it is now, the crop is rather tight I think. -- Chris.B 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's how it is from the source, but that version is a crop; the original is wider and taller. This is a 1200 x 1200 version, but isn't as rich in color and seems to lack the vitality of the nom; it may be possible to get the full version from here, but I can't figure out how to seperate the image URL from the Flash/Java coding, if that's possible. Otherwise, other copies I've found of this portrait are lower res and not as good. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, here is an alternative. It has taken me about an hour to do, but I think it's ready now. I have stitched, piece by piece, the whole portrait from the last source you provided. The colours are amazing and it's far better now. And unbelievably all I have used is print screens and good old Microsoft Paint. -- Chris.B 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I support alternative support alternative2 -- Chris.B 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I know it's the same painting, but is it just me or does it look like Washington's expression is softened and not as severe/dour looking in the alt? Still, Peale's intent was the porthole effect, which the original doesn't convey adequately because of the crop. Therefore, unless a better 2nd alternative/version can be provided I'm going to switch my support to the alt for now. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• oppose both for now - the color ballance in the second is far too yellow for me, but its cropping is good. Debivort 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) This color is better, but I would still prefer a less saturated version. That said there is a greater problem I didn't notice earlier - jpeg artifacting in all versions, particularly in the lower parts of the oval, one can see checkers and stripes. Debivort 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• oppose both the colour looks wrong on the second and the frames being cut in such a way look distracting --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've tweaked the yellow/green colour. -- Chris.B 11:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose all The first has problems as above, and in the others the skin looks rather jaundiced. I find ther colouring of the original version more believable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically a non-cropped version of the original showing the porthole surroundings. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

....and no jaundice or anti-wrinkle cream either. :) -- Chris.B 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you do lose all the wrinkles on the alternatives. That's bad. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Idea Would it be possible to blend the original nom into the better porthole of the other scans? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the original's porthole colors have to be replicated as well? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it'd be easier to get the porthole colours right than something tricky like skin tones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mulberry Street, New York City (c. 1900)

Original

edit 1 1px median filter, and downsample

Reason

Delightful street scene, even if it is colorized.

Proposed caption

Mulberry Street in Manhattan, New York City, photographed in 1900.

Articles this image appears in

Little Italy, Manhattan, History of New York City, New York City, Mulberry Street (Manhattan)

Creator

Detroit Photograph Co. (per 1900 copyright notice)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, in fact an excellent example of photochrom that is better than what is in the article now. Lively even with posed persons in foreground, showing the wide variety of activity on a typical urban street of the day. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Throwing support to edit 1 preferentially. Caption does need revision to indicate our articles on photochrom and the DPC. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support What a great scene! And we could certainly use more pictures depicting ordinary life from times past in my opinion—they tend to be underrepresented, compared with the wider availability of older photos of famous people ~ Veledan • T 00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support. The image page needs better descriptive information; it doesn't even mention it's a photochrom.--ragesoss 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 (or original) - So I actually don't like the noise in the full version. I'm sympathetic to the "never downsample" argument, but looking at the full size I was totally distracted trying to make heads or tails of the image because of all the noise. Here is an alternative. Debivort 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. What a great scene, what great details. My only question was about the color process used and whether it was even contemporaneous with the picture. Agree with Ragesoss that Photochrom needs to be in the caption wherever it is used. Unschool 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit1 per above. Delightful street scene indeed. -- Chris.B 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Who said downsampling was a bad thing? Sure, as a current photo this may get torn apart, but fascinating insight into city life at the time and nice colour work. --jjron 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support edit - expand caption.--Svetovid 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 but conditional as above, the caption is poor --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support edit as above. Matt Deres 15:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 if the caption is changed. --NauticaShades 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Mulberry Street, depicted here in a photochrom from the year 1900, is the principal street of the Little Italy neighborhood in Manhattan, New York City." Spikebrennan 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. NauticaShades 12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question So when was the colorisation done? Was it contemporary with the photo or has it been done more recently? Spebudmak 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If I understand the references of the Library of Congress it seems it was published in color around 1900. As it is a colorized photograph the color was added after the shooting and before the publishing. It may have taken some time because hand painting picture was probably a slow work. This makes a bit difficult to know when the photo was shot. Photocrom was invented in 1890 but the publisher could have used a 20 years old photography. It seems to me that it is gelatin-silver process (the standard Black and White process today) and shot with a good lens so think it was shot circa 1900, but that only opinion. Ericd 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support the downsampled version. And well, I think that the downsampled version is still to large it was originally shot for a postcard a size that doesn't need more than 1 Mpixel to get a nice print. What we have is probably a scan ofa photo of postcard sized-print. It doesn't make justice to the picture to oversize it. Ericd 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicistjedi (talk • contribs) 22:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
• Support indeed prefect scene, without a doubt should be FA. M.K. 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mulberry Street NYC c1900 LOC 3g04637u edit.jpg MER-C 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nagasakibomb.jpg

Original

Higher resolution version

Reason

I came across this image while I was looking for information about WWII. I was very surprised that this image was not already featured, as it is an image of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Therefore, it is historical and very encyclopedic. It also provides a lot of value to the articles it illustrates, as it shows an important event in the history of our world. I also think it is somewhat unique, as I doubt we'll find another image from that same angle of the bomb. I think this explains why it meets the criteria.

Proposed caption

The mushroom cloud caused by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb during the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan in 1945, rising approximately 18 kilometers (11 mi) above the hypocenter.

Articles this image appears in

Nuclear Bomb and World War II, amongst many others.

Creator

U.S. Federal Government. More specifically, the picture was taken from one of the B-29 Superfortresses used in the attack.

• Support as nominator Boricuaeddie 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support All--Mbz1 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really; I mean, a low-quality image of an easy subject is low-value anyway. I presume he's referring to valuable historical images. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, not only historical images, but also astronomical images, underwater images and any interesting, hard to get images that add lots of value to the articles they are in, but cannot make it out for FP because of quality problems. We have featured many very nice bugs pictures, but do we really have to have so many dragonflies for example? Yes, they are sharp, yes, they are different kind, yet they all are dragonflies and they all look alike. I guess I'd like to find out how many of these kind of images are too many?On the other hand a wild and unique underwater shot gets rejected because of quality problems. We have no shots like this in FP. If later one would become available, we always could delist low quality one. In my opinion Wikipedia viewers would appreciate some rare shots even, if the quality is low.--Mbz1 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • Seriously agree with this. What is UP with all the bug FPs? Mcrawford620 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's rather grainy; I don't suppose there's any better versions floating around? I do think this should be FP, but, well, might as well use the best possible copy of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the photo, support the idea of it. This particular photo just is too grainy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, what did you expect? It's an aerial picture of an atomic bomb in 1945, not a photo of the guy in the corner with a Minolta 110 Zoom SLR :-) Seriously, though, I'll try to look for a better version. --Boricuaeddie 10:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- I did a Google search and the only images I found were this one ([2] [3]) and the same one from a different angle ([4]). I think this one's best. --Boricuaeddie 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  um why are atomic booms here 69.57.207.162 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - for the reasons stated in my previous nomination of that historically significant, and stunning picture. Mikeo 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. "Higher resolution" image has exactly the same grain size (which is probably film grain), and its contrast is too high. Visually and technically much better than Image:Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg, which as far as film and situation available, should be just as good. Yes, the Hiroshima image is in lower resolution (so the original may be far better), but from looking at the two I strongly suspect that the Nagasaki image is simply a really well done image of a mushroom cloud taken from a plane in the bombing run. Enuja 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, technical quality is of less importance for unique historical images taken under "field" conditions. This was one of only two atomic bombings in history (to date -- knock on wormwood) and it is doubtful that any photography exists of higher quality. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support original The high res version looses a lot of details due to the sharper contrast. Very encyclopedic and historical pic. I've seen this pic several times in my history textbooks (as with several other promoted featured pics) and it's certainly iconic of the horrific close of WWII. Jumping cheese 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Historic value outdoes graininess. -- Chris.B 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The best available, and we can't very well say no. --froth^t 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds of quality. I don't know where the recurring idea comes from, that the exception to criterion #1, "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" translates to "we should promote whatever happens to be the best representation of any particular subject, however narrowly defined". If we were to apply that argument in all cases, FP would be meaningless and populated by very poor quality images, and no-one will browse them. Perhaps we should have a separate category for Most Important Historic Images: but to dilute FP with it is harmful to the entire concept of FP in my opinion. Many subjects have no possible FP, because no image likely to absorb the viewer exists, and that is that. I admit that this image is compelling and shocking because of its horrifying context, but I believe there are better pictures depicting the devastation of Nagasaki (for historical significance) and better pictures of mushrooms clouds (for technical enc value). Sorry for the rant. ~ Veledan • T 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very historic, quitly it good for a short exposer from the time period. Chris H 04:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Per above. ^8thstar 05:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds of quality. There is too much grain for a photographer who used top camera and and film for that era. The fact that it was impossible to meter the light should not be taken in account. If it really was impossible to photograph the Nagasaki bomb with accurate exposure, then there is quite simply no possible FP of the Nagasaki bomb. Ericd 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - ""If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" translates to "we should promote whatever happens to be the best representation of any particular subject, however narrowly defined". If we were to apply that argument in all cases, FP would be meaningless and populated by very poor quality images.". However it might be populated by a bunch of interesting images instead of high quality boring images. Ericd 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I support Ericd's position here. I just can't be bothered to open up the next FP of a pretty flower or a bee, however technically perfect they may be. This, however ... this is one of the defining moments of human history. All of it. For me, it has enormous power to travel across time and grab me.--Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well, I stop joking. Ericd 09:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Either. I personally prefer the higher contrast, but if detail is lost, then the original works fine. --NauticaShades 00:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment I strongly support the low contrast version. From a technical POV the low contrast version is better it carries more information has more tone of greys. Aesthetically the high contrast version may seem more "pleasant" as high contrast suggest violence. But I don't think aesthetic considerations should prime here. Ericd 09:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is that most people have uncorrected displays so they can't see the shadow detail in darker b/w pictures, the 2nd version also has corrected tilt if you compare them side by side Bleh999 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original version, they second version has too many areas that are too bright (I suck at photographer talk) --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original. One of the most recognizable historical pictures. Regarding quality I am not sure if it possible to find better one at all. M.K. 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support probably for the hi-res version. This is a universally recognized and used picture, seeing as it is a clear illustration of the destructive climax of WWII. -- Reaper X 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg MER-C 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Irezumi

