Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
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 common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the New nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the Nomination for removal section. For listing, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations. |
Featured picture tools: |
Nomination procedure
===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]=== [[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]] Add your reasons for nominating it here; say what article it appears in, and who created the image. *Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~ * <!-- additional votes go above this line --> {{breakafterimages}}
If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination. Please be aware that there is a bot which currently helps to maintain this page. Please also be aware that the first date on the subpage should always be the date when it was placed on this page. See the notes section on the bot's userpage. Supporting and opposing
Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Evaluating dark images 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 above 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. |
Current nominations
Place new nominations at the top of this section.
It's not a particularly striking or scenic image, which isn't this image's value; rather, this lists all the major cities, including the ones in Central Asia, and all military possessions, a very expansive and extensive map; and it's detail is its value here that I think should be a role model for all other maps to look up to. It is topographical, and shows trade routes, and hints at the Silk Road. It is therefore of high value to the Han Dynasty (and good for the Xiongnu article to give a bigger picture). This could probably be built on by including the contact with the Ancient Greeks, Macedonians, etc. beyond the Ta-Yuan (which is spelt Dayuan in the image and is to the very western edge of the map), but this is sufficient for featured picture, methinks. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The sourcing is weird- it covers relatively trivial matters such as geographical features, but not the main business of the respective settlements and their statuses.Markyour words 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Oppose. Interesting map, but too plain to be FP worthy in my opinion. Also, there are a few little problems. The scale in the lower right shows 500 mi where it should be 400 mi. Some words are a little difficult to read, like Wu or Panyu on the coast. Green and yellow dots are not so easy to distinguish. Finally, I am not sure I understand the meaning of the text about the eastern coastline. --Bernard Helmstetter 21:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)- On second thought, Neutral. A couple more remarks. NJ-MAN should probably appear in the abbreviation list. And I don't understand if words in capital letters are meant to indicate people, cities or regions. Some of these, but not all, seem to be associated with dots, so it is confusing. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- The NJ-MAN thing has been fixed up. The small capital letters are meant to indicate peoples, as is shown in the key on the left. I can see how it may be confusing in the western regions, where some peoples overlap with tributary states. In that area sometimes one people are divided into two tributary states. There are also some peoples who did not recognise the authority of the Han empire. I tend to think that it shouldn't be so confusing for someone with some familiarity with Han history. Yeu Ninje 12:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought, Neutral. A couple more remarks. NJ-MAN should probably appear in the abbreviation list. And I don't understand if words in capital letters are meant to indicate people, cities or regions. Some of these, but not all, seem to be associated with dots, so it is confusing. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I like a lot about the map, but it has issues. For one, I don't think it really does a good job of fully illustrating Han's foreign relations of the period. Perhaps someone can address the concerns and upload an updated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)- Support. Good changes. The format should be PNG (as noted by Renata) and the white lines (communication and transport routes, see image description page) should be made explicit in the legend, but I'm voting support because I'm betting that Yeu Ninje will promptly address those issues. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral, I would really like to see a higher resolution version if that is possible, some of the dots are hard to see. I really appreciate the extent of the documentation though.--Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm the original creator of this map. I've uploaded a new version, cleared up some of the errors (like the "500 mi" thing), and attempted to clear up some of the ambiguities (like how the capitalised names are the names of non-Chinese peoples, not geographical features). I've also taken up Dante's point, and renamed the map to "Han Civilisation". The shaded areas are supposed to show the extent of Han civilisation (as evidenced by the presence of Han culture, direct Han political authority, urbanisation etc.); the orange dependent states in Central Asia were subject to indirect Han political influence. Whilst this map may not make it to featured picture status, your comments are still helpful - keep them coming. Yeu Ninje 02:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Could you give sources for the extent of Han settlement, and for the the status of the settlements? Markyour words 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a note to the image which hopefully explains the source: "The shaded areas show the extent of Han civilisation. I've based this on the existence of settlements under direct Han political authority or military control, according to Tan Qixiang (ed.), Zhongguo lishi ditu (中国历史地图集; 1982)." Yeu Ninje 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Could you give sources for the extent of Han settlement, and for the the status of the settlements? Markyour words 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Text is small and difficult to read. Many of the letters are broken. Also, the white line is not explained in the legend. I assume these are trade routes, but a reader might not know that. --dm (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- The key is now more detailed, and explains the white lines. The text, whilst small, should be quite legible once you expand the map to full resolution. Yeu Ninje 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose- it should be png and not jpg. If the format will change, please remove my vote. It's a very good map indeed! Renata 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)- I've changed the format to png and moved the map to Image:Han Civilisation.png. Yeu Ninje 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Yeu Ninje 04:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- oppose I agree fully w/ the nominator's reasons for nominating this, but the dark brown color used to depict landmass is much too dark, making the black lettering difficult to read.--Jiang 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Whoever did this map is awesome. I've seen variants of it used on other China articles as well. I'm not a big fan of this particular map (I'd prefer the Three Kingdoms one instead), but if this is the one that gets nominated, it has my support. Palm_Dogg 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. High quality, very informative and detailed. --Pkchan 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Han Civilisation.png (+5/-2/2). Neutral concerns well addressed ~ Veledan • Talk 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This image is sufficiently large and detailed. It is a perfectly iconic image of a candle. The article appears in candle, Plasma (physics), and Template:User_AI. This image was not created by a wikipedia user but has a stable and verifiable copyright tag.
- Nominate and support. - Vicarious 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice photo, significant size and resolution and looks good. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support good photo.
- Support — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-20 14:09
- Oppose. The inner structure of the flame is invisible due to overexposure. I'd like to see the different zones in the flame clearly. --Janke | Talk 15:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Janke; lacks detail where it's most needed--ragesoss 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I like it. KILO-LIMA 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. ACK Janke Mikeo 16:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reasons as Janke. Its a fine image in composition but the exposure is off. In opposing this, we are encouraging a superior photo to be produced. Best not to forget that. It isn't a difficult photo to replicate or improve on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ack Janke, Diliff. Another photo challenge? --Dschwen 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like it is not that easy. This image is shot at 3 stops under, and there is still a little burn-out, while the blue edge at the bottom of the flame has all but disappeared. Might need a composite image of several exposures. Anyone? --Janke | Talk 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Such a picture is in fact not easy. If overexposure in the core parts of the flame is avoided, everything but this core disappears. But it is possible to make the area of overexposure smaller, so that the parts of the flame with lesser radiation density become better visible. Another objection to this picture is the distorted shape of the flame, probabely caused by the photographer's breath. Calderwood 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- You know, the one thing I like about this image is the shape of the flame! Isn't it amazing how people see things in different light! ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes, for me this is a very familiar experience, but each time amazing nevertheless Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- In Soviet Russia, puns make you! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- You know, the one thing I like about this image is the shape of the flame! Isn't it amazing how people see things in different light! ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Regardless of the difficulty of doing better, it's clear that better can be done. I'll grant a support vote to a better image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose a good photo of a not so good flame Kessa Ligerro 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are now two new images of candle-flames where colour-shift is deliberately applied in order to enhance the visibility of the colour-zones Roger McLassus 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC):
- Good try, but for scientific reasons I'd really prefer a drawing over these two images. --Janke | Talk 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- For me manipulated photographs are a better option for scientific purpose, provided they are manipulated uniformly. By the way, Roger, did you already consider nominating these two pictures here? They might be useful for some articles. Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- The question is, do these manipulated photos show the correct outlines of the zones in the flame? I.e. where are the unburnt hydrocarbons, where do we have plasma, where soot, where carbon burning? --Janke | Talk 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- For me manipulated photographs are a better option for scientific purpose, provided they are manipulated uniformly. By the way, Roger, did you already consider nominating these two pictures here? They might be useful for some articles. Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good try, but for scientific reasons I'd really prefer a drawing over these two images. --Janke | Talk 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the best photos available anywhere of the paintings in the Ajanta caves in India, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. These paintings were made between 2nd century BCE and 6th century CE. The image is in public domain worldwide, and was uploaded on Wikimedia commons by File Upload Bot (Eloquence). It adds meaningful information on various articles including Ajanta, Fresco, History of India, Painting, Gupta Empire, Arts and entertainment in India and History of sex in India.
- Nominate and support. - deeptrivia (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Would also be different from other POTDs and thus bring in more variety. --Gurubrahma 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a version that is a bit sharper, with more color. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-19 16:58
- Sharpness is a good idea, but I like the yellowish tinge (PS: and softness ^_^ ) that the original image has. Is it just my personal preference, or some general aesthetic principle? deeptrivia (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support
originalversion 3 Nice picture and unusual, and doesn't rely on any single article for its contribution. Brian0918, I find your edit a bit too drastic. Do we have any reason to believe that the photographer got the colour wrong when he prepared this image for The Yorck Project? I suspect we are looking at truer colours in the original ~ Veledan • Talk 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)- The "true" colors are those that were originally used in the painting, not the colors that remain after years of wear. By trying to bring out the colors, I am simply trying to undo the wear, the same way that a damaged photograph is repaired, by removing specks of dust or creases. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-20 03:33
- This is a philosophical question. Some would hold that the wear does become inherent to the aesthetic value of the artwork of antiquity, and the Ajanta painting sans its wear simply isn't complete. deeptrivia (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Brian, if you could, would you repair the Colesseum? - JPM | 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Straw man. We're talking about an informational photo of an object, not the actual object. Even paintings get restored, and the Colosseum does undergo repairs so that it maintains its present condition--otherwise it would just get worse. But back to this image; the original photo was blurry, likely smeared out the colors, and did not represent the painting very well. I'm sure my change was too drastic, but it needs to be enhanced to better illustrate the article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 05:29
- So you're saying it needs to illustrate the article better? The caption reads "Fresco from the Ajanta caves." If this is the current condition of the painting in the Ajanta cave, then doesn't it represent the article perfectly? I think these "informational photos" should try and be as close to the actual object in question as possible. I'm all for making the image more clear, or brighter - but tweaking the colors is a no-no, in my opinion - JPM | 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The photographer himself likely screwed up the colors in the first place. Camera flashes don't simply make an image brighter. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 14:40
- But this is only an assumption of yours, and since I was not there when the photo was taken, I will not make the same assumption. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- You should not assume the colors are correct. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 23:38
- You're right, but since the original picture is what's presented to me at first, I have to throw my trust at it. - JPM | 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- You should not assume the colors are correct. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 23:38
- But this is only an assumption of yours, and since I was not there when the photo was taken, I will not make the same assumption. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The photographer himself likely screwed up the colors in the first place. Camera flashes don't simply make an image brighter. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 14:40
- So you're saying it needs to illustrate the article better? The caption reads "Fresco from the Ajanta caves." If this is the current condition of the painting in the Ajanta cave, then doesn't it represent the article perfectly? I think these "informational photos" should try and be as close to the actual object in question as possible. I'm all for making the image more clear, or brighter - but tweaking the colors is a no-no, in my opinion - JPM | 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Straw man. We're talking about an informational photo of an object, not the actual object. Even paintings get restored, and the Colosseum does undergo repairs so that it maintains its present condition--otherwise it would just get worse. But back to this image; the original photo was blurry, likely smeared out the colors, and did not represent the painting very well. I'm sure my change was too drastic, but it needs to be enhanced to better illustrate the article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 05:29
My support only goes toward the original, unless someone uploads a less drastic edit.- JPM | 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Janke's third edit, or any similar derivative edit. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - no vote yet. The edit maybe went a bit too far, but I think something inbetween might be good. The original is murky, and it's hard to see details. --Janke | Talk 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, 3rd version: Since no-one else did, I took the original, corrected exposure only (not the color), reduced the size to 1600 px (original is fuzzy, so no info is lost). There are a few white spots of the undelying wall showing through the painting (armpit, breast) which tells me that the painting indeed has a yellowish color, which must not be changed. --Janke | Talk 16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Version 3 looks fine to me. I'll raise the question about how the original looks like on the Indian noticeboard. Maybe someone's been there. deeptrivia (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support third version. This picture, by the way, is one of 10,000 reproductions of public domain paintings donated by Directmedia to the Wikimedia Commons. Janke, if you're having some free time, many other pictures in that category could use some editing. ;-) --Eloquence* 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support the original and third version. I haven't been there to say which among the above reflects the current state of the image. By the way, I do not want the second image deleted or unused, but when used, it should clearly state what has been done to the image. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support third version. Saravask 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support 1 or 3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support third version. svnitbharath
Promoted Image:Indischer_version3.jpg Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: promoted image has been replaced with Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg as exact duplicate - see here. --jjron (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Used in Queenstown, New Zealand, photo taken by Donovan Govan. A breathtaking view.