Reason

It shows a highly detailed picture of a yakuza irezumi that uses good lighting to catch the eye and focus it only on the tattoo. It should pique the interest in the yakuza of one who looks at it without knowing what it is.

Proposed caption

This is an irezumi (literally:insert ink) tattoo of a member in the Japanese criminal organiztion known as the Yakuza. Irezumi are often used to symbolize a personal trait that the wearer has or wishes to achieve, such as wealth or bravery. (more from someone else please)

Articles this image appears in

Yakusa, Irezumi

Creator

Sean Wilson

• Support as nominator DanMonkey 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very cool picture, but I don't believe it fulfills the size requirements. Also, the bottom of the tattoo is cut off - how far down does it go? I guess the question is whether it is so impossible to get another picture of this sort of tattoo that this should be featured, and also whether it is so unique a type of tattoo that a sub-standard size image of it is acceptable. Mak (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not entirely convinced the uploader's images are their own. Mak (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you write it ? Do you have the beginning of a proof or is it just FUD ? Ericd 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose did you read [WP:FP?]] #2?-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for pretty obvious reasons. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close I'm afraid: fails most of the criteria. Useful in Irezumi but not a FP candidate. ~ Veledan • T 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support althougth I'd like to have a full view of the subject. Is he tatooed on the other side ? Ericd 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Honda 550 Motorcycle

Original

Reason

I hope people don't mind me nominating another picture, but. I really like this one and think that it depicts the subject in an attractive way. It is one of the better pan shots I have taken.

Proposed caption

A panned photograph of a Honda 550 Motorcycle being ridden.

Articles this image appears in

Motorcycle

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support (Self nom) Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support low noise, surprisingly sharp focus on rider, conveys the motion well. Debivort 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• oppose I could not find the image in Motorcycle article, but even id I could, I'm not sure how the article could benefit from the image.Besides I do not like background--Mbz1 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • How does any picture benefit any article? How does any picture benefit the encyclopedia? By giving a visual to a topic! This picture is of a motorcycle, on a road (its natural environment), going fast (shown by panning), with a rider (showing its use) this is much better than a picture of a bike propped up on a lawn. You have no problems sticking pictures with much more tenuous links to the article up for FP. As evidenced by your amber pic, which was in jurasic park. (Is that what a jurasic park looks like)??? I am tired of the petty shit you always pull, your bad faith nom of fir002's frog on commons, your note about cocaphony on your talk page. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Motorrad-67 seems to have removed it as vandalism (!). [5]thegreen J Are you green? 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, it is what happened. Well,I do not agree that the image is vandalism, but in my opinion the image has no value.--Mbz1 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)mbz1
      • Seriously mbz - you will get much more credibility if you at least try to explain seeming non sequitors, such as this image having no value. Debivort 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure, Debivort.I did a very extensive explaining here. If you just replace the word "rose" with the word "Motor Cycle" you could read my explanation, or, if you'd like you could read here in #5. Btw under "no value" I meant no encyclopedic value(in other words I do not believe the image adds any value to the article). I also would like to mention (once again)that my vote count is only one and I strongly believe I'm entitled to have my own opinion. Thanks.--Mbz1 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
          • No value? -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Apparently, the edit summary was a mistake, but it is still not now used in any article. thegreen J Are you green? 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I added it back, I think its much better than the one that replaced it. : ( -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And... Motorrad again replaced it. Something needs to be worked out about the pics at motorcycle - they are way too many, and a lead image needs to be agreed upon. thegreen J Are you green? 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Note - The image now appears in: Motorcycling and Honda CB550. --Evb-wiki 00:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - good technical quality for a moving object. Also, that's a nice motorcycle. Speaking of which, the article is way too full of images.--Svetovid 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, I rather agree with the basic reasons you've given in the nom, however probably my biggest concern is that I don't think we should be promoting an image to FP that ignores appropriate road-safety measures, i.e., jeans are not appropriately safe clothing for motorcycling (yes, you could argue quite correctly that they are commonly worn and you're demonstrating something commonly seen, but I'd still be concerned about the safety message, perhaps unless he was clearly defying all safety concerns, such as not wearing the helmet or jacket either - you could then use the photo to illustrate "Blatant stupidity" or something). The writing on the bike and helmet is a little blurred, possibly as a result of only being taken at 1/250s, but probably passable. And, to be honest, I find the fact that the bike is riding away from us a bit uncomfortable, it makes it look a bit snapshot-ish; I would much rather if he was coming towards us. A good picture, but too many issues for me. Sorry. --jjron 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hahaha, safety concerns, jeez! This isn't our job at all! What FP criterion does that violate? What about the safety concerns of nuking Nagasaki? Your other reasons are fine, but... Debivort 18:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• By featuring a picture it is not saying: "this is what we condone". I mean you are entitled to your opinion but nobody else I'v seen has voted because of "safety concerns". Look at the picture of the full body tattoo, there are obviously health issues relating to that degree of body manipulation. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lol: please forgive me if I sound flippant jjron—but that one did make me laugh out loud! ~ Veledan • T 00:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm glad you guys take such a gung-ho attitude to safety - good luck to you. But I disagree Fcb, I think it is saying we condone it - I mean if it was a picture from the 50s when the attitudes were different, or a picture from a third world country with lax attitudes to safety, then OK, but this is pretty clearly a contemporary picture from a developed country. By putting it in an encyclopaedia (much less classifying it as featured, i.e., saying 'this is the best we can do'), it is saying that this is how motorcycles are (and should be) ridden. Now, on the same criteria I would oppose photos put up for FPC such as a welder who wasn't wearing appropriate eye protection, a surgeon not wearing appropriate medical garb, a driver without a seatbelt, or...well you get the message. As I originally said, the exception could be if a photograph was illustrating the opposite, i.e., a rebellious lack of safety. Personally - and I may be wrong - I think we can at least get a photo of motorcyclist wearing proper safety gear. Now Debivort, the very reason most people are supporting a so-so quality picture of the Nagasaki bombing is precisely that it is defying our usual concerns for human life and safety, i.e., why support this, when, if the same quality image was offered from one of the hundreds of nuclear bomb tests done around the world it would get roundly opposed? Pretty obvious I would have thought. It certainly is our job to ensure that contemporary images portray a subject to the best of current knowledge, and the best current knowledge says that you don't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle. Incidentally the same basic argument applies to the tattoo picture mentioned - it is shocking because of the person's flagrant disregard for what most people would consider sensible behaviour. Now, unless I'm mistaken, this motorcycle picture was never meant to illustrate anything like that. So, although I may be a sole voice in the wilderness promoting safety, and despite your combined scorn, I will stick to my opinion. --jjron 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, you can have your opinion, but let me just clarify. An encyclopedia is not a safety manual, we have no obligation to sensor dangerous behavior. In fact, I would argue that a neutral POV would have to be accepting of many peoples disregard for safety. Look at the article on skateboarding, most of the pictures are of people preforming dangerous stunts, I suppose you will remove those. How about the article on Recreational drug use, this is a different article then Drug abuse and reading it, it does not scorn the use of drugs... and it shouldn't. We can say: "safety experts have expressed that (enter activity here) is potentially dangerous.(citation here)" but to make the very distinction between dangerous and safe is to induce personal bias. This is not a staged picture, this is a real rider of a motorcycle on a day he didn't know he would be photographed. Go out and set up a picture of a Motorcycle rider with all the safety gear in the world and it would be more slanted than this 'because' you set up the situation. In your effort to make sure we are keeping people safe you are also ensuring that we are that much more biased, that much less acurate. This I think is a far greater danger then that posed by a motorcycle rider in jeans. My view on this is unlikely to change as well. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to go on with a long boring argument about nothing, but as I said before "the best current knowledge says that you don't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle". See motorcycle safety clothing. This is not personal bias as you suggest, this is what the safety experts tell us. As Matt says below (oddly while disagreeing with me) he could get out and take a photo of a motorcyclist in thongs, shorts and a singlet. Yes, it happens - but we don't need to be saying this is what you should be doing (hey didn't my original vote say something like this). And you wonder why people vote: Oppose. Composition. Give a genuine reason, get pilloried (shakes his head in disbelief). --jjron 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not that "the best current knowledge says that you don't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle", it's that "the best current knowledge says that you shouldn't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle". Obviously people do underprotect themselves, and illustrating this is encyclopedic. Moreover, "Composition" is a reasonable reason to oppose because it addresses FP Criterion 1.3. Safety reasons are inappropriate reasons to oppose because they are not among the FP criteria. Simple as that. Our job as FP voters is to apply those criteria to nominations, and nothing more. Perhaps safety should be a consideration, and if so, I'd suggest you start a discussion to include it among the FP criteria. Debivort 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Can you actually follow an argument? WOT. --jjron 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• WOT! Debivort 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support provided it gets put into an article; it is no longer in motorcycle. I don't think the safety issue is an issue at all, but for the record, the guy is at least wearing a helmet, proper boots, gloves, and full pants and jacket - a far cry from the flip-flops and shorts wearing riders I often see on the streets. Matt Deres 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• hell its alright we're covered Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • It is currently in the articles: Motorcycling and Honda CB550. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Incidentally Matt, not quite - these are not "proper boots" as you claim. As best I can tell from this distance the boots are work boots, not proper motorcycle boots. Lace up boots are not recommended due to potential danger of laces being caught up in the mechanisms. But hey, so what? --jjron 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I like the picture, technically great and it had value as an encyclopedic image — Preceding unsigned comment added by childzy (talk • contribs)
• Neutral It's a great photo but the colorful background of leaves distracts from the subject, I'm afraid, particularly in the thumbnail view where the difference in focus is not obvious. Spebudmak 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support very high quality, though the downhill slant does bother me a little. As far as "safety concerns" go, I agree entirely with Matt Deres. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support very interesting picture; very sharp rider; it does help show what a motorcycle is; Mcrawford620 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As usual I cannot see any merit in Mbz1's arguments - In my opinion it does have value as a high quality image of a motorcyclist in motion with good panning skill on the part of the photographer, and there are very few, if any distracting elements in the background. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Motor Cycle EB.jpg MER-C 09:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Portland Night Panorama

Original

Reason

Nicely shows the downtown area. Technically strong.

Proposed caption

The skyline of downtown Portland, Oregon. Taken from the east waterfront.

Articles this image appears in

Portland, OR

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support (Self-nom) Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Lovely picture, great stitch job, but I'm not convinced of its contribution to the article, especially given your existing FP at the head which depicts much of the same scene by daylight. It could certainly benefit from a more informative caption though (and the removal of the template deletion template!) ~ Veledan • T 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, its pretty similar to my other one but that doesn't preclude it from FP, compare this and this. Thanks for being more coherent then Mbz1. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, let me be completely clear and say that I'd have supported this photograph if your current FP of the same subject didn't exist. Criterion #5 doesn't make clear whether multiple images of the same subject where neither has any enc advantage over the other can simultaneously be FPs, and in the 3 years I've hung around WP:FPC I've seen many discussions on the subject fail to reach consensus. I am of the opinion that any image that doesn't provide additional value to an article should be featured on Commons not Wikipedia, hence the vote. Of course, this image might have informative/interesting elements that the existing FP doesn't cover but without a decent caption that can't be determined by people who don't know Portland! ~ Veledan • T 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The image adds no value to the article.--Mbz1 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment How so?--Svetovid 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria No 1 & 2 specify the technical quality required. Therefore it is contrary to support regardless of quality. --jjron 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put but uh, I think svetovid's comment was a response to Mbz1's vote since I added the note after svetovid added his. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, oops, I think you're right, I didn't look at the times, sorry (I guess that can happen when stuff gets out of chronological order and indenting goes awry; still, my miss). --jjron 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Because Portland's skyline is already a FP. I believe the photograph does add value to the article, but the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria #3: "It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject...," for which I would say the subject of Portland's skyline has it's best, as mentioned by Veledan above.--Puddyglum 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support - This is a gorgeous picture, which is certainly enough for adding significant value to the article. Sometimes I have the strong feeling that sterile pedantism is cultivated in this forum. - Alvesgaspar 00:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I truly don't think the distinction between Commons FP and Wikipedia FP is pedantic. Commons FP is the proper showcase for beautiful, well-photographed images; Wikipedia FP is the showcase for beautiful, well-photographed images that happen to be most valuable from an enc point of view, in the context of their article. I do feel that there is value in the exclusivity of the WP:FPC criteria. It's possible I'm wrong of course, but honestly it's not a pedantic discrimination ~ Veledan • T 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Alves. Very detailed. Although, personally, I think we could do with a guideline against multiple redundant FPs of the same subject. Debivort 03:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A high quality picture. The fact that there is a similar FP does not prevent it from becoming one itself. --NauticaShades 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support great panorama, nothing wrong with the article having 2. Anyway they arent even almost similar --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support I have seen many other pictures just like this one. It's similar and they're not ALL featured pictures, however interesting they are. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Portland Night panorama.jpg MER-C 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Snake River Canyon (Idaho)

Original

Edit 1

Reason

I found this image while I was adding historical images from the National Archives to articles here, and I thought it was a really nice shot. It's big and clear, with pleasing composition, and it adds a lot of value to its article.

Proposed caption

Snake River Canyon, a large canyon formed by the Snake River in the Magic Valley region of southern Idaho.