- Nominate and support. - Ukdan999 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose because of overexposed sky and mountaintops. Breathtaking location, though! --Janke | Talk 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you try burning the sky? --vaeiou 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I tried, but it's not flammable enough. :) LordViD 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you try burning the sky? --vaeiou 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Sharpness, compression artefacts and overexposure are all serious issues and it would've benefitted the image hugely if a UV or polarizing filter were used. That said, the sheer immensity of the image is such that it's just fun to explore it scrolling around. I'd say it illustrates its subject...well..remarkably. --Deglr6328 08:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I can't believe no one else likes this. I think its really pretty good. --Deglr6328 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The chief virtues of this image appear to be that it is of an attractive locale and that it is BIG. Not enough, IMO, to overcome the serious problems of compression artifcats and overexposed mountaintops (I can forgive the overexposed sky in a small region, but losing the snowcaps is unacceptable). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Opppose. Interesting scene photographed pretty unspectacularly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Unremarkable :-) --Fir0002 www 09:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Used in article Sinkhole. Photo of a large-form sinkhole in a geographically important area for this phenomenon. The photo itself illustrates the size and recreational uses of the sinkhole.
- Nominate and support. - Xlandfair 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Question Good picture, but do those people want to be wikistars? I know I wouldn't want to be on the front page in my bathing suit (; --Colle||Talk-- 06:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not easy to identify any of the people, and those who can be contacted were in the room when the photo was nominated. (: Dave 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Great example of a sinkhole, interesting photo without taking focus from the geology. Dave 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. Really too fuzzy in full size. Rescale to 50-75% or so? No info would be lost... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, not good quality and not particularly stunning... though I'd like to be the guy on the rope. gren グレン 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Over exposed and blurry. Also I'm too bothered by the unattractive trash lying around, even if it is encyclopedically relevant in illustrating one effect of human appreciation of natural beauty spots! ~ Veledan • Talk 19:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I believe it's a photograph of what Florida culture really is, being I live here. I have spent some days at a cold (63*F) spring in Orlando. The picture is filled with such action and life. The unattractive trash is part of that scenery. --x1987x 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support.--Asarkees 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC). Veledan's statement on unattractive trash is contradictory, and he/she acknowledges that. I live in Florida, and this is an extremely accurate statement on the nature of what was once a pristine limestone karst. The perspective is interesting, the content is exciting, and the statement demands attention.
- Reply to above and below: a Featured picture should be attractive as well as accurate. If the trash round this sinkhole is inescapable, choose a different sinkhole if you want to make an FP ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Good action, trash is part of the setting, just like at the quarries here in Minnesota. -Ravedave 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- image subject, being the sinkhole itself, is partially missing from the photograph at bottom. - Longhair 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It's nice enough I suppose, but it's not really FP material. Also, Longhair correctly points out the "missing tail" aspect of the framing for the shot, which is especially inexcusable since there is much "wasted" space near the top of the photo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)- I wouldn't call that wasted space at all. The sinkhole top of the sinkhole is far above the top of the water. Your "wasted space" is how the depth of the sinkhole is shown. Dave 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, changing vote to Neutral. It's not wasted space because it does give a sense of scale and of the surroundings, but I'm still not convinced it's FP material. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call that wasted space at all. The sinkhole top of the sinkhole is far above the top of the water. Your "wasted space" is how the depth of the sinkhole is shown. Dave 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- There is a large area that is burned out that is distracting; less people, only one or two jumping, and maybe someone in the water...also need more detail[[[User:Judgesurreal777|Judgesurreal777]] 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)]]
- Oppose Agree with above--Fir0002 www 09:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Dave.--Chili14(Talk|Contribs) 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support It is a beautiful picture that accurately depicts a niche of Florida recreation AND nature.--Vox Causa 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It shows how math and art combine to create a commonly recognized symbol. The image appears in Euro and Euro sign. User:Agateller released it to the PD in the Wikimedia Commons.
- Nominate and support. - Hyad 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Question but what's the angle ACD? Would seem to matter since it occurs five times. - Samsara contrib talk 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like it's a right angle between A, C, and the dotted line on the right, that's 90 degrees + 100 degrees between A, D, and the line = 130 degrees. -Hyad 04:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm looking for the angle between A and D, centered on C. It looks like it is in the region of 30° but I don't think you can work out what it is from the image. However, it is possibly the most important angle in the design. - Samsara contrib talk 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Great diagram, very informative. But... not a FP in my book, sorry. --Janke | Talk 09:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Information. I tried to put more information on the derivation of the image in the summary but it doesn't display. Anyway, the original copyrighted image from the Euro Commission is a very coarse image supplied only as WMF (!) or TIFF and doesn't display or print very well. It also has the pesky problem of being copyrighted. This image is public domain and it follows the graphic guidelines set forth in the official diagram, but it does not illustrate them in exactly the same way and is not a copy of the official diagram. The angle ACD is the angle formed by a line from the center of the symbol to the base of the symbol directly below, and then another line going up from that point to the point where it intersects the symbol again on the upper right inside. I know this is extremely awkward, but that's the only official parameter provided, and if I described it in any other way (by specifying the exact angle ACD, for example) it would stray from the official model and theoretically might not produce the same symbol. Agateller 11:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- By trigonometry, I get the angle to be 22.57°. - Samsara contrib talk 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- |AD| = 5, |AB| = 6
- <DAB = 90 + 40 = 130 (note: not divisible by three)
- |BD| = sqrt(25 + 36 - 60cos130)
- |ACD| = arcsin(5sin130/|BD|) ~ 22.572593°, which is why it is not specified. ed g2s • talk 18:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- omgz hilarious, if this isn't exemplary of the unbelievable level of regulatory bureaucracy of the EU what is?--Deglr6328 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not really, no. National and corporate symbols and logos almost always have extremely precise geometric definitions. This isn't specific to the EU, nor is it in any way exaggerated regulatory bureaucracy. Nice "try", though. Phils 23:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh good heavens, it slipped my mind there for a moment that we shan't make any humorous observations about any international organizations for fear of offending. oops! back to my doublethink lesson! sigh.--Deglr6328 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't offend me. I actually think the EU is quite the bureaucratic mess indeed, but that diagram certainly isn't a symptom of that, IMO :D. Although I am far from being a blind supporter, I am generally annoyed at the amount of baseless criticism the EU receives from overseas. I'm sorry if I sounded too abrasive; this is not the place for political debates. Phils 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh good heavens, it slipped my mind there for a moment that we shan't make any humorous observations about any international organizations for fear of offending. oops! back to my doublethink lesson! sigh.--Deglr6328 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, however (and call me fickle if you want) I'd prefer to see a more colourful version. 86.135.200.146 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support really cool and crisp. gren グレン 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, extremely informative, I like it. Dylan 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Attractive, clean diagram and an indispensible contribution to the part of Euro sign where the tension between the European Commission's specification for the symbol and the interests of type designers is discussed ~ Veledan • Talk 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, although it should probably not ever be a Picture of the Day.--ragesoss 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, does the job well, but not particularly stunning. ed g2s • talk 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. No color? Neutralitytalk 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Incredibly informative. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Information I've uploaded a color version of this diagram[1]. It looks much prettier but it is actually harder to read than clear black and white. The black-and-white version still serves the purpose of the article better, IMO. Agateller 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, the black and white one is far better. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very good and certainly a lot of Wikipedians will likeit =D --Lord Snoeckx 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Informative, easy to understand, and relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Suppprt, color schmolor. BrokenSegue 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Suppport great illustration. chowells 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment since this was created in Illustrator, can't a SVG be exported instead? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Illustrator 8.x doesn't export to SVG. I can't find a free program to convert from EPS to SVG, either. Additionally, I've never seen any mention of SVG outside of Wikipedia, and so I wonder exactly what purpose it serves (it seems to be like JPEG2, a solution looking for a problem). Major browsers don't appear to support it. While I can see the advantages of a vector-based version of the image, in the absence of a universally supported standard for them, it seems like PNG is the safest bet (and even that is risky, since some browsers won't display PNG, either). Agateller 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have access to Illustrator 10.0 if that helps anything. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've had some success converting EPS to SVG using pstoedit. See Image:EEA agency logo.svg for example. SVG is supported by browsers such as Firefox and Opera. It will often produce a more space-efficient image than PNG. And when the articles eventually go to press, SVG will produce the most accurate images for printing, just like EPS would. Also, there is the benefit of many people being able to edit the SVG after you have uploaded it, to correct for problems or create a derivative work. I have recently done that with commons:Image:Flag of New Jersey.svg. There are many benefits to SVG. If you could send the Illustrator file to someone with SVG export, it would be appreciated. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, Wikimedia will render SVG to PNG for browsers that don't support SVG. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have access to Illustrator 10.0 if that helps anything. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Illustrator 8.x doesn't export to SVG. I can't find a free program to convert from EPS to SVG, either. Additionally, I've never seen any mention of SVG outside of Wikipedia, and so I wonder exactly what purpose it serves (it seems to be like JPEG2, a solution looking for a problem). Major browsers don't appear to support it. While I can see the advantages of a vector-based version of the image, in the absence of a universally supported standard for them, it seems like PNG is the safest bet (and even that is risky, since some browsers won't display PNG, either). Agateller 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. In my opinion, it achieves the effect it wants to. I also find it ironic that Neutrality voted against it for lack of color. But I think that the content of the inage makes up for that: a feeling of complexity without even loking at it in depth. Gracenotes T § 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support A nice picture thats interesting to look at, I believe. 216.37.227.202 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:EuroConstLarge.png Raven4x4x 06:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This image is a stitched panorama of a very difficult to photograph subject. It was done by Diliff (t c). A good photograph of Grand Central Terminal's main concourse was missing from the article for a long time. Given the historic nature and landmark status of the building, this was unfortunate. The GCT main concourse has been the subject of many other photos, but due to the scale of the building and the limited lighting, none has come close to the level of clarity and scale that this image provides.
Take a look at the following list for other attempts at GCT interior photographs. Note how they either only show a portion of the room or are quite dark. None achieve the sense of scale and detail that this image does.
- Image:Grand Central Terminal Inside New York City Long.jpg
- Image:Main Concourse in Grand Central Terminal.jpg
- Image:Grand Central Station1 by bencwright.jpg
- Image:Grand Central Terminal main concourse.jpg
- Image:IMG 1499.JPG
- Nominate and support. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Getting this shot right indeed takes a skilled photographer. This photograph has the "right" amount of brightness/color. Sometimes a longer exposure is needed to get that, however with the many people moving around in the concourse (like during rush hour), the people will likely be blurred in the photograph. Not the case with User:Diliff's photograph. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I was missing such a high-quality caption of Grand Central Terminal in Wikipedia. The level of detail is OK. Mikeo 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm slightly bothered by the curves caused by the panoramic stitching - I guess the tiles on the floor are in straight lines... (In the recent cathedral picture, the distortion was not so apparent). Is there a rectilinear version, does that have severe distortion of the side walls? --Janke | Talk 17:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- The issue with rectilinear panoramas is they only work well when the angle of view is small. When the angle of view is high, the sides are warped dramatically. I'll show you the rectilinear version of it as soon as I stitch one, but I don't think it'll be as pretty. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, done. I still prefer the first image as I don't think curved 'straight' lines are a problem in a panorama such as this, as cylindrical projection allows more of the panorama to be presented in a more managable way. I do understand that it sacrifices architectural accuracy somewhat, but this can't always be helped. You will never be able to create this sort of panorama with architectural accuracy. But if you want to be able to see such a wide angle of view in a meaningful way, I don't know of an alternative. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I really like the second one better. It looks like a typical super-wideangle shot, distortion and all. Is there any way of non-linearly compressing the left and right sides inward - that would take care of some of the horizontal elongation? (Admitted, it would introduce some distortion to diagonals, but none to horizontals and verticals.) See my
smallnew example,made manually in only three increments, thus imperfect.--Janke | Talk 09:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)- Good attempt but I don't think that method would survive full size scrutiny. :) I'm not aware of a way of automating that... Anyone else? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just now did it on the full-size image. See Diliff's and my comments below, Feb. 22. --Janke | Talk 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good attempt but I don't think that method would survive full size scrutiny. :) I'm not aware of a way of automating that... Anyone else? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I really like the second one better. It looks like a typical super-wideangle shot, distortion and all. Is there any way of non-linearly compressing the left and right sides inward - that would take care of some of the horizontal elongation? (Admitted, it would introduce some distortion to diagonals, but none to horizontals and verticals.) See my
- OK, done. I still prefer the first image as I don't think curved 'straight' lines are a problem in a panorama such as this, as cylindrical projection allows more of the panorama to be presented in a more managable way. I do understand that it sacrifices architectural accuracy somewhat, but this can't always be helped. You will never be able to create this sort of panorama with architectural accuracy. But if you want to be able to see such a wide angle of view in a meaningful way, I don't know of an alternative. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- The issue with rectilinear panoramas is they only work well when the angle of view is small. When the angle of view is high, the sides are warped dramatically. I'll show you the rectilinear version of it as soon as I stitch one, but I don't think it'll be as pretty. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, good resolution and level of detail.--vineeth 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support either one, slight preference for the first one. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - good pic, and I appreciate the effort made and the relative darkness of the location, but the picture is a bit too dim for my liking; could it be brightened just a little bit? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like that inside. --vaeiou 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I feel like I'm there. And yes, its the picture is dimly lit, but so is the room. I wouldn't try to make it brighter. --dm (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've never been there, but I've been to 30th Street Station (Philadelphia), which appears to be similar architecturally, visually, and light-wise - and 30th Street Station is much brighter and more lively than this picture. I think the dimness really weighs this picture down, even if that really is what the setting is like. Ultimately, though, I don't think it's a very eye-catching panorama, and if you're going to sacrifice perspective, I think it should be. Oppose. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Impressive picture, but the station seems to be decked out for Christmas. Also, I'm starting to feel there needs to be more featured pictures of things from outside the english speaking world.--Colle||Talk-- 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't find it that impressive or amazing. chowells 15:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, image with a high quotient of technical difficulty and proficiency, and it is of a significant subject. I like it a lot. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support as per Titoxd --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support 3rd version: I did a non-linear compression (still manually, but many more increments) of the full-size rectilinear version, which now has less horizontal distortion - it's now ready to vote on. I didn't like the curved walls & floor in the first version. What say you? --Janke | Talk 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I say its a great improvement actually. It looks 'right' in terms of a lack of distortion and the lines are satisfactorily straight. :) I can't see any evidence of it being incremental. Its a shame there isn't (as far as we know?) any way of automating that process. I'll ask around on a panoramic photography forum. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support the winning version. Very nicely done. TomStar81 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This is a near-perfect representation of the interior of an important site. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Hmmm. - Darwinek 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - After the two other versions have been added, I still prefer the original. The third would be acceptable, but I don't like the noticable vertical squishing of the figures. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support 1st or 3rd version (Jay 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
Promoted Image:Grand Central test.jpg Raven4x4x 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Image I took with a Scanning Electron Microscpe at 2740x magnification. It shows the Drosophilia's (Fruit Fly) compound eye and its "eye lashes." Since it has no eye lids, the hairs sweep the eye, clean it, then fall off.
- Self-Nominate and support. PoweredDeath 00:59, 16 February 2006 UTC
- Is a larger version of the image available? Also, can you add it to the fruit fly article? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-16 06:01
- Oppose, it is not in focus. At 2k mag that should be no problem at all (if you sputtered on a thin layer of gold). Also it is way to small. --Dschwen 07:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Dschwen Calderwood 07:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, for same reasons as above--Looper5920 12:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 14:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, out of focus, too small image. Maybe smaller magnification should be used for better context. Good subject, I'd like to see more SEM images.--Jyril 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see this as particularly more special than any other SEM image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 10:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a high quality map that illustrates the locations that the H5N1 virus has spread in the world. I think that this would be a perfect addition to the FP on wikipedia.
- Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler Talk 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Won't this map become outdated once it spreads? What if it becomes Featured, do we replace it with a newer map? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-15 23:59
- Comment. Um.. isn't it missing a couple of continents? It really shouldn't be labeled "global". Rhobite 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, will have to be replaced as spread increase. Quality maintenance can't be guaranteed. Circeus 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, Same as above, plain. PoweredDeath
- Oppose for reasons mentioned above, but also, where is North and South America!? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for the above reasons. Also, countries like Russia and China are pretty big. Couldn't there be dots to show exact locations of outbreaks? --dm (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with above Calderwood 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, will get outdated too soon. Should be nominated after this wave of the virus has passed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - was about to support it, but it has been usurped by a new picture, right, in both H5N1 and its spread. This picture needs updating I feel before it can be nominated for FP, but I don't think up-to-date photos should be rejected as FP just because of them having to change. They take effort to update, and can be very good indeed. | Spaully 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to me that an SVG would be much easier to update, especially for users who are not the image's creator. Rhobite 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- But not many people can edit SVGs... Circeus 20:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to me that an SVG would be much easier to update, especially for users who are not the image's creator. Rhobite 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, already outdated. More importantly, diagrams and maps should be as plain as possible, especially as they're viewed as thumbnails within articles. The second image is much better in that. Aesthetically the first image is quite good.--Jyril 21:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, probably outdated and won't last long even if updated. - Eagleamn 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Already outdated. France, India and Egypt has confirmed cases of Bird flu! DaGizzaChat © 08:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was wondering how do you make a map like the red and white one? I see them often on Wiki. Is there a template or something of that nature.
Image i found on the National Park Service's Website. It shows great detail of the wolverine in a natural pose.
- Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler Talk 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Very pixelated and fuzzy. That's how most of the NPS and FWS photos are. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-16 00:00
- Oppose. Too fuzzy. Alr 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose While quality and size are good for a scan, it's certainly not up to par with what we usually promote. Circeus 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, poor quality. PoweredDeath Feb 16, 2006
- Oppose insufficient quality Calderwood 07:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, blurry and shows little surroundings. - Mgm|(talk) 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, The quality of this picture is not high enough to be a featured picture. --Davpronk 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - blurry and grainy - Adrian Pingstone 14:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Close up of the hibiscus, i think this can be a good example for macro photography. please provide your feedback.
- Self Nominate and support. - vineeth 08:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, very good. Support. - Samsara contrib talk 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think we already have plenty of better Featured pictures for macrophotography, and this doesn't depict the Hibiscus very well. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-15 13:15
- There are exactly two in the article, neither of which is a nature photograph. - Samsara contrib talk 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)*
- Macro photography isn't the only place to find macro photographs that are Featured and are of nature. But, as you said, there are already 2 Featured Pictures in that article alone. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-16 00:02
- There are exactly two in the article, neither of which is a nature photograph. - Samsara contrib talk 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)*
- Oppose This could be almost any flower so doesn't add anything to the article. As a picture I like it a lot, I just don't see it as a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is a nice picture. However, it is not a good illustration for an encyclopedia. Mikeo 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Adrian and Mikeo. And I prefer the other nature pic in the macro photography article ;-P --Dschwen 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK Mikeo Calderwood 07:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Good pic, but not FA quality. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Great photo, see also Exposure (photography)
- Nominate and support. - PopUpPirate 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Most illustrative. Raven4x4x 09:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd prefer to see a series going from extreme under- to extreme over-exposure. And the subject should have a high range of brightnesses revealing different details with every exposure level. --Dschwen 17:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Mikeo 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose in agreement with Dschwen. I may take that challenge at some point if a scene inspires me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - while it's informative, I don't find it stunning. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ack Dschwen. --Janke | Talk 07:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Fcelloguy Calderwood 13:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I don't find it really all that great. KILO-LIMA 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Illustrates its point well, and I think it's kinda cool.--Lewk_of_Serthic 02:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm actually the person who took the pictures, and even I don't think it's "stunning" enough to be a FP (though I do think it illustrates the point very well). If I did, I would have nominated it myself :) --Aramգուտանգ 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per photographer. Informative, but not sufficiently stunning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the photographer doesn't think it is good... well, what to say. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot find any positiv on it. Andrew18 @ 09:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this image has a fascinating composition, especially the way the rough lines at the top contrast with the soft snow layers.