Articles this image appears in

Snake River Canyon (Idaho)

Creator

Gh5046

• Support as nominator Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - "It's big and clear" sorry but its not, it seems grainy and has large areas with poor focus. The technical quality lets the image down, the composition is quite nice --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - low technical quality - grainy and unfocused.--Svetovid 11:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's soft & grainy because it's straight out of the camera, where (for some reason) it was shot at ISO400. At 10MP it stands downsampling and enhancing a little. I've uploaded another version. I'm still not sure about it though.. it's basically a shot of a golf course.. mikaul^talk 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  I guess ISO 400 helped with the camera shake but increased the noise, nice edit btw Bleh999 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit 1. The edit is quite an improvement, but as mikaul said, it's just a shot of a golf course. Never mind then. --NauticaShades 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not a picture of a golf course, that's what you see from the Perrine memorial site at the Perrine Bridge. Look beyond the lower right corner of the photo. Gh5046 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I guess I should have voted myself, but all is well. Thank you for the nomination Hit bull, win steak, and thank you everyone else for your consideration and feedback! Gh5046 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrestrial planet size comparisons

Original

Edit 1 - horizontal resolution was tripled, and the four images:
Image:Reprocessed Mariner 10 image of Mercury.jpg
Image:Venus globe.jpg
Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg
Image:Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg
were superimposed over the old globes

Reason

I was browsing through some featured pictures, specifically Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Astronomy, when a link led me to Terrestrial planet, where I found this image. I think the image very encyclopedic and that it adds a lot of value to the articles it illustrates.

Proposed caption

The terrestrial planets, which are primarily composed of silicate rocks, compared by size. The term is derived from the Latin word for Earth, "Terra", so an alternate definition would be that these are planets are, in some notable fashion, "Earth-like". From left to right: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.

Articles this image appears in

Terrestrial planet, Solar System

Creator

NASA ([6])

• Support as nominator Boricuaeddie 02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It's a nice image, but it's rather small. I'd like to see a bit more planetary detail if I zoomed in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the main point is not to show the planets, but to compare their sizes. Maybe it can be uploaded again, but this time a little bigger. Do you wish for it to be a specific size? --Boricuaeddie 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It'd be nice if the planets were, say, in the range of 1200-1600 px high, or even bigger, if possible. As it is, it's not giving terribly more information than simple circles would. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Introduce edit 1 — Jack · talk · 23:38, Friday, 24 August 2007
• Support A nice informative image that clearly shows the size comparision of the inner planets.--Southern Texas 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has been nominated twice already in April 2006 and February 2007. --Uberlemur 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe it's proper to bring a personal issue with Mbz1 into all nominations he or she has recently voted on. Jumping cheese 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support a tad bigger would be nice but that would only help aesthetically, the image its self is fine --Childzy ₪ Talk 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several reasons, won't give them all, most have come up in its previous noms. Even though it is within guidelines, I rather agree with Adam on size, but wouldn't oppose just for that. Probably my main issue is that I find it a bit offputting, if not rather misleading, to show a radar image of Venus alongside regular visible light images of the other planets. I can sort of understand why it may have been done, but I don't like it. --jjron 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Lovely piece with good encylopedic value (something thats often overlooked in my opinion in favour of pretty pictures of flowers which arent really that encylopedic). Size is good in my opinion, as if you want a picture of earth we have better quality ones elsewhere, this isn't about that, its about comparison and it does that very well. Provided its technically correct it has my full support.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Useful, yes, but certainly not an example of the top fraction of a % of Wikipedia's best images. I'm sure this could be recreated fairly easily in far greater detail from free US gov images, and if it's only comparison—not detail—you want to show, then it could be made more useful by including all the planets, as well as some other massive objects. ~ Veledan • T 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think it's usefulness dictates the planets it includes and its level of detail. It illustrates exactly what it says it does. I agree it would be nice to have more detail, but that detail is somewhat irrelevant for its purpose. --Midnightdreary 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I have previously nominated this image, and upon a suggestion I created edit 1. However, I did a bit of a shitty job (courtesy of paint); if anyone could do a better job, using my instructions, please feel free. It would surely be a featurable picture — Jack · talk · 23:35, Friday, 24 August 2007
  • Looks fine. Thanks. BTW, I suggest you use Inkscape; it's much better than Paint :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "It would surely be a featurable picture" - well, not necessarily Jack; it addresses size concerns, but doesn't address the factual concerns raised in my vote above, and Adam's comment below. --jjron 15:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a little worried about that smooth band on mercury - it's not reality, it's just somewhere for which we don't know what it looks like, but this isn't indicated. Also, I think it'd be better to use a cloudy Venus in this case, to match the other images. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Original, Weak Oppose Edit 1. Edit One's size is better, but I still weak oppose per jjron and Adam. --NauticaShades 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No consenus MER-C 09:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (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.

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.

Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 10 are listed at all times
4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
5. 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.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

6. 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.

7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture |image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), 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}}.
9. 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.
10. 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}}
11. 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. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s. Use the tool below to nominate for delisting. Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Buddhabrot

Buddhabrot fractal

Reason

Unacceptable resolution for a computer-generated fractal. These images can be produced to arbitrary detail, there's no reason one this blurry and lo-res should be featured.

Nominator

froth^t

• Delist — froth^t 20:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• delist dissapointing at full rez. Debivort 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Re-generate The code is provided at User:Evercat/Buddhabrot.c - It should be trivial to create it at arbitrarily high resolution. Vanished user ^talk 22:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to regenerate it, but it's not as simple as changing the height and width in the code, since there's some kind of balance between the number of samples, the color curve, and the resolution that I couldn't understand. (Also, at high resolutions it takes hours to run, so it is difficult to do this by trial and error.) I agree, though, that someone who understands the code and the settings used to produce this image could produce a high-resolution version easily. — brighterorange (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Evercat's talk page if he ever checks by. NauticaShades 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a very strong random element in what the final outcome looks like. THat one worked out particularly well. Plus I barely remember how the code works and what good settings would be. :-) Evercat 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. If a better version is provided, let it pass through the usual nomination procedure. In the meantime, this shoud be delisted per Froth. ~ Veledan • T 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Matt Deres 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep until high-rez replacement is made, then replace, per Vanished user Spebudmak 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Bleh. Perhaps someone could contact the creator?--HereToHelp 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Re-Generate. Shouldn't be too hard. NauticaShades 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick google search throws up this promising Sourceforge project (Windoze only, so don't look at me). Regeneration shouldn't be that hard... MER-C 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Re-Generate. Per above points. It is best not to delist before then. --Sharkface217 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it's best not to leave this thing featured indefinitely until someone decides to re-render it --froth^t 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - rez. --Sean 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted . --Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon merged small

The Moon

Reason

There are a number of much higher quality images of the Moon at the commons.

Nominator

Chris H

• Delist — Chris H 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delist at least until a decent downsampled version is provided. It looks a whole lot better at 2000x1465, for example, and is still almost 3MP. However it's overexposed, and not the best "moon" we have from a Martian scientist point of view; full is better. mikaul^talk 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Oops, I'm confusing this with another moon. How confusing to have four. This one is clearly too small, blurred and incomplete. Subject cut off ;) – mikaul^talk 10:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the commons versions were the only ones being actively used then I would agree however as long as there are versions here being used (and remember the criteria is the best image on Wikipedia which doesn't include commons by most standards (plus all wikipedia servers = wikimedia but no wikimedia = wikipedia htough that's nitpicking) but nitpicking aside just because there may be better images in commons is not a good reason to delist. Cat-five - talk 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist A better image at Commons is a good reason to remove/replace an image in its articles (which doesn't need a vote here even if it's an FP). And if it isn't needed in articles, it should be removed from FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Replace We do need a moon FP. I would recommend unless somebody finds something better. It's the sharpest, fullest moon of decent rez I could find. Please, look and make sure there isn't a better one out there. (If you're going to delist something because there's a superior image, you need to tell us what that image is!)--HereToHelp 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. See discussion below.--HereToHelp 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist and oppose the suggested alternatives. Come on, we have multimillion dollar telescopes and hundreds of billions in space research and we can't get a good picture of our own moon? I've seen pictures of the moon (probably on wikipedia somewhere) in positively blistering detail, 1000x1000's not going to cut it with the number of small moon landmarks visible + a lack of blurring atmosphere. --froth^t 04:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I would respectfully ask you (and everyone else) to try and locate such an image. The only reason this image is being delisted is because of the existence of better images, but nobody has bothered actually finding a superior image to be featured in its place. A good (but by no means exhaustive) look through nasa.gov for full or nearly full moons turns up only [7] and [8] (which are available from the commons as [9] and [10], respectively). The former is dark, unsharp, and has longitude-like lines all over it; the latter has sharp, pixelated edges and weird coloring. I have not searched the websites of other space agencies, so we might have better luck there. Until then, I still stand by my suggested replacement candidate in my above comment.--HereToHelp 18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess you weren't around when this nomination came up. It wasn't promoted, but only because there were better images available, like this one, which although miles better than the one up for delisting here (and, I have to say, your suggested alternative) still isn't necessarily a stand-out FP candidate. As I'll never tire of pointing out, we don't need a Featured Picture of anything. If, as and when an outstanding shot of the moon is nominated, it will most likely be promoted; there's no need to replace an FP if it's delisted. mikaul^talk 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess I didn't see that one; it is indeed superior. Okay, then, delist.--HereToHelp 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Replace with this higher quality image. --NauticaShades 01:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Delisted . Image:Full Moon Luc Viatour.jpg to be nominated per discussion. --NauticaShades 17:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Takakkaw Falls