- Nominate and support. - Circeus 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. It's already a Featured Picture on Commons. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-13 02:03
- Bleh, I didn't even notice that Circeus 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. - JPM | 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. - Stunning. --Lordkinbote 07:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Nice, especially how the climbers look really tiny and you can still see their tracks. --Dschwen 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Nice. Mikeo 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support my new background :) --Lewk_of_Serthic 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose License on the source page says SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS! as well as a number of other unacceptable terms. --Gmaxwell 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is a gray area as noted here. I've had the same concern before. I believe that in most cases, if the photographer is contacted directly, they are happy to grant permission. Maybe that should be done in this case? --MattWright (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- What? I see "Restrictions: There are no usage restrictions for this photo" and "Usage: Royalty free, no restrictions." - JPM | 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- That is why it is a gray area. What you saw is what the photographer put as the restrictions when the file was uploaded (I believe). However, the site itself has a license which you can see by clicking the View License Agreement link that is directly under the picture itself. --MattWright (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't get you. The image is on commons, so it should be automatically available for use a featured picture as far as copyright is concerned. I also donotsee that sentencen either at the commons page({{CopyrightedFreeUse}}) not at the original page (On the contrary, I read "Royalty free, no restrictions" and "There are no usage restrictions for this photo.") Circeus 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Click on "View image license" just underneath the image on the source page and you will see that. Possibly the image shouldn't be on commons. 84.9.223.82 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The bit in capitals that says NO SELLING is the overall license for the website where people can upload and display their photos. The bit that says 'Free usage, no restrictions' is the photographer's own comment he placed when uploading it. This makes the license a bit ambiguous even though it's pretty sure the photographer's intention was to release it free. I've done a bit of digging and the same chap has published excellent photos on about 30 websites, some of which have completely free licences, so if no one has done it in the meantime, I'll mail him when I get home this evening and verify (1) we can have the photo and (2) which license he'd prefer ~ Veledan • Talk 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the license on the image page supercedes the other one in this matter. - JPM | 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*Support. You may ignore license problems discussed above. The stock.xchng debate has been had a dealt with (see here). The user explicitly states the image is restriction and royalty free. GMaxwell: you may want to withdraw or change your vote as a result. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Licence In case anyone has any remaining doubts, the photographer has replied to my email and confirmed we can use the image without any restrictions whatsoever ~ Veledan • Talk 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Use? But what about unlimited redistribution, derivative works, etc? We don't allow mere 'with permission' on Wikipedia outside of fair use. The word 'use' is often used by people who mean you can display this on your website. Did you send him one of our boilerplate permissions emails? --Gmaxwell 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- No I didn't; I wasn't aware of them. Sorry for the ambiguity in my summation - the photographer confirmed that the picture is free of restrictions as opposed to just giving us permission. Anyway, see the link provided by ed g2s - it turns out my email asking for confirmation of the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} was unnecessary in any case ~ Veledan • Talk 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Use? But what about unlimited redistribution, derivative works, etc? We don't allow mere 'with permission' on Wikipedia outside of fair use. The word 'use' is often used by people who mean you can display this on your website. Did you send him one of our boilerplate permissions emails? --Gmaxwell 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Licence In case anyone has any remaining doubts, the photographer has replied to my email and confirmed we can use the image without any restrictions whatsoever ~ Veledan • Talk 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Per above DaGizzaChat © 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Kessa Ligerro 07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Magic! - Adrian Pingstone 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support great! Calderwood 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Impressive--Looper5920 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful and stunning. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I would feel somewhat neutral towards this if it wasn't for the sense of scale offered by the mountaineers hiking it. Great image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Great picture--Colle||Talk-- 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I find this boring. Have seen many just like it. - Samsara contrib talk 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Splendid image. Illustrates mountain, climbing, glacier, avalanche, etc. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, crisp, good contrast, and a powerful sense of scale. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Mayamaxima 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very good for FP standards; now what would suit my fantasies is — more individuals, but not too much, and a closer resolution of the individuals, but this is enough is great. It is all about the scale. Anyone play America's Army's map Mountain Pass? It's the same feeling and more. It's almost like what you would see on one of those self-esteem posters, with a big caption like "ACHIEVE" or "RISK", etc. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, great photo. --Terence Ong 13:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Amazing picture. The presence of the humans actually enhances the picture because it helps to give a sense of scale; without them, I might think this thing was smaller than it really is. Ohh, the inadequacies of the human mind to comprehend something so alien to it. I do think there is a little bit of color washout or white glow around the edges of the snowy peak, but not enough to drop me down to Neutral, and anyway, it's very hard to get a good picture of a white reflective surface like that. --Cyde Weys 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Good image, sharp at (2272x1704, 1466 KB) resolution and the people give it more interest and proper scale. It would a fine featured picture.--Dakota ~ ° 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, striking image. I can imagine it being displayed on a number of other articles as well. --BillC 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. New wallpaper. Markyour words 19:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Cold and impressive. - Darwinek 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Alpamayo.jpg Raven4x4x 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
A challenge was put up on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Detaching drop to have an animation, so I took about 300 pics of my sink and created an 18 pic animation of a falling water drop. Other user suggested me to nominate it, so here it is. I also added it to Drop (liquid), now the images make up more than the text of the article. I reduced the size to 768x1024 and 8MB, as the full size would be around 50MB. The time interval between the pictures is calculated to match the distance to the faucet under the assumption of a free-fall, ignoring surface tension (forgive me for not calculating these ;)
- Update: Gmaxwell offered to redo the image using a specialized software tool and added a small preview to this nomination. I just sent Gmaxwell 12MB of images to work with, and am looking forward for the results! I would like to request an extension of the voting period to wait for and judge the new version from Gmaxwell.-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Self-Nominate and
support. - Chris 73 | Talk 11:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)- Support clearly superior corrected Version by Gmaxwell. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support: I think it is fantastic. Nice job. Meniscus 12:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to direct my support vote to the new version. Meniscus 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Now that's a great animation. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Nice job. Mikeo 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dschwen 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like the way exposure seems to differ between frames, as does the position of the tap and tiles. chowells 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Opppose nice try, but I find the varying exposure and moving of the tap incredibly annoying to watch. chowells 18:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - it's a good pic/animation, but the shadows behind it are too distracting. Is there any way to make sure that the light is constant? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I asked someone about this before, and they said that the camera's exposure time and aperture need to be fixed between images. Better digital cameras will let you manually set these options, or choose an "auto exposure lock", although my digital camera doesn't. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 16:42
- I believe it was taken with a flash. Even with aperture/exposure length lock, the flash is difficult to control, as it is evaluatively metering and firing a burst of light that it deems is appropriate. Each shot would be slightly different in terms of flash output. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Still oppose. The newer gif image is too small, and the ogg file can't be displayed on most computers without downloading ogg vorbis. Can't the gif be enhanced? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- How big should it be? I sized it to work well on the article at a number of display resolutions, but it was just a guess... if you have a concrete suggestion please provide it... It would be trivial for me to resize it (or you can do it, the theora version is suitable for resizing). Currently at 60Kb in size I would be highly hesitant to inline anything much larger, and frankly would oppose anything too much larger due to considerations for users with slow connections. The old image when resized by mediawiki to the same physical dimensions was over 400K. Animated GIF is a highly unoptimal format for 'video' like content, leading to huge file sizes and poor quality... Although it is what we have for inline content today, so we have to live with its limitations. As far as the video (Which is not vorbis, vorbis is an audio codec)... it would be foolish to provide the high quality version in animated gif because animated gif is never high quality due to the 256 color limitation. Ogg/Theora is the video codec used by Wikipedia, and is what we use for all videos. Like many other video codecs it doesn't ship with Windows, so many users will need to install it although we're working on adding a java player for Vorbis and Theora to mediawiki. Because Theora is our official codec, I'm going to go ahead and be so bold and advise you that you simply can not oppose media for featured status because of the use of Theora. --Gmaxwell 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Another datapoint, if I allow mediawiki to thumb the new image to 10px less wide, the rendered file not only looks like crap (with dancing dithering), but is about 260K. Mediawiki scaling simply isn't acceptable for many animated gifs. --Gmaxwell 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we could upload two gifs besides the Ogg, one as large as the common allows (up to 30MB), and a smaller version for display? Also, resizing my original version worked very well (see [2]), but GMaxwells version has display errors. Not sure how Gmaxwells .gif can be changed so Wikipedia resizes it correctly. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your version resized is about 406k, mine is 60k. 406k is unacceptable for an inline image. The reason mediawiki barfs on resizing mine is because I'm not updating the complete image in each version, only the parts that change. If I disable this (i.e. unoptimize-gif under filter->animate in gimp) so that it doesn't get mangled on resize the result is 399k, unacceptable for an inline image. Furthermore MediaWiki resizing makes the video look like crud because it uses a per-frame randomized dither. Just say no to MediaWiki based resizing of animated gifs. :) As far as a large gif, I will not upload a 30MB gif when I've uploaded higher quality Theora file which is under 100k. Gif makes perfect sense for an inline image, but it makes no sense for the high quality version because it's both huge and looks like crud. --Gmaxwell 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, point taken. You surely do know more about gifs and images than me. Did we ever have a featured ogg? -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your version resized is about 406k, mine is 60k. 406k is unacceptable for an inline image. The reason mediawiki barfs on resizing mine is because I'm not updating the complete image in each version, only the parts that change. If I disable this (i.e. unoptimize-gif under filter->animate in gimp) so that it doesn't get mangled on resize the result is 399k, unacceptable for an inline image. Furthermore MediaWiki resizing makes the video look like crud because it uses a per-frame randomized dither. Just say no to MediaWiki based resizing of animated gifs. :) As far as a large gif, I will not upload a 30MB gif when I've uploaded higher quality Theora file which is under 100k. Gif makes perfect sense for an inline image, but it makes no sense for the high quality version because it's both huge and looks like crud. --Gmaxwell 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we could upload two gifs besides the Ogg, one as large as the common allows (up to 30MB), and a smaller version for display? Also, resizing my original version worked very well (see [2]), but GMaxwells version has display errors. Not sure how Gmaxwells .gif can be changed so Wikipedia resizes it correctly. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Still oppose. The newer gif image is too small, and the ogg file can't be displayed on most computers without downloading ogg vorbis. Can't the gif be enhanced? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it was taken with a flash. Even with aperture/exposure length lock, the flash is difficult to control, as it is evaluatively metering and firing a burst of light that it deems is appropriate. Each shot would be slightly different in terms of flash output. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I asked someone about this before, and they said that the camera's exposure time and aperture need to be fixed between images. Better digital cameras will let you manually set these options, or choose an "auto exposure lock", although my digital camera doesn't. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 16:42
Opposealthough I would change my vote if the tap and tiles could be steadied and the background colour could be fixed. Maybe choose one of the backgrounds for all the frames? The water drop looks good!~ Veledan • Talk 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support (GMaxwell's edit) ~ Veledan • Talk 13:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose because of variable exposure and disturbing background. --CutterX 18:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems jerky, and the most interesting part of falling water (the shape that rises up as the drop hits a water surface) is not seen. The varying exposures don't worry me at all - Adrian Pingstone 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very cool.--Lewk_of_Serthic 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Uneven lighting and animation. ~MDD4696 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I think it is featured quality regardless of its imperfections. I know there should be basic requirements that need to be satisfied for all pictures, but I do think the difficulty and the uniqueness of pictures should hold some weight. Then again, if it fails, there is the incentive to go back and re-shoot it again. I know it took 300 frames to get right and the author may not want to do it all over again, but hey, the quest for perfection was never meant to be easy. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Pretty cool animations, but I'd like a higher res version --Fir0002 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- The full 2592x1944 animation was 50MB, and the commons has an upload limit of 30 MB, hence I reduced the size to 768x1024 with a manageable 8MB. The image displayed on the image page is already reduced in size, click on the image to see full size. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that you'd be able to use the higher res version if you converted it into ogg instead of using an animated gif, although people would start opposing for that instead... enochlau (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The full 2592x1944 animation was 50MB, and the commons has an upload limit of 30 MB, hence I reduced the size to 768x1024 with a manageable 8MB. The image displayed on the image page is already reduced in size, click on the image to see full size. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with MDD. - JPM | 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)- Support the edited version. - JPM | 04:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can the variable exposures be manually corrected with some kind of Photoshop action? Surely there must be a Photoshop guru out there. –Joke 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've offered to correct the exposure and motion but have not heard back yet. I already have the video processing toolchain for this sort of thing setup. --Gmaxwell 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. I tried to adjust the exposure manually using Gimp, but currently I am away from my main computer, and have no access to my photos. I also adjusted the position, trying to match the faucet position between the images. I'll fiddle around more on the weekend -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- What software do you use to correct the exposure between frames? I'm interested because I've done some time-lapse photography myself and needed to use evaluative metering rather than locked metering, so occasionally the camera chooses the 'wrong' exposure for a frame or two which results in a similar thing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I used The Gimp for creating the whole animation, including adjusting the exact position, brightness (i.e. "Exposure"), resizing etc. Not sure what Gmaxwell uses for his video files. -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Using the gimp will lead to uneven correction because the image colorspace is nonlinear. I answered Diliff's questions to me on my talk page since he wrote to me there...--Gmaxwell 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've offered to correct the exposure and motion but have not heard back yet. I already have the video processing toolchain for this sort of thing setup. --Gmaxwell 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Support new version.See my comment below below, 19 Feb. Considering that this is shot with a standard digital camera, the result is great. Not many wikipedians have access to equipment like Harold Edgerton ("Papa Flash") had... I wonder if the strange flutter in the exposure (as opposed to a plain change in exposure) is due to different paths of the flash discharge inside the xenon-filled tube? --Janke | Talk 07:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)- Support Briseis 13:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Un-even lighting. I also think it's too big; expecially for those people who don't have broadband and are on dial-up. KILO-LIMA 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)- Resize it. The pic on this page is much smaller than the original, and the copy on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Detaching drop is even smaller, so there is no problem for low-bandwith users unless they want the full size. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Gladly change my vote note. Supprot new version. Well done! KILO-LIMA 15:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Kessa Ligerro 07:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, I think we can make this better before we give it FP status. - Samsara contrib talk 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)- Support. Very nice animation -- Ian ≡ talk 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Support Calderwood 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- New version. It hurt me to see this potentially wonderful work being featured while it retained so many obvious and correctable technical flaws. I asked Chris 73 for the originals so I could correct the image, but he didn't seem interested in working with me. Normally I oppose making subjective changes to images which original author opposes, so I hope Chris 73 will support my version... but I feel that the changes I made were technical rather than artistic and that my modified version is objectively better. I have scaled the image to display size because the mediawiki rescaling for animated GIFs is far from optimal, I will also provide a full resolution version in a few minutes and update the entry with a link. This version is 60k when inserted into the page, which is a major improvement over the dialup crushing 400k of the version at the top. I must apologize for the some what poor quality of the full resolution version: I only had the large animated GIF to work with, and the dithering noise is non-linear and thus hard to suppress. I'd also like to ask that this vote be extended a bit to allow people to consider the new version.--Gmaxwell 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, that's so much better. I'd support that version. Shame it's not a tad bigger. chowells 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wish granted, see the link under the image. I *could* do an animated GIF of the higher res version, but the limitation of 256 colors really makes it look like crud. It would still look better had I started from the orignals rather than fighting against the dataloss in the animated gif. --Gmaxwell 23:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, that's so much better. I'd support that version. Shame it's not a tad bigger. chowells 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version. - Samsara contrib talk 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- supportGmaxwell's version Borisblue 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Neat, but not all that interesting. I find it creepy. Therefore, it would be more in line for chinese water torture, or water wastage articles. Drip Drip --Colle||Talk-- 04:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- And... I can't stop watching it. --Colle||Talk-- 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's creepy too, and that why I thought it would be worth my time. It's a striking illustration. :) --Gmaxwell 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- And... I can't stop watching it. --Colle||Talk-- 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version. Very cool. WP 09:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the playback speed of this animation (either version) is physically inaccurate. I noticed this when creating my own preliminary attempt. The drop spends much more time hanging on the faucet and slowly detatching. While still attached to the faucet, surface tension counters the gravitational pull, therefore acceleration is much smaller. For a FP I'd expect it to be correct. --Dschwen 12:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dschwen's objections are correct. As a consequence of this consideration I change my vote into oppose Calderwood 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I never noticed that, was so enthralled with the other improvements. Great observation, Dschwen! I struck out my support vote until this is fixed, then I'll support again. --Janke | Talk 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's easy enough to adjust the timing. For lack of better information I just made the update match the orignal. Dschwen, how do you know your video is more accurate? It looks like it was recorded with the same multiple phase approach that distroys find timing informaiton. --Gmaxwell 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it actually doesn't distroy timing information. I used every picture for my animation, just reordering them. Now simple statistics tells me that in this case the timing mut be correct. When the drop is moving slow at a certain position the probability of capturing it in a frame is higher then when it is moving fast. So more frames of slow moving drops are captured and in the resulting animation the drop moves slower. :-) --Dschwen 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean the triggering of the shots were timed totally randomly? If not, then the photographer's choice of triggering the shutter surely destroys any statistic methods of determining the right timing... --Janke | Talk 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- As for my set, I switched to series mode and pressed the button for a few minutes or so, creating about a pic per second. The drop is just too fast for any good timing (the reality being faster than this animation) -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I semi randomly shot pictures whenever the cam was ready, wit additional random pauses. I had a drop frequency of abt. 5/sec so I'm pretty confident in my sampling being random enough. --Dschwen 11:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean the triggering of the shots were timed totally randomly? If not, then the photographer's choice of triggering the shutter surely destroys any statistic methods of determining the right timing... --Janke | Talk 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it actually doesn't distroy timing information. I used every picture for my animation, just reordering them. Now simple statistics tells me that in this case the timing mut be correct. When the drop is moving slow at a certain position the probability of capturing it in a frame is higher then when it is moving fast. So more frames of slow moving drops are captured and in the resulting animation the drop moves slower. :-) --Dschwen 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's easy enough to adjust the timing. For lack of better information I just made the update match the orignal. Dschwen, how do you know your video is more accurate? It looks like it was recorded with the same multiple phase approach that distroys find timing informaiton. --Gmaxwell 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm amused... Getting the timing of this obviously enough right is enough of a challenge that we're unable to gauge the methods any multiple phase method will be disregarded as physically inaccurate but if I recorded this with a 200fps video camera it would be rejected as too low resolution. The featured picture process is a waste of time. --Gmaxwell 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary. I really like the new constructive spin on FP (like with the carbon diagrams lately). Why the sudden frustration? The phase approach is the most promising. I believe I've got the timing right in my animation, but it is low quality since my drops were starting from slightly different positions, so it looks jerkey. Basically we'd have to take not 18 selected frames from the original pictureset, but all of them. That would preserve timing. This is totally worth a try. --Dschwen 14:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am also very optimistic. I think this process - and the great work of GMaxwell - will produce a better animation than what any of us could do alone. About using the full set of pictures: I have about 100 usable pics (or 50 MB of data). I removed some because of unsightly drops (i.e. just two drops following the big one instead of three). However, out of the 100 pics about 40% are very similiar with only a small bulge at the faucet and no visible drop. I would much rather favour a nicely distributed set of pictures with the drop at roughly equally spaced positions, and adjust the display time so it feels right. I am definitely looking forward for seeing GMaxwells work. Don't let us hanging (pun intended ;) -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary. I really like the new constructive spin on FP (like with the carbon diagrams lately). Why the sudden frustration? The phase approach is the most promising. I believe I've got the timing right in my animation, but it is low quality since my drops were starting from slightly different positions, so it looks jerkey. Basically we'd have to take not 18 selected frames from the original pictureset, but all of them. That would preserve timing. This is totally worth a try. --Dschwen 14:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I never noticed that, was so enthralled with the other improvements. Great observation, Dschwen! I struck out my support vote until this is fixed, then I'll support again. --Janke | Talk 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dschwen's objections are correct. As a consequence of this consideration I change my vote into oppose Calderwood 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support GMaxwell's version is cool. KI 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support The gmaxwell version. pschemp | talk 07:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gmaxwell's version, wish the animation was a tad smoother, but it is good for a fine example of work. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support corrected version. –Joke 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I can't believe I just sat here and watched water dripping out of a spigot for more than a minute. What is wrong with me? Support Gmaxwell's. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version, good stuff. - Eagleamn 07:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version (Jay 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
- Support new version. --James 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version. Gracenotes T § 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Water_drop_animation_enhanced_small.gif Raven4x4x 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
A stunning image of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, this photograph was taken using a 25 second exposure in order to gain enough light to take the picture. The red light is from the base, while the dazzling green is an aurora. The image illustrates both the articles Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and Antarctica and was uploaded to Commons by Jsymmetry.
- Nominate and support. - Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- TomStar81 01:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Breath taking. --ZeWrestler Talk 01:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Alr 03:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - really great.--Deglr6328 04:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Was lloking at it and thinking "that looks like FP material" lol Circeus 06:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Wow. that's really neat. pschemp | talk 08:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support (Diliff's edit). Eye catching, beautiful, magnificent, whatever... --Janke | Talk 08:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful indeed. Mikeo 10:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent. Deckiller 13:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I loved this image the instant I saw it, a fantastic pick!. Bziomek 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support no-brainer. –Joke 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support really amazing picture Halsteadk 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Incredible--Lewk_of_Serthic 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support (Diliff's edit) wonderful ~ Veledan • Talk 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support Unreal --Fir0002 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Wild!--Lordkinbote 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Now I don't dare to oppose, but the cropping is a little tight for my taste, especially at the bottom. Poor framing? --Dschwen 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'll buck the trend even further and say that I don't really like the composition much at all. It DOES seem to be an interesting scene but I don't think the position is ideal. It just seems messy and unfocused to me. The image itself could also do with a subtle clean up.. There are a lot of hot pixels and noise that could easily be removed and I don't believe that it is overstepping the bounds regarding editing, as they are the by-product of digital imaging and not in front of the lens at all. I'm not sure I'd support it regardless of how it was cleaned up but I might have a go at it anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose the first image, support dillif's edit, a massive improvement IMO. chowells 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support A breathtaking picture. Siva1979Talk to me 14:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Calderwood 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support as it is awesome. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Absolument oui! 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - I couldn't even believe it was real until I opened up the full resolution version. This looks like something straight out of Doom III (you know, the research station on Mars). --Cyde Weys 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. A fantastic image, with an almost unearthly feel. --Fipe 10:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Looks not of this planet. Awesome.--Dakota ~ ° 10:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h edit.jpg Raven4x4x 06:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support One of the best pictures I've ever seen, and I'm a photographer. Bluefusion13 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a photo of Taos Pueblo, right outside Taos, New Mexico. I was surprised that the photos of Taos Pueblo were drawings from many years ago and a close up. None really seemed to reflect the current majesty of the place in its surroundings (and why so many New Agers fell in love with the place). I took this photo on a trip last May, the photo was originally taken in a 3:2 ratio on my beat up Sony Cybershot. (I apologize for the non-descriptive file name, this was one of the first photos I uploaded and someone kindly told me about giving my files descriptive names a little later)
- Nominate and support. - Bobak 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The woman standing there distracts. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)- What woman? :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 03:26
- Oh, wow. Neutral. Now how about the people in the center? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- What woman? :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 03:26
- support. that place is almost always packed with people, so its impressive how few you have. pschemp | talk 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - I like it, but I don't find it as visually stunning as what a FP should be. (Maybe the dull colors are what's bothering me?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha... yeah, those damn Indians and their dull colors... why didn't they think ahead and consider WP:FP standards before they built their houses out of mud? That comment cracked me up, man; if I didn't think you were serious, I'd give you a humor barnstar. :P Kafziel 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. So this place is always overflowing with tourists? The picture does not reflect that. This is not only another photoshopped picture, this time the manipulation isn't even mentioned in the edit history. Disturbing. And apart from that it doesn't strike me as stunning either. --Dschwen 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- If the picture was filled with tourists, everyone would oppose on those grounds; that's why this picture is better than most. I've added a comment to the edit history summarizing the change. I've retouched so many photos, including dozens of featured pictures, that I don't understand the complaint about using Photoshop to fix problems with an image. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:28
- Obviously you don't know about this discussion. I really don't want to repeat this all over again, but presenting digitally altered pictures with elements photoshopped out is not good encyclopedic style IMHO. At major newspapers journalists get fired for that stuff. --Dschwen 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- And IMHO, removal of unimportant content in order to improve the appearance of an image is perfectly fine. We are not a newspaper. If you don't like the retouch, then vote based on the original image. I've read through your discussion, and don't believe you've presented much of a case. You confirm repeatedly your position, but do not really try to get others to consider it. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:49
- Labeling it my discussion doesn't really do it justice... --Dschwen 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- So are you opposing both the original version and the modified version, or just the modified version? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:02
- Apart from the manipulation I have other objections. It is a bit on the small side, the clutter in the foreground (hard to tell what it is from the angle) obstructs some buildings and I don't like the perspective. It is hard to make out the 3d structure of the pueblos. So I'll go with oppose all.--Dschwen 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the stuff in the foreground are carports. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:42
- LOL :-) I wonder were all the El Caminos are..--Dschwen 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- They are not carports. they were "original" (for what, I've forgotten --it was 9 months ago). The building doesn't have any electricity or water, but it does have residents (based on volunteers from the Taos Pueblo Native Americans). The mountains in the background are the Sangre de Christos. If I'd known that having a person in less than 1% of the photo would've become an issue, I would've yelled at her to move ;-) ...and I kept telling the sky to be bluer but it didn't want to agree with me, don't even get me started about the earth/adobe. I mean, all they wanted to be was brown :-p Heh, sorry, couldn't help myself there. :-) Bobak 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- LOL :-) I wonder were all the El Caminos are..--Dschwen 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the stuff in the foreground are carports. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:42
- Apart from the manipulation I have other objections. It is a bit on the small side, the clutter in the foreground (hard to tell what it is from the angle) obstructs some buildings and I don't like the perspective. It is hard to make out the 3d structure of the pueblos. So I'll go with oppose all.--Dschwen 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- So are you opposing both the original version and the modified version, or just the modified version? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:02
- Labeling it my discussion doesn't really do it justice... --Dschwen 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- And IMHO, removal of unimportant content in order to improve the appearance of an image is perfectly fine. We are not a newspaper. If you don't like the retouch, then vote based on the original image. I've read through your discussion, and don't believe you've presented much of a case. You confirm repeatedly your position, but do not really try to get others to consider it. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:49
- Obviously you don't know about this discussion. I really don't want to repeat this all over again, but presenting digitally altered pictures with elements photoshopped out is not good encyclopedic style IMHO. At major newspapers journalists get fired for that stuff. --Dschwen 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Image appears out of focus and pixelated. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:40
- Wait... are you the same person as the above comments? Or did you change your mind after digitally altering the photo? Bobak 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't help the pixelated part of it (I'm not a pro and I don't use film), but I did add an alternative photo above from the same article that shows the important creek in front and does not show anyone (naturally, uneditted). It was uploaded at the same time as the other photo. Bobak 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Know what? Until I noticed this comment,I though that was an altered pictured to make a point, because of the debate at the talk page over removing content from pictures. *headdesk* Circeus 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Focus (optics) did not have an image to show imagery without focus so I uploaded this photo which I think does a good job of adding to the article.
- Nominate and support. - JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Opppose yes it's useful for the article, but I don't think this could be described to "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" by any stretch of the imagination -- anybody can take a blurry image ;). A blurry image is in addition by it's nature not particulary "pleasing to the eye". chowells 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with above Calderwood 17:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose A joke entry, I assume? - Adrian Pingstone 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its mainly motion blur too, not out of focus, so has nothing to do with optical focus and doesn't even illustrate the article it is in. You can tell because the whiskers seem to relatively in focus but 'stuttery' and segmented and my guess is that it is due to the lighting (possibly the TV?) flickering at 50-60hz. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Funny, I was just wondering the other day if pictures which show errors in photography would get support. Looks like no. - JPM | 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above Mikeo 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. A good image for this article might have the foreground out of focus but the background clearly in focus. Or perhaps vice versa. Something to illustrate the idea better. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I suppose this picture adds to the article, but a better example would've been this picture and a properly focused picture side-by-side, for comparison. Definitely not FP worthy though.--Jonthecheet 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Diliff, it's not even that out of focus. Bziomek 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Was thinking along the lines of zafiroblue05's comment before I read it! Halsteadk 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Briseis 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose At first I thought the nominator was a newbie, but he wasn't! DaGizzaChat © 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose not FP worthy in my book. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above, just isn't a FP. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. enochlau (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't see any Mushroom picts, so I am submitting this one. I think it is reasonably clear, and illustrates the lamellae pretty well. This is my first upload to wikipedia, please tell me how it should be improved! This picture does not appear in any article yet (is this a requirement?).
- Nominate and support. - Eraticus 10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Although fungi are notoriously difficult to photograph, I do agree we should at least have a few fruiting bodies featured. This shot appeals because of the unusual use of sunlight to show the lamellae. - Samsara contrib talk 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting use of backlighting to show structures in the mushroom. enochlau (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support-- Chris 73 | Talk 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Striking and illustrative. Circeus 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Image currently does not illustrate any article. Circeus 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure a suitable article can be found. I know nothing about mushrooms, so I'll leave it to someone who knows what type of mushroom this is and who can write an informative caption. Raven4x4x 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Image currently does not illustrate any article. Circeus 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Image now on Gill (mushroom), which is not much of an article.
- support. - fascinating. why is it translucent though? I'd love to see it from the top.--Deglr6328 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The mushroom was actually quite small--less than 2 inches high, and was translucent to the Sun, but only from below. From above it appeared as a "normal" white mushroom. --72.234.136.133 09:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- support. wow. its great and I like it and I even have a fungi phobia. pschemp | talk 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, even though depth of focus could be slightly better... --Janke | Talk 08:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, Great use of back lighting, is informative and simply stunning. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - it's a good pic, but I think that the dullness of the background and the darkness of the pic overall distracts too much. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Points taken. What sort of background would improve the image?--Eraticus 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK Flcelloguy. Also I don't like the composition. Could use some cropping. --Dschwen 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ( − ) Oppose I don't find it very interesting --Fir0002 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Sometimes there isn't enough background and sometimes too much. Doesn't that seem a bit... too subjective? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support amazing. I never thought a shroom could look so beautiful. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support this is a nice picture! --Wingchi 17:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nice picture artisticly, but what is it meant to illustrate? Mushroom Gills better illustrated by other photo. Species is unknown. —Pengo 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The other photo at Gill does a better job in illustrating the Mushroom morphology. My photo is less 'encyclopedic'. --Eraticus 19:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Backlit mushroom.jpg Raven4x4x 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
An excelent animation of an internal combustion engine, which I discovered accidentally while working on improving a different page. I think this is simply awesome. This originated on the commons.
- Nominate and support - TomStar81 03:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support wholeheartedly. Very good animation. Would be better if it was flash-based but still worthy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: An explanation of what's going on, and what the colors are, would be helpful. - JPM | 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sure thing. 1) Gasoline enters the cylinder through the valve on the right. This valve is then closed. 2) The gas is compressed until it combusts. 3) The explosion from the gas pushes the cylinder down. 4) The left valve opens, allowing the exhaust gases to escape. This valve closes, and the cycle repeats. TomStar81 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- As this is a petrol engine, the description should be: 2) The gas is compressed until the spark plug causes it to combust. Or words to that effect. | Spaully
- Sure thing. 1) Gasoline enters the cylinder through the valve on the right. This valve is then closed. 2) The gas is compressed until it combusts. 3) The explosion from the gas pushes the cylinder down. 4) The left valve opens, allowing the exhaust gases to escape. This valve closes, and the cycle repeats. TomStar81 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- The entire process illistrated here is explained in words in the article Four-stroke cycle. This should make the desccription of the animation easier. TomStar81 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- This is a superb animation, as good as any on wikipedia in my opinion. As mentioned by JPM it needs a thorough explanation though. In addition to the information put forth by TomStar81 something needs to be said about how the valves are actuated by the cams. The explanation would be excessive for what could fit into the caption and a section of the article needs to be created to explain this animation. Meniscus 06:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Calderwood 09:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This is exceptional. Mstroeck 09:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very good image, but should be inserted in articles with an explanation, similar to Toms. | Spaully
- Support. Very good animation. It would be nice, if it ran a little slower. That would make it easier to grasp what is happening in which cycle. As well as a better visualization of the flow direction of the gas. If a vector-based model existed, an animation using SVG might be created from it (just an idea). Mikeo 12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I would much prefer it if the petrol flow went from left to right. And I've seen better animations of the same process elsewhere. The image aliasing as mentioned below is also pretty poor. - Hahnchen 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not bad, and illustrations like these do improve understanding. However, I find the lack of arrows indicating flow direction troublesome, as with the speed. enochlau (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Outstanding animation -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. First, it looks cool. Second, it clearly illustrates what is going on in a combustion engine. Featured picture? Why not? - Alanmak 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Remark: Similar image (on the same page) is already featured. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The animation really makes it clear. I like the classic Miller DOHC configuration and finned sump. It can represent either a four valve or a two valve. Color shows pressure as well as temperature. The counterweight's function is made obvious. On the other hand, the compression ratio appears unreasonably high. David R. Ingham 07:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. As David pointed out there should always be a little space left above the piston, also the existing FP is part of a series which shows the process less cluttered and with clearer illustrations. --Dschwen 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, and it is also available as an animation! Image:FourStrokeCycle.mpg --Dschwen 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support very detailed. --Lewk_of_Serthic 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support --Fir0002 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Aren't pistons usually flat on top? --Aqua 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Animation is good but image aliasing is horrendous.--Deglr6328 05:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Changing vote to oppose because as Janke notes, the piston does seem to show an unbelieveably high ratio of compression and that is scientifically inaccurate and misleading.--Deglr6328 21:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good animation. But: needs anti-aliasing, color bands inside the cylinder are distracting and for some reason the piston flashes in stroke 2 and 4. WP 09:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I never thought I might oppose an animation this good (I can live with the aliasing), but the technical inaccuracy (infinite compression!!!) compels me to. --Janke | Talk 09:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, not entirely accurate and we already have an FP for this. BrokenSegue 14:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Is spark from the spark plug blue? What's the temperature like?
- Oppose, I believe I've seen a better version of something like this. gren グレン 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautifully executed. I do not think that SVG or Flash would be better. SVG isn't widely supported enough, and Flash is a potential vector for viruses (which means that people using secure systems often have Flash disabled or not even installed). Agateller 13:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Mayamaxima 08:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent image and would be good with explanation about the 4 steps. sikander 01:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif: there are exactly twice as many supporters as opposers, which is what I tend to use as my guideline. This was a very close result. Raven4x4x 07:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi - I am UtzOnBike, the creator of this animation. Thanks to all supporters. But here some explanations: 1. This animation was done for the german wikipedia, where it is part of an explanation in text. 2. Of course, some arrows would help - but I do not like arrows in my animations. 3. This animation was done with Autodesk Inventor, a CAD programm. So it is all 3D, but the graphic is not optimized for animations (-> alising). 3. The compression is definitely not infinite! But in pixels, it looks like. 4. The spark itselfes is blue - but looks different (a thin line). 5. There are pistons in a lot of shapes. Some are flat on top, some are roof-shaped (as shown here), some have other shapes. It depends on valve angle, compression, position of spark plug, ... Thanks to all! UtzOnBike (--85.183.209.19 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
- Nominate. It's a photograph of great colour and character, but you may think it's too small...? - Samsara contrib talk 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yes, small, and we have had a bit too many frogs lately. But nice blasé expression! --Janke | Talk 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- The reason for that is that a lot of work is going into frog at the moment (AID candidate for several weeks, now the top ranking candidate; "good article" as of last night; probably and hopefully FA before too long). - Samsara contrib talk 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yeah, it looks slightly motion blurred and noisy in addition. I like the composition though. Cute. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - I like the angle. KILO-LIMA 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I just love the quirkiness. - Samsara contrib talk 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I just like it. That little blur does not really bother me. Mikeo 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Cute frog, but not quite FP quality; noise and size, mainly.--ragesoss 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Too bad its kinda small....I just want to name him Kermit and take him home. pschemp | talk 08:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Diliff Calderwood 09:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have contacted bignoter (creator of the image) to ask if he has a larger image. Personally, I love this photo, but I will reserve my vote until he/she replies. --liquidGhoul 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Bignoter said that he has a much larger photo, but cannot upload it until 25th of February. I think this candidature will go through before then. If I think it is good enough (I am a little worried about the fuzzy nose), then I will nominate it again. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. enochlau (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, great composition, but too blurry in places. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ( − ) Oppose Blurry, noisy --Fir0002 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Fir, also rather small, though it looked nice as a thumbnail. --Dschwen 07:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nice pic bad blur Wolfmankurd 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright guys, a much larger version has been uploaded now; for those voting "No" because of the previously small size, please reconsider.
Not promoted . I'm afraid the larger version came too late, but it can always be re-nominated. Raven4x4x 10:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Great picture, included in the explosion article. Downloaded from: [pdphoto.org].
10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added the new nomination date up the top here so the bot doesn't get confused.Raven4x4x 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - 82.32.220.62 14:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support, totally badass! Tom k&e 12:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Was Previously nominated, but never properly closed, so relisting now and
- Support Night Gyr 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support That ball of burning gas and debris escaping - great! - Samsara contrib talk 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support even if it is on the small side. Nice pyrotechnics! --Janke | Talk 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is one of my photos. I can provide a much higher res version, but we're in the middle of moving right now. It will take me a few days to get the computers set back up and find this in the archive. Two questions - 1) What is considered reasonably good for image size? 2) I'm new around here, even if my photos aren't, so where would I upload this? Anyone have a URL explaining that? --y6y6y6 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page. Have fun! Mstroeck 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like it. Not stunning enough. Renata 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with above. Good picture but just not striking. Sotakeit 13:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sort of grimy-looking. Not that war should be glamorized, but one could get a better image of explosions. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to be firebombs rather than what one usually calls explosions. There were images like that in WW II movies, but I think they were napalm.
- Oppose, agree with above; dark background. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. agree with above, I could imagine better illustrations for explosions. This one rather looks like a napalm strike. Mikeo 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not bad, but not special. enochlau (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted . This is in fact ready to archive; it isn't in the right section because the bot kept getting confused for some reason. Raven4x4x 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I created this image of Tower Bridge tonight. I think this may set another personal record for high res panoramas. This image was created from around fifty separate 12.8 megapixel images and stiched together with PTGui. I downsampled it substantially as I'm not sure it needs to be any bigger than it currently is (9462x4734)! Shows the Thames at a very low level due (apparently) to low rainfall this winter. It was unfortunate to have the barge in the shot but they are all over the river at the moment and it is basically impossible to avoid. You need to view at 100% to appreciate the level of detail in this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Panoramas normally make me feel jaded. Not this one. –Joke 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the car blur. At full resolution it's very impressive, but the overall composition of it when viewed at a normal size just isn't that striking.--ragesoss 05:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - It is unfortunate that the right bit is chopped off but the rest is so perfect...--Deglr6328 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Glaurung 07:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The sharpness at high resolution is magnificent, but apart from this the picture is not outstanding and would hardly get FP status. I think we should stop featuring expensive cameras and software instead of photographic skill and aestetic qualities. Calderwood 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- IMO you're not quite right. After browsing through what imagery is avaliable on the topic on flickr, shutterstock and getty I think Diliff's photo is aestheticaly very good, when beeing 100% illustrative. From the "competition" it seems you can get more impressive "artsy" photo, but in most at the cost of illustrativeness.