Takakkaw Falls with rainbow in mist.

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - fixed cloning errors

Reason

Under current standards, this image is quite small at only 800x533 pixels. The image looks nice, but I don't really think it meets the requirements. If a similar, higher resolution image could be posted, that would be great.

Nominator

-KULSHRAX

• Delist — -KULSHRAX 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist mainly due to size; the perspective's off too, though that's not a huge deal. --Peter 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Replace with Edit 1 Great shot - love the colours, both in the rainbow and the landscape --Fir0002 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• KeepNice picture--Mbz1 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Keep I probably wouldn't vote for it on a new FPC, but I don't think it should be deslisted based on the size alone. Otherwise it is a great photo. Cacophony 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought "I wouldn't vote for it on a new FPC" means it's not up to current FP standards, which is why FP's get delisted? Additionally, it seems that new FPC's get oppose votes based solely (or primarily at the very least) on low resolution; the wording in the criteria sounds pretty strict too, and I wouldn't classify this as an exception to that rule (e.g. historical). If it were higher resolution, or if resolution weren't a deal-breaker, I'd definitely say keep it. --Peter 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a pretty lengthy discussion about this on the talk page awhile ago. Some argued that the standard should be "would it be promoted if it were nominated today". Others (myself included), don't really agree with that sentiment and think that images that were promoted a long time ago (when the standards were different) should have to fall considerably below the standards that exist today. Otherwise we are just going to rehash old points of contention over and over. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to vote to delist it just because it is a bit on the small size. Cacophony 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delist - Nevermind, I looked at it again and it is more than a bit too small. The cloning errors that Debivort pointed out are another problem. Cacophony 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The uniqueness of the shot would be impossible to achieve again so since we cant get any better lets stick with what we have. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What about this shot do you find impossible to duplicate? Mist rainbows aren't that uncommon. --Peter 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - size, and what looks like a bad cloning job on the left edge, where the waterfall hits the rocky slope. Debivort 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist as per Debivort; that clone job is horrible. I bet it was beautiful to see, but the picture itself isn't that great. Matt Deres 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per debivort- nice spot! Also the resolution is pretty terrible. It probably deserved FP at the time it was nominated but can you honestly say this is one of wikipedia's best images? --froth^t 04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Yes nice spot for the cloning error, but with a little more skilled cloning it can be fixed. See my edit --Fir0002 10:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Still weak delist but in any case replace with fir's edit. I still have problems with the image, especially the totally-black shadows on the trees in the foreground and a weird compression halo between rock and sky --froth^t 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Nice Composition and all... but its just too small... really..Yzmo ^talk 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if Replaced. The picture, while a nice composition, is quite small. If it is kept, it should definitely be replaced with the edit. --NauticaShades 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's big enough for my standards. -Henry W. Schmitt 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• But not our standards. MER-C 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cry me a waterfall over a rainbow about it. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept but Replaced. --NauticaShades 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

This section is for Featured Picture candidatures whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

Image:Giant Haasts eagle attacking New Zealand moa.jpg

Original

Reason

A beautiful and very encyclopedic illustration of extinct animals

Proposed caption

Giant Haast's eagle attacking New Zealand moa (The caption can also include some explanations about the Island gigantism)

Articles this image appears in

Island gigantism, Haast's eagle, Moa, Late Quaternary prehistoric birds

Creator

John Megahan

• Support as nominator Tomer T 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• support - I think PLoS is an untapped resource for images, and we should all keep an eye out there for high quality ones. Debivort 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• support--Mbz1 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Mbz1 - could you please give your reasoning, both here and in the two or three other nominations below where your only comment is "support"? Considering this isn't a true vote (although it often feels like one) that would be very helpful. Thanks. Zakolantern 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, generally a reason is only considered necessary on an oppose vote. The nominator gives the reasons in favor of the image, and a plain support vote indicates agreement. Debivort 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I should reason only oppose. You see, it is hard for me to write in English, which I've learned just few years ago. One user(fir0002) has already made comments about my spelling, that's why I rarely oppose and more often support just to write less.--Mbz1 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Support - I looked at their website and was impressed. Artistic quality is great, as expected from a professional journal, and all its current uses are legit, something I was unsure of and went though and checked. So high enc value, especially for an artistic interpretation. I would like the piece on giagantism added to the caption. Zakolantern 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Zakolantern and comment: I suggest that the caption clearly indicate that this is an artist's interpretation (even though it's pretty obvious). I also note that the artist's signature and the date '2004' are in the lower left corner-- I assume that this is not contrary to our standards. Spikebrennan 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it shouldn't be an issue; after all, the copyright status is what matters. An extreme example, for clarity: if a Monet painting is signed by the author, it's still a great thing to have on Wikipedia, and it's still copyright expired public domain. Zakolantern 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference being that Monet's paintings are historic - in fact partially due only to the fact that they have his signature - and that altering them would be altering history. On the other hand, this drawing draws no added value from the signature. I'm not advocating keeping or removing the signature, but the license does allow for modifications, given attribution, so if anyone feels the urge, he can remove the signature. J Are you green? 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great work. —Pengo 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all above. I think we might as well keep the signature. The only problem with them (assuming they were added by the original artist!) is that they may assert copyright (taken care of).--HereToHelp 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose removing the signature - I think it's part of the original piece, and something the artist probably put in their knowing the copyright "limits" of the journal it was going into. While the license allows us to remove it, it doesn't mean we should. Zakolantern 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine by me.--HereToHelp 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The contrast is on low side. Everything seems slightly washed out. Isaac 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. For two main reasons. If this was a photo, everyone would be screaming about the washed out colours, and blown out sky (and the signature for that matter). I’m not exactly sure why this has different standards, but I’d be almost willing to let that slip. The more important reason though is scientific accuracy. Although there were a number of different species of moas, the most well known are for obvious reasons the biggest ones, the giant moas. According to the articles, these grew up to 3.6m, while Haast's Eagles had a wingspan of from 2.6 to 3m. OK, now look at the picture. The wingspan on the eagle is clearly bigger than these moas; at a rough estimate, even if the wingspan is at the upper end of 3m, I’d say the moas here are well under 2m. What’s more, since the moas are nearer to where the picture is taken, due to perspective they should appear bigger still. Not sure what I mean – check out Image:Haastseagleattacksamoa.jpg to get a better idea of what it should look like. So, the only interpretations here are that either the picture is wrong, or that it’s misleading because it’s either showing some relatively small species of moa, or juveniles of the ‘popular’ giant species. Since neither of these possible misleading options is identified in the caption or picture description (it simply says it’s a moa), I’m guessing it’s wrong. Either way I oppose, because, whether wrong or simply misleading, it contradicts what everyone else has said about it having high encyclopaedic value. It also disturbs me that this misleading picture is spread so prominently as the lead picture in so many articles. It is a nice picture though. --jjron 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great picture. It's definitly an depiction of the Megalapteryx didinus better known as the Upland Moa. As far as i know, it's accurate (proof here) and not misleading since it does not appear on the Giant Moa article. PYMontpetit 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I accept that this is a good, encyclopedic, image, but the quality of the painting doesn't exactly blow me away. Frankly, it has a kind of flat, paint-by-numbers kind of quality to it that I find underwhelming. Matt Deres 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I was planning to nominate this myself when I got around to it. Guess someone beat me to it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh. This is why science is not democratic. Oh well, more misleading information in Wikipedia that the media can use to beat up on it again. --jjron 09:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please reply to PYMontpetit's comment above that implies the image is accurate. Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Only just seen this down here. OK, my original summary of my issue: "...the only interpretations here are that either the picture is wrong, or that it’s misleading because it’s either showing some relatively small species of moa, or juveniles of the ‘popular’ giant species...". PYMontpetit's comment was: "It's definitly an depiction of the Megalapteryx didinus better known as the Upland Moa. As far as i know, it's accurate...and not misleading since it does not appear on the Giant Moa article".