- IMO it's more about invested time and effort than about software. (Though 12.8 megapixel camera and fast computer helps - I envy :-) --Wikimol 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with Calderwood's comment, but the real problem with this particular image is, as mentioned above, that the right portion is cut off. Oppose. Zafiroblue05 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Looking at all the pics at Tower Bridge, including the huge gallery, this is visually and technically the best. (PS: Always include an article wikilink in the description. I added one.) --Janke | Talk 08:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Janke - just forgot to link it. :) It is virtually impossible to include the entire bridge and still keep the composition pleasing and balanced. I understand people's desire for it to not crop out part of the bridge but it looks rather the same at both ends. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a version which isn't cropped at the right end? If so can you upload it to compare -- I think I'd prefer that one. chowells 14:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not, I didn't even bother to go that far to the right as it just didn't work compositionally. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a version which isn't cropped at the right end? If so can you upload it to compare -- I think I'd prefer that one. chowells 14:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Janke - just forgot to link it. :) It is virtually impossible to include the entire bridge and still keep the composition pleasing and balanced. I understand people's desire for it to not crop out part of the bridge but it looks rather the same at both ends. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, blocky artefacts in sky and right part of bridge cut off. - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Let's call it... innovative cropping! ;) - Samsara contrib talk 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nice. Though the left tower thingy isn't upright, it's tilted slightly clockwise. IMO it could do with some perspective correction by applying some vertical guides to the towers and other vertical bits in PTGui. chowells 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. I think it is a perspective problem. I may go back some time and try again with a different angle with some of the feedback from here. I'm still not sure I could easily show both sides of the bridge though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind. Interested in how you took the photos -- was the camera in portrait format and you just shot moving the tripod horizontally? (if you see what I mean) chowells 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I took them in landscape format. I believe it was around 8 rows wide by 6 columns high, with a few extra segments here and there where necessary to make sure the whole scene was well covered. Its difficult to estimate exactly how many frames will be required as you are guestimating the amount of overlap required, plus there is the added complication of having large amounts of sky which made composing and stitching difficult. I had to make sure there were at least corners of the brige in every shot so that they could all be stitched. So I had to move the camera on the tripod across each row horizontally then move it up horizontally about 50-70% of the height of the row and photograph the next row. To give you an idea of the coverage of each frame in the image, see here[3]. This is a reduced-resolution image (halved in size from 13 megapixel) but contains the full frame of view. Diliff | (Talk)
- Thanks for the excellent explanation. It must have taken you a long time! Very impressed with your technique, particularly that somehow you managed to get the sky matching up.chowells 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I took them in landscape format. I believe it was around 8 rows wide by 6 columns high, with a few extra segments here and there where necessary to make sure the whole scene was well covered. Its difficult to estimate exactly how many frames will be required as you are guestimating the amount of overlap required, plus there is the added complication of having large amounts of sky which made composing and stitching difficult. I had to make sure there were at least corners of the brige in every shot so that they could all be stitched. So I had to move the camera on the tripod across each row horizontally then move it up horizontally about 50-70% of the height of the row and photograph the next row. To give you an idea of the coverage of each frame in the image, see here[3]. This is a reduced-resolution image (halved in size from 13 megapixel) but contains the full frame of view. Diliff | (Talk)
- Never mind. Interested in how you took the photos -- was the camera in portrait format and you just shot moving the tripod horizontally? (if you see what I mean) chowells 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. I think it is a perspective problem. I may go back some time and try again with a different angle with some of the feedback from here. I'm still not sure I could easily show both sides of the bridge though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
(Contribs) 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, I like the composition. But, dude, are you touring the world just to shoot pics for wikipedia?! Last month it was canada, before australia, now england. --Dschwen 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Haha, didn't they tell you? I'm Wikipedia's official photographer! ;) Actually I'm Australian but I just spent the last 2 and a half months in the US/Canada, and now I'm living in London for the next 18 months. Unless I dig something up out of the archives, they'll be UK-related for the near future. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Calderwood. KILO-LIMA 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Alr 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Slight support. I am not bothered by the cut. The only flaw I see is the blurry car and the ugly white line through it. Could it be edited away? --Bernard Helmstetter 02:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- PTGui can output a layered photoshop file and there's a tutorial on the PTGui site here [4] which might be able to get rid of it. I personally don't mind the car though. chowells 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the same kind of problem here. The car is blurry because of the long exposure time, not because it lies between two images. --Bernard Helmstetter 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I don't see what that stops it being got rid of in a similar way, assuming the next photo doesn't include the car, which is very likely. chowells 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the same kind of problem here. The car is blurry because of the long exposure time, not because it lies between two images. --Bernard Helmstetter 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- PTGui can output a layered photoshop file and there's a tutorial on the PTGui site here [4] which might be able to get rid of it. I personally don't mind the car though. chowells 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. In this case, I prefer an image under daylight conditions, because the object is simply not illuminated enough to be visually appealing at dusk. However, regarding the comment about expensive cameras: Diliff's work is exceptional not simply because he uses expensive equipment, but because he's an expert at stitching panoramas, because he is very thoughtful about the composition of his photos, and because he understands both his camera and the image editing software he uses very well. We should not feature photos because they were taken with expensive cameras, true, but we should not not feature them for that reason either. This is an excellent panorama, though we already have many photos of the Bridge, and I don't see a compelling enough reason to feature this one.--Eloquence* 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Amen regarding equipment. Expensive equipment does not make you a better photographer, certainly not. But a dSLR gives you a lot of nice advantages such as the ability to change lenses to something more suitable, much lower sensor noise which is invaluable on long exposures, aperture priority mode which is IMO essential for getting an idea how long an exposure needs to be (unless if you have a handheld meter), generally higher megapixel counts as well as lots of other things. We could have a "FPC for Masochists who use cheap cameras and 5 quid tripods" but I think I'd rather stick here. chowells 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. A very detailed and spectacular image. The only Minor Quibbles that I have are about the right hand side being chopped off, and that I don't like the barge in the foreground, but they're minor issues. enochlau (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. You can even recognize couples on the bridge, and people working in their offices in the back. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: There may be a limit to how much this is a good thing - see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Geisha (in that case both people pictured apparently consented to having the picture taken). Another interesting and relevant example is mentioned here. Clearly, this Tower Bridge photo is not the same thing, but if, for example, either person in the geisha photo had not consented to the photo being taken, it probably should not have been featured. Similarly, if a photo with a resolution as high as this one happened to reveal an embarrassing personal detail, it might be a good idea not to feature it a) because the personal detail distracts from the rest of the photo or b) as a matter of simple courtesy and respect for other people's privacy. Basically, I find it a little unnerving that we can see into people's offices (even though the fact that the huge windows are left open and the light is left on means that the office holder is not against us being able to see in). zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support --MattWright (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I like it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak ( − ) Oppose Great resolution etc, but as mentioned the side of the bridge is cut and the barge is a distraction. I don't know how to say this without offending, but I can't see how you can take 53 images (and presumably at least 8 on the bottom row) and have the barge only in one part of the image. I mean at 3.2 seconds of exposure, the barge traveling at a reasonable speed the barge should really be in most of the lower part of the image. And if the barge is moving slow, then that will allow you to have enough time to walk to a point where it isn't in the frame. Just a thought --Fir0002 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- The barge in the foreground wasn't moving anywhere. :) It was completely stationary (apart from slight drifting due to the currents - It was anchored down semi-permanently). There really was no other angle that I could see that could avoid it. It seems like the majority of opposers are doing so mainly for compositional reasons but I have a slightly lower resolution (still rather high by any standard) version that I took with fewer segments about 10-15 minutes earlier. I wasn't sure which of the two I prefered to submit, but I guess I'll throw it onto the table for anyone who is interested[5]. The lighting is somewhat different as the sky was brighter and SEEMINGLY the incandescent lights were giving off a cooler spectrum of light (more yellow - perhaps they were still warming up) although this could be a white balance issue instead. I post-processed the two separately. For the record, when you are working with such a big panorama, you don't have a lot of time to wait for boats to pass by necessarily. If you wait, particularly around sunset/dusk, you run the risk of there being a big difference between frames (ie the sky gets darker). Same thing during the day with clouds as I'm sure you've had to grapple with at times. If not the clouds themselves, then the shadow they can cast on the landscape which can mess up the transition between segments. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like that you got all of the bridge in, but you originally submitted the clearly superior photo. This earlier-in-the-night photo loses the enchantment of the first submission. I know it's a lot to ask, but if you could get the lighting of the original submission and the composition of [6], I think it'd be brilliant... zafiroblue05 | Talk 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The barge in the foreground wasn't moving anywhere. :) It was completely stationary (apart from slight drifting due to the currents - It was anchored down semi-permanently). There really was no other angle that I could see that could avoid it. It seems like the majority of opposers are doing so mainly for compositional reasons but I have a slightly lower resolution (still rather high by any standard) version that I took with fewer segments about 10-15 minutes earlier. I wasn't sure which of the two I prefered to submit, but I guess I'll throw it onto the table for anyone who is interested[5]. The lighting is somewhat different as the sky was brighter and SEEMINGLY the incandescent lights were giving off a cooler spectrum of light (more yellow - perhaps they were still warming up) although this could be a white balance issue instead. I post-processed the two separately. For the record, when you are working with such a big panorama, you don't have a lot of time to wait for boats to pass by necessarily. If you wait, particularly around sunset/dusk, you run the risk of there being a big difference between frames (ie the sky gets darker). Same thing during the day with clouds as I'm sure you've had to grapple with at times. If not the clouds themselves, then the shadow they can cast on the landscape which can mess up the transition between segments. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very nice pic and a great achievement. I don't think the cut is compositionally important and anyway getting both ends of the bridge in would mean taking it more side-on and that would be less interesting ~ Veledan • Talk 18:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support'. The first one. ed g2s • talk 17:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Great looking Photo. 66.57.87.50 04:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to vote please register first --Fir0002 www 21:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This vote is almost as exciting as the Olympic Bid selection! Hmmm... 86.135.200.146 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to vote please register first --Fir0002 www 21:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very well done. Photos like this can put pros out of business. Agateller 13:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support the second version. I would prefer to support the first, but the entirety of the bridge is not in focus. TomStar81 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg, although it was a close thing... Raven4x4x 10:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Although lacking the color of the Sea Anemone lithograph, I find this similarly captivating. It's currently in Polycystine, and I'm going to work on scanning all the plates of radiolarians from Kunstformen der Natur to create a gallery in Radiolarian as well, so it will be there too. As that article puts it, "German biologist Ernst Haeckel produced exquisite (and perhaps somewhat exaggerated) drawings of radiolaria, helping to popularize these protists among Victorian parlor microscopists", and this is one of the best.
- Note: said gallery in radiolarian is now installed.--ragesoss 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - ragesoss 03:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I don't really have a comment, other than that I'm a sucker for these images and the quality of the scan is good. –Joke 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The drawings Haeckel produced are amazing. - Samsara contrib talk 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There's a lot of dust... anybody want to clean it up? ~MDD4696 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not actually dust, it's abrasions to page. But, yes, some better cleanup would be nice.--ragesoss 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose this one. I like microphotographs better - and as many of the 19th century lithographs, this is, as you say, exaggerated. (I have a whole 20-or-so volume set of the German "Brockhausen" encyclopedia from the late 1890s, and the lithos in it are a pleasure for the eye, but alas, not as "truthful" as today's standard require...) --Janke | Talk 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - looks like x-mas tree decorations :) I don't think truthfullness is the criteria here. It's more eye pleasure and histrical value. Renata 23:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - History and sheer beauty of Nature make this picture a great candidate Swilk 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support per Swilk. enochlau (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support-- Chris 73 | Talk 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support --Fir0002 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Calderwood 07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support per above, nice. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Haeckel Spumellaria.jpg Raven4x4x 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Great composition (I like the "reporter" on the right), very representative of the topic; appears in the article protest and is by User:SchuminWeb.