I think "definitly an depiction [sic]" is a bit of long call, but it is possible that this is what it is (for mine the leg structure and feather coverage on the legs is different in the current nom from PYMontpetit's linked image).

I did make the point that it could be a small species of moa, or juveniles of the giant moas, but as I said that would make it misleading. It would be like showing a thylacine attacking a kangaroo to show how big the extinct thylacines were, but using a smaller macropod like a wallaby instead of what people normally think of as a kangaroo in order to artificially exaggerate the size of the thylacine. It may not be wrong if you can sort out what the actual species are, but it's certainly misleading when you don't give the details of these species.

If you just say "moa", people will automatically think of the giant moa of this sort of size, as they are far and away the most well known, but some moas such as the Euryapteryx were only about the size of a large turkey.

As this image never states a species anywhere (not even on the original site), I maintain my original objection. Even if it was finally definitely identified as a small species of moa, I still feel it's being used in a misleading way to enhance the apparent size of the Haast's Eagle. --jjron 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was voting based on art, not science --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Jjron. Accuracy must be confirmed before anything further goes on. On the picture itself, I'm leaning towards neutral per Matt Deres. It's interesting, but not really anything very special. thegreen J Are you green? 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I voted support above, if this isn't scientifically accurate, it simply cannot be featured. Perhaps we should suspend the nom until someone can very, perhaps the artist?--HereToHelp 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. MER-C 09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

---

• um... Those of you worried about technical accuracy would do well to consider PYMontpetit's comment which gives pretty compelling evidence that it is accurate. Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no clue about Giant Haasts eagles or moas, but I think that since the objection has been brought up, we should at least confirm that PYMontpetit's comment from a second source. thegreen J Are you green? 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Refer to my most recent statement just above. --jjron 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose since the listing is still open. I'm not stressed about the size of the moas having read the article PYMontpetit linked, but the painting itself is not exactly jaw-dropping per Matt Deres ~ Veledan • T 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Perspective is confused to my eye, and the image is overall quite flat. Ceoil 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No Consensus , since no one has taken an initiative to prove it's scientifically accurate. --NauticaShades 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal from the river side. (Samuel Bourne 1865).

Photograph of the Taj Mahal from the Yamuna river in Agra, taken by Samuel Bourne in 1865. Albumen print from wet collodion-on-glass negative. Original scanned version with blemishes.

Photograph of the Taj Mahal from the Yamuna river in Agra, taken by Samuel Bourne in 1865. Albumen print from wet collodion-on-glass negative. Cleaned up version, but compressed further.

Compare the river today (taken from another angle) and notice the "park" between the Taj and the river.

Edit 02. removed artifacts, converted to greyscale and saved with as least compression as possible.

Reason

Historic photograph of the Taj Mahal from an unusual angle. Samuel Bourne, one of the earliest photographers of British India, lived and photographed widely in India from 1863 to 1869. Along with Charles Shepherd, one of the pioneers of albumin printing, he founded the Bourne and Shephard studios in Simla, Calcutta, and Bombay. The studios continues to operate in Calcutta (Kolkata) today. Note that the river today does not flow as close to the Taj; from this angle today all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." (See third photo, for comparison.) (See: Sampson, Gary D. 2000. "Photographer of the Picturesque: Samuel Bourne," in Vidya Deheja (ed.), India through the Lens. Photography 1840-1911. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 163-197. Also, Gordon, Sophie. 2000. The Imperial Gaze. The Photography of Samuel Bourne (1863-1870). New York, Sepia International.)

Articles this image appears in

potentially India and Taj Mahal

Creator

Samuel Bourne

• Support as nominator — Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Weak Support One of the precious and historical photographs. Low Resolution should not be considered as factor due to historical significance as per Point 2 of Featured pictures criteria. I will prefer copyright issues to be resolved without any ambiguity. Collect Britain web page give hints that it could be copyrighted--Indianstar 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This may need to be sorted out at the Wikipedia Powers-that-be Level. See discussion here for similar problems at Getty Museum I don't know if the Morven there is the Morven of Wikipedia, but I'll ask him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Awful photograph! But they say it is copyrighted. Bad that a photo 147 years old should still be copyrighted. How did you remove that copyright tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.39 (talk • contribs). at 03:04, 4 June 2007

I downloaded it in November 2005, when there was no British Library tag on it! I don't think they are copyrighted. All they have done is to scan a Bourne image. In 2006, I wrote to BL asking them if I could put the picture on Wikipedia, but they never replied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I can't imagine it could be copyrighted, since there were many prints made and sold by Bourne and Shephard Studios in the 19th century, and the British Library has only one of those prints (from which it made the scans). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support A great picture. --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• oppose - bad compression artifacts (49k file!) A better scan might succeed. Debivort 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that in cleaning up the picture, I compressed it further. I have now included the original scanned version with the orginal marks and blemishes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Super strong SUPPORT: It is an excellent detailed picture of the historical Taj Mahal (one of the seven wonders of the world). Also, instead of the usual front view of the architectural structure, it shows a different yet equally amazing view of the marvelous building. Also, in terms of imagery, it has a good resolution and everything else. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What wonders would that be?--Svetovid 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by your comment? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He probably was noting that the Taj Mahal is not one of the definitive seven wonders of the ancient world: the Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, tomb of Mausolus, Colossus of Rhodes, and Lighthouse of Alexandria. J Are you green? 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not one of the seven ancient wonders (and it can't be one either because it was built around the sixteenth century, which is way after what ancient is), but it is one of the seven tourist travel wonders of the world. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one, but I doubt a difinitive list of ultimate tourist destinations exists, and if it does, my guess is that it's a gimmick. J Are you green? 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - cant see anything special in this photograph except that its claimed to be very old. And the 'historic' pitch is moot because this photo doesnt show anything about the Taj that we cant see today. Sarvagnya 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: What is special about this picture is that it shows a different yet equally beautiful view of the Taj, one that is different from the normal cliched one. Also, in this view, the picture is taken from a distance which also reveals the beauty of the nature (e.g. the river, soil, etc.) around the Taj while still succeeding in maintaining the focus on the Taj. Also, its historical value should be appreciated. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose *weak supportprobably a low quality digitization of the original, and actual building hasn't been destroyed, damaged or changed much since this photograph was taken Bleh999 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I change my vote to weak support of edit .02 in light of the information about the river, also I removed the color image of the taj mahal, because it's not a fair comparisonBleh999 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The river doesn't flow as close to the Taj any more. From this angle today, all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." See third photograph above for comparison. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment An unnecessarily poor version of a beautiful photograph. At first I thought the worst of it was the fogged upper half of the original print, but the scan is just too small to proprly appreciate the image in almost any respect. You get an idea of the exquisite detail of the original print here, where the "zoom" facility lets you see a small portion at a time of what appears to be the print at 100%. Stunning. The below-par submission here should not be promoted without a proper attempt to acquire a better scan. mikaul^talk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose until a better version is uploaded. I'd be happy to attempt to contact the source and get hold of it, assuming no-one has recently done so of course. mikaul^talk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Email sent, fingers crossed, chances fat :/ mikaul^talk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just received a reply promising a decision by next Tuesday. mikaul^talk 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So...did you hear back? Jumping cheese 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mick Stephenson did hear from them. He is currently talking to the BL people to work some kind of an arrangement for the image. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of arrangement? Mike is not gonna have to pay for them to scan a high res copy is he? The license seems alright, so I'm assuming you don't need permission to use a high res version. Jumping cheese 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Neutral about the candidacy, but the OR about the changing distance between Yamuna and the Taj Mahal doesn't make much sense given the overwhelming temporal non-uniformness of precipitation in the Indian subcontinent -- On an average 90-odd days of flood and practically no rain for the remaining 275 days in the year. If you go there often in different seasons, you'll know that the "distance" depends upon the time of the year. A good rain for a couple of days, that the river comes all the way on the Taj. deeptrivia (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The quality of the picture (both the photograph and this version) is just not good enough. Sure it's old, and what can you expect, but I don't think this should be featured. Althepal 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose low res scan of old picture does not make a featured picture. Stefan 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We are waiting for the high res version. See Mick Stephenson's (Mikaul) post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In all fairness, I think we've waited long enough and I think this nom ought to be closed. Mikaul should re-nom it if and whewhen he is able to get permission for the hi res version. Sarvagnya 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, assuming the original nominator is too. I had hoped to have a result by now, but these things seem to take time :o/ mikaul^talk 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not OK with it. Mick Stephenson (Mikaul), a professional photographer, has made a big effort to talk to the people at British Library. There is no reason why we can't wait, since Mick's chances of success are quite good, and his effort promises other bounties for Wikipedia. Besides the wait doesn't involve any active effort on anyone else's part. Mick can certainly take over as the nominator when the high res image arrives, but I'd prefer to have the history of the nomination in one place rather than two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - an excellent picture considering the time the pic was taken.. dtj 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think this should be closed, anyway we have this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sambourneagra1860s.jpg on commons, which is a much higher resolution and better photo of the Taj Mahal by Samuel Bourne even if it doesn't show the river, the related problem is that this image doesn't even appear in any articles Bleh999 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment: The reason why it hadn't been added to the Taj Mahal page and the Samuel Bourne page is that I was waiting for the better version from Mick. I have now added the image to both pages. As for the other image, the reason why we are waiting for Mick to get the high-res version is that it is much better (both in composition and resolution) than the image you mention above. I wonder if Mick has any comments. Did you hear anything else from BL, Mick? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to prejudice anything, but the British Library have made noises to the effect that they might be "interested in working with Wikipedia" with regard to some of their photographic collection(s). Release of a high-res version of the Bourne image, which was my original line of inquiry, is kind of tied up in these negotiations, which in turn have been hampered somewhat by the BL's need to do things by conventional mail. I'm still on the case, as it were, and optimistic though I am, it will probably take a while longer before I can shed any light on the Bourne image. If/when we get a suitable license, I'm hopeful it will open up access to more quality historical images, so it's kind of worth being patient a little while longer. mikaul^talk 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Digital images and snail mail! Now there's a new one, but par for the course for libraries, who (it seems) have been dragged kicking and screaming into internet age. Thanks for pursuing this, Mick. I know it is slow and frustrating work, but as you said yourself somewhere, the payoff could be substantial. As for this nomination, I'm happy to wait; if, however, at any time in the future, you feel that the nomination is "stuck" and it is time to pull the plug, please let us know. You are pretty much calling the shots on this. Thanks again, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose In short: this is not WP's best. Puddyglum 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why are we using an old black and white from the 1800s? Isn't the Taj Mahal still standing? --ffroth 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See the nom, and the additional image uploaded to illustrate. The river no longer runs alongside. I actually think it has wider enc value, but it looks as if it'll have to wait until a future nomination anyway. I'm still hopeful of a high res version but if nothing transpires by the end of next week I'm going to suggest a close on this one, it's been around way too long. --mikaul^talk 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw the nomination Since I heard from Mick Stephenson that the British Library is not coming through on this, in spite of his more than a dozen attempts (see here), I am now formally withdrawing the nomination. I am sure other lovers of the Bourne image will agree that Mick has done a stalwart job and deserves our collective thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Four-seam fastball by Chris Young

Four seam fastball delivery by Chris Young during pregame bullpen warmup.

Edit 1 - adjusted levels so that it's less washed-out; downsampled to reduce artifacts; slight rotate

Edit 3 by jjron - tilt adjustment, crop, sharpen, colour balance, noise reduction (note: replaced low res Edit2 sample version with this)

Reason

This shot captures a four-seam fastball with enough detail to see the seams on the baseball and the fingers during an action shot of a pitcher's delivery. It is rare level quality and detail on wikipedia to have such clarity of the seams and the fingers in an action shot of a top flight pitcher. Chris Young is an interesting subject because he is an up and coming pitcher who is the first Princeton University baseball player to start a Major League Baseball game since 1961. Since Wrigley Field is on the short list of favorite baseball stadiums (with Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park) the backdrop of the old fashioned scoreboard (note the scoreboard only has room for 24 teams even though baseball has expanded 3 times to 30 teams since the scoreboard was added) adds interesting context to the picture. Its old fashioned layout with open bullpens in foul territory (instead of enclosed as is more common) allowed me and the viewer to look on along with the bullpen coach.

Articles this image appears in

Chris Young (baseball pitcher)
Bullpen
Fastball
Starting pitcher
Pitcher
All-Star Final Vote
Four-seam fastball

Creator

User:TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion on various contract issues regarding this photo (hidden by noinclude) has suggested that this photo is, indeed, OK for inclusion. Restarting candidacy. MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support With the copyright issues out of the way, this one's a no-brainer for me. SingCal 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Great detailed view of the delivery. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Detail on the fingers is excellent, relatively rare, and very illustrative. Chick Bowen 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Appears tilted. The composition is really the biggest problem in my eyes. There is too little space in the direction of dynamic movement (in front of chris young, the direction he is throwing) I'm not sure if a portrait orientation is best for this picture. The pitching coach in the background is distracting. A tighter crop would be nice. Also, although this could be overlooked if the other aspects were addressed, I'd prefer to have the picture taken during the game. Maybe that prevents use b/c of copyright but it'd be nice. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Still oppose, the cropping helped but unfortunately the aspect ratio is too tall and skinny for this type of shot. I didn't suggest cropping or add my own edit because I thought (and still think) there isn't enough space on the left. Its a good shot by all means, I the composition just isn't there for my. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • You'd need a heck of a lens to get that much detail during the game. A bullpen shot is actually better for this purpose (showing the grip on the ball). Chick Bowen 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added a low-res edit (Edit 2) with a tilt correction (based on the flagpole being vertical, but I may have gone just a little too far) and a crop (agree with Fcb981's comments re the composition, coach, etc, so have tried to fix this with the crop). This is for discussion only rather than voting. --jjron 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The composition of Edit 2 is much better. It doesn't appear to me that you went to far in the tilt correction, but it's hard to tell. I would support a full-res version of edit 2. --Malachirality 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I too would support full res of edit 2. And we need to have a caption too. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I hesitated about running a full-res version of Edit2 as the original here has already been reduced a bit, so didn't know how it would handle it the crop and resave. I can have a try, but it would probably be better if TonyTheTiger did it off the real original. --jjron 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit3 uploaded; I have removed the low-res Edit2 and replaced it with a full-res Edit3. Link to Edit2 here.

• Oppose I was just going to abstain here, but I've read over the original objections and I'm not really happy on a couple of points. The original image always seemed to me to be beyond redemption on composition, sharpness and enc grounds. I like jjron's edit but it's really only addressed one of those issues. I also don't understand how the copyright issue is suddenly "out of the way". Did I miss the part where permission was granted, or have we just decided to "publish and be damned"? All told, I can't help thinking it's a lot of struggle for a rather flawed image of doubtful legality, so I have to oppose. --mikaul^talk 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment glad to see debate resume. I am also grateful that this was cropped in a way that does not affect any of the linked articles. Since this was a 12:05 game the clock is important for starting pitcher and the bullpen is obviously important for bullpen. I would just remind you that this is the best unposed picture of a Four seam fastball on WP. Bases on the first sentence at WP:FPC ("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."), this is a great shot for its instructive value. I am not a photographer and appreciate all the editorial assistance in making corrections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I don't know much about contrast and tint and such, but as a casual observer, I think the grass' green and the sky's blue looked better in edit 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Original & Edit 1, Weak Neutral Edit 3. Bad tilt and composition issues on opposed versions. Even with my edit that helps with these problems, I just can't really support Edit 3 on quality grounds. Re encyclopaedic value, I think it's best use is for the Chris Young article and probably 'pitcher' - a fair bit of discussion has gone on re the Four seam fastball value, but to me that's not that great as you can only see the fingers at full size (which not that many users do), and then it's all pretty fuzzy. So it does have value and is a fine image, but just not quite there for me. --jjron 08:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg MER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Elisabethmarkt Muenchen Graffiti

This work is an example of Street Art on the wall of Elisabethmarkt in Munich, Germany. It shows the use of both free-hand aerosol paints and stencils. A stencil can be used to protect a surface except the specific shape that is to be painted. Stencils can be purchased as movable letters, ordered as professionally cut logos, or hand-cut by artists. The speed, portability and permanence also make aerosol paint a common graffiti medium.

Ca.30% downsampled version for evaluation purposes

Reason

A great image of Graffiti, it shows the size of images that can be made and how it is a true artform.

Articles this image appears in

Elisabethmarkt Graffiti

Creator

Oliver Raupach

• Support as nominator — Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• When you say creator and selbst gemacht (own work) does this mean you are the Graffiti artist? If not then we have a problem here... --Dschwen 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why, if the person that took the photo releases it then there is no problem. It is graffiti, nobody owns any rights towards the work anyway --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about graffiti and copyright and here are German laws on freedom of panorama. What could you make of it?--Svetovid 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong oppose upon reconsideration I'm not convinced that using the image isn't copyright infringement, unless we have the permission of the graffiti artist him/herself. Even if there are no legal ramifications from using this image, posting it without the painter's consent doesn't reflect the ideals of WP. At least that's my perspective. SingCal 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean that information wants to be free and we need to get it into the hands of everyone at no cost? Copyright goes against wiki ideals, it's just something we have to deal with since people with guns and lawyers don't agree with us --froth^t 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Encyclopedic and excellent quality reproduction. Bleh999 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose at 100%, the image is not crisp. I understand that the medium (presumably spray paint) doesn't give a crisp edge, but I am not talking about that. Look at the texture on the wall. There seems to be focus issues.-Andrew c 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Support withdrawn It's in focus, I think. As it's rather large (10MP) and not sharpened, it looks "soft" at 100%. This is more the fault of the Wikipedia image display defaults: images aren't scalable, so there's no happy medium between 800x600 preview – where you see little to no detail – and full resolution, where you can't see the wood for the trees. While downsampling and sharpening would work, you lose the benefit of high resolution and spoil the image for possible print use in the future. I've uploaded a ds version anyway, so you can see what it might look like in print. (All) that said, whereas I really like the illustration, the copyright situation is unclear (per SingCal) & I'd need clarifiaction before supporting.
  mikaul^talk 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support downsampled provided copyright is resolved. Also, do you think the nudity is sufficient to disqualify it from the Main Page. (Yes, I know, an image can be featured but withheld a Main Page appearance.) I don't mind, but someone else might.--HereToHelp 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no copyright issues.. this photo is just a picture of a wall, the wall happens to have a FP worthy design on it. The artist does not own the wall thus does not own the picture. There is no copyright tag on the wall so the picture has not been copyright protected. You can look at it a million ways but at the end of the day lets finish with the semantics and accept that there is nothing wrong with it from a copyvio point of view --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a picture of a picture, not just a wall... Just so you know, a ©-mark is not necessary. Copyright is automatic when an image is made public. However, if there is no author's name or signature, then we don't know who the © belongs to.
      • I've just reverted my reconsidered support for this. As a photo of a recent artwork, the best we can hope for is Fair Use, which makes it ineligible for FP. I'd also like to point out that it is signed... mikaul^talk 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • But from a legal point of view is graffiti entilted to copyright protection. Now im no lawyer but id think not tbh. --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
          • If it's illegal graffiti, probably not. But I look at the intense, painstaking detail of the painting and I think it wasn't a rush job. I feel like the artist had permission to use the space, either from a business owner or as part of an exhibition similar to the one that Wooster Collective sponsored. In either of those cases, intellectual copyright holds and we don't have permission to use the image. And I think these scenarios are likely enough that promoting this to FP would be irresponsible. SingCal 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP is not censored. So nudity shouldn't matter. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know it isn't and it shouldn't. Just wanted to make sure nobody else disagreed.--HereToHelp 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fair use#Images: As a recent artwork with clear authorship, wikipedia might be entitled to Fair Use licensing of this image under "images illustrative of a particular technique". Regardless of any (unfounded) assumptions we might make about the legality of the original artwork, and despite it being a photographic reproduction, it must be assumed to have legitimate authorship and therefore subject to copyright the same as any other artwork. Fair Use might be ok for wikipedia in general but it is not a permissible license for featured picture submissions under the current criteria. I move we suspend this nomination at the very least, until the license situation is properly resolved.
mikaul^talk 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Mikaul. I move to suspend the nomination as well, with the understanding that I would likely be in support of this candidate if not for the copyright issues. SingCal 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wouldn't the owner of the wall have the rights? Shoeshirt 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, authorship is everything. It's yer intellectual property, innit? mikaul^talk 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But if am using your property without your permission as a component of the art, then wouldn't that make a difference? If I took your paint and your canvas and made a picture without permission, or if I stole a camera and took a picture and it was recovered, wouldn't the owner of the medium have the rights? Not basing this on anything, it would just seem to make sense. Shoeshirt 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting Shoeshirt 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but again, that discussion only applies if the graffiti is created illegally, and as I've said, I think that there is ample evidence to support that it was created legitimately. Even if the building's owner has since removed it, the artist still holds intellectual copyright on visual representations of the work, including images, until he or she decides to release them. SingCal 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless there is a specific prior agreement to the contrary, ownership of the medium (camera, film, canvas, wall) employed to create an intellectual work is secondary to ownership of the content within that medium. Hence you may own a book but not the ideas printed in it, or a music CD but not the songs written for it. If I use your camera and take a photo with it, it's your camera and my photo, whether I took it with your permission or not; they're entirely distinct entities. mikaul^talk 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to summarize, since there's often confusion around this idea: If you were to spray-paint a tuxedo on a statue, the resulting art (yes, it's art and copyrightable, even when illegal) is a derivative work. Copyright is held by both the street artist and the statue's artist. However, when you put a mural on a wall, the wall is typically considered a canvas of sorts, which has no copyright standing. The art, therefore is not a derivative and stands on its own. Ownership of the material on which the art is painted does not convey copyright. For example, if Picasso had stopped to draw a picture on a paper that someone gave to him to autograph, that picture that he drew is his work, and the person who owns the paper has no standing to claim copyright controls over it. The visceral sense that we get that an artist who uses someone else's property for their art must be sacrificing control is appropriate, legally, only in terms of disposing of the art. When it comes to reproduction, copyright law makes no allowance for ownership of the media. Note: 1) I am not a lawyer, this is just a summary of what I have researched myself 2) I'm discussing U.S. law due to Wikipedia's hosting location. German law may differ. -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose conditionally - should the artist authorize the image's release under a free license, then I would support this image. Its focus is not even, but that's a factor of the size of the wall, I believe. The composition and lighting are excellent. The art itself is stunning, and clearly topical if somewhat adolescent. Has anyone tried to contact the artist? -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's been 3 months since the nom was suspended, and there's been no progress on addressing the image's status. I couldn't find a clearly explained WP policy on suspended nominations, but as so much time has passed I move to close as no consensus due to inactivity and the inconclusive voting results thus far. SingCal 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspended due to uncertain copyright status. MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted because of copyright issues. Can be renominated when they are resolved. --NauticaShades 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)