- Nominate and support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble adding the {{FPC}} since this is a Commons image. Help? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I did it for you Calderwood 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just doesn't do anything for me, just not intresting and not striking. PPGMD 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK PPGMD Calderwood 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. These people look like they're out for a walk in the park. No shouting? No rage? Just pretty posters and designer clothing? A FP on such a topic would probably need to be a historically significant image. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-9 21:01
- I don't think a poster with 'IMPERIAL MOTHER FUCKER' on it counts as 'no rage'. And I don't particularly like the language or the content, so Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Lewk_of_Serthic 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - What a bunch of pathetic poseurs. I doubt THEY even know what they're protesting. --Deglr6328 06:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Sounds deadly! Especially with that man in black in the foreground with a poster saying "Mother Fucker". KILO-LIMA 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per PPGMD Glaurung 07:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just doesn't fit. KILO-LIMA 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Part of that placard is cut off. What kind of motherfuckers is he protesting? Imp motherfuckers? —DO'Neil 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing "imperialist", it has that certain combination of moronic vacuousness and verisimilitude that anti-capitalist/anti-globalization protesters seem to go in for.--Deglr6328 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for all of the reasons stated above and those likely to follow. TomStar81 05:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. What else could you want from a protest picture? enochlau (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Very strongly oppose!. The "mother f**ker" slogan gives readers the message that protests are all vulgar actions with uncivilized words in the slogans. -Alanmak 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is just an example of a protest, not the definition of one. I don't think you should oppose an image just because it isn't absolutely definitive for the article. It sounds like you have an agenda. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, so we should all follow government like a servile dogs? And btw protest is a sign of democratic society. - Darwinek 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I did not say that we should always follow what the government says. Don't put words in my mouth. Protest is a sign of democratic society, and is supposed to be a sign of a civilized society. A protest should aim at expressing the will of the people in a peaceful, rational manner. A picture that simply emphasizes the cursewords on a banner does not demonstrate this important purpose behind a protest. - Alanmak 07:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Fresh atmosphere and good composition. - Darwinek 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty poor --Fir0002 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Simply because I think others are opposing it based on their ideology.--Colle||Talk-- 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have no problems with the protest or the people participating but I feel that these pictures should be clean so that everyone can view them. Ebill
- Oppose Simply because I think others are supporting it based on their ideology. ;-) No seriously, blown out highlights, uninspired composition. Just not FP material. --Dschwen 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Primary textual element is cropped, only a few posters are fully seen. If you want to photograph a protest, choose a perspective that gives an idea of the size of the crowd (like this) or portray individual protesters carefully. This very close frontal perspective doesn't work well for crowds (except maybe in orderly protests like this one). As for the "motherfucker" text, it's perfectly fine to show something like this, but we need to be clear what we represent. In the general article protest, we need photos that show the broad range of messages that can be found, and the kind of protest shown here is only one example.
In any case, since protests (and photographs thereof - try Indymedia) are so common, a general protest photo will have to be truly exceptional to gain featured status. This means that it should include some very interesting visual elements like costumes, masks, waving flags, effigies, die-ins, etc. -- or, alternatively, powerful consistent symbolism as in Image:Collectivization-get-rid-of-kulak.jpg. --Eloquence* 12:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)- I would lean towards a more historically significant image when considering a FP. Maybe this photo would be more appropriate for an article on teen rebellion. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-22 02:55
- oppose I dont mind the swearing on it but the image doesnt hit me with anything other than the fact it says 'mother fucker' Wolfmankurd 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know many people here do not like flash photography, and usually for good reason. The reasons usually being: glare and colour accuracy. This photo, however has very little glare, and the colour is accurate. This is a very beautiful frog, and although common, is rarely seen or heard by most people, as they have no vocal sac, and are nocturnal. ; Appears in Stoney Creek Frog. --liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Not bad, but I'm not "wowed"... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Hey liquidGhoul, I actually thought the same as you when I first saw this one. Awe-inspiringly beautiful. - Samsara contrib talk 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support not bad, but a bit on the small side. chowells 11:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have just uploaded another. It is larger, and has a less distracting background. :) --liquidGhoul 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad but insufficient for FP status Calderwood 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it, but then again, I'm a sucker for frogs. Good composition and I have no problem with the size. I like the original picture better than the alternative, by the way. Swilk 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- As do I, I love the toes on the first one. --liquidGhoul 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I must concur. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've never been a fan of artificial lighting. enochlau (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --liquidGhoul 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't feel that harsh unnatural lighting goes well with pictures of natural things, like frogs. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --liquidGhoul 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- "harsh" suggests that the photo is overexposed and "unnatural" suggests that the colour accuracy is wrong, both of which are not true. So I just don't understand what you mean. --liquidGhoul 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with Calderwood. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support a very nice picture of a very nice frog. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Not striking enough.--ragesoss 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nominations older than 14 days, the maximum voting period, decision time!
I'll admit I've got a soft spot for the Monument valley article, being one of the first articles I wrote in order to provide a home for Image:MonumentValley 640px.jpg from PDphoto. More recently, we got this image from German user Huebi, which is simply excellent. I'd have been happier if it had captured both butes, but then the composition may not have worked.
- Nominate and support. - Solipsist 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- what are those black spots in the sky? Don't think it's my monitor being dirty since I can't see them on this white edit box ;) chowells 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Very nice photo. If you are asking about the black sports in the upper right, they are very likely birds. Meniscus 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Love the colors.--ragesoss 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Glaurung 07:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Calderwood 08:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, but I'd get rid of the birds, personally. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support, great composition, catches atmosphere brilliantly. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support The contrasting colours are a definite eye-catcher. My only criticism is that the land is on a slant.--Ali K 10:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant. Samsara contrib talk 11:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. A striking landscape! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great colors. Really does a good job of illustrating the area.--Lewk_of_Serthic 05:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support - good but BEGGING for an unsharp mask on the land part only.--Deglr6328 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice colors, but the framing of the picture isn't great - it'd be a much superior photo if the thumb-thing-I-know-from-Oregon-trail was framed right in the center of the two branches of the tree. It also seems a little slanted. Zafiroblue05 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice image. chowells 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Hein 22:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very nice photo and eyecatching. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Nice. Next time, I will have to bring my sunglasses so I can stare at the scene longer. TomStar81 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. Nice, but somewhat blurry. enochlau (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support this kitsch. - Darwinek 23:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Zafiroblue05. Plus: there are better illustrations of Monument Valley. The limits of the optical resolution become evident, even at this size. Colors are nice, though. Mikeo 14:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I agree that the framing could be better, but it's a good image nonetheless. Bziomek 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Lovely scenery but poor framing --Fir0002 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Striking image.--Lordkinbote 07:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Beautiful Support
- Support Great American West shot. Love the colors and the contrast--Looper5920 08:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Monument Valley 2.jpg Raven4x4x 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the stained glass windows in Liverpool Cathedral. It's an extremely colourful window and I hope my photo has done justice to it. I especially like the coloured light on the left hand wall.
- Self nom and support. - chowells 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OpposeA good photo of a beautiful subject. Could use some work in photoshop to
- reduce noise in the dark regions (i.e. the chroma noise in the stonework)
- correct perspective so that the windows are square and vertical
- possibly adjust levels and crop?
If this were done, I would consider supporting. Also, does it need to be 10mb? Is it really ISO 200? –Joke 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly how to reduce the noise. It's already had quite a lot of perspective correction done, though I like the way it is now -- I get the feeling I'm standing at the bottom of a massive window. If the consensus is that more perspective correction should be done that is possible. It's already been cropped, though I didn't crop it more tightly due to wanting to include the coloured light on the walls on the left. Cropping more tightly is of course possible. Adjusting levels needs more research since I don't know how to do that :) I tried smaller versions in photoshop but I felt that the extra quality was worth it. Also I don't really see what not -- Mediawiki handles smaller versions automatically and those that want the highest quality possible can have it. It was ISO 200. What makes you doubt that? chowells
- Please see #2. chowells 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like the PC'ed/cropped #2 better, but I suppose it is a matter of opinion. I am surprised it is ISO 200, because the colors in the stonework are so blotchy in the upper right hand corner, but I guess it is quite dark in that region. Maybe it is something that came out in levels. Is there some way to reduce the chrominance noise there? I'm not really familiar with noise reduction tools. –Joke 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice pic. But not currently illusrating any article. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ergh thanks, I thought I'd pressed save, but obviously not. Fixed. chowells 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support original although I'd be happier seeing it making a more convincing contribution in another article. It's a pity Stained glass is such a gallery already. Super pic though. I disagree with Joke137. Given the resolution I find the small amount of noise perfectly acceptable. Don't play with the levels unless you think the pic truly misrepresents the scene. I'm guessing the stonework ought to be as dark as it looks and anyway the shadow detail looks just fine on my (calibrated) monitor. Using levels to lift the shadow falsely will not make the image look better ~ Veledan • Talk 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. I was implying that the stonework may have been darker in the photo as it came out of the camera, and has been lightened so that it is possible to make out some detail. I agree that it is fine as it is, though. –Joke 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The camera was outputting RAW so it's exactly as the CCD (or is it a CMOS sensor?) saw it -- Rawshooter premium was then used to convert to 16 bit TIFFs (I understand RAW is 12bit so converting to 8bit tiff at that stage would lose some info I think...) with white balance temperature of 6100K and tint -10. The tiffs were then stitched together in PTGui. No other processing apart from converting the resulting 16bit tiff to 8bit in Photoshop CS2 and then saving as a JPEG. Cheers. chowells 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the second version would look better in an article. You need to see this image at something close to full resolution to really appreciate it, but as it is the first version looks poor as a thumbnail because a lot of the image is completely dead space, where it is impossible to make out detail or texture in the stonework. I don't know if this is something to take into consideration for featured pictures. Moreover, I think this image is better than any image currently in the stained glass article, and is as good an example as I've ever seen, so probably it ought to replace one of the more mundane images in the "gallery." –Joke 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- user:Diliff also has a rather beautiful stained glass pic -- Image:St_Vitus_stained_glass.jpg chowells 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. I was implying that the stonework may have been darker in the photo as it came out of the camera, and has been lightened so that it is possible to make out some detail. I agree that it is fine as it is, though. –Joke 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. Nice, although the Liverpool Cathedral article is already very nicely illustrated ;-) Stained glass can be tricky to get the exposure right and this does a good job when examined in full detail. But the overall composition is a little weak, largely because the stained glass itself is less than stellar, compared to say a Chagall [7], a Tiffany [8] or even a William Morris and Co.. Also we should really have a better image description, saying at least which window this is (it looks like the West window) and ideally identifying the subject and the artist. Oh and yes, Liverpool Cathedral is generally very dark and heavy. -- Solipsist 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, indeed it is nicely illustrated. I think you're right, it is at the west end -- I've updated the caption here. It's exactly the opposite the high altar, . chowells 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Supportpreferably original; it looks worse when it's small, but it's better in the close-up. It's not quite fair to compare it to Tiffany, etc.; it's a different style.--ragesoss 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral; upon returning to this image after looking at some other FP's, it's underwhelming.--ragesoss 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I just don't find the subject that interesting or beautiful. There are better stained glass out there. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - very detailed, but not stunnig and too dark for me. It looks horrible a thumb. I wish you better luck next time. Renata 23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. enochlau (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Used in the article Drop (liquid). The picture demonstrates the details of a drop's detachment.
- Nominate (self-nomination) and support Roger McLassus 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the stark shadows nor the mottled background. If you can make a better one, with a plain background (lit with a separate flash and/or reflector, to get rid of the shadows), I'll support that. Even better would be to have a series of three or four pictures - hey, why don't you make a GIF animation with, say 8 to 10 frames? I'm sure such an image would be almost unanimously supported... --Janke | Talk 09:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like mine better :-) , just shot half an hour ago. --Dschwen 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Your background is better, but Roger's pics don't have ugly soap and lime stains on the faucet... ;-) Seriously, would either of you care to make a series of shots into an animated gif? (Not an .ogg, I don't think those will show in-line with the article text, and some people don't even have the right plug-ins...) You'd have to shoot quite a few pics to get a coherent, well spaced, series. That would be interesting, and an excellent addition to Wikipedia. --Janke | Talk 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- That is easier said than done. Both pictures (I believe) show not the images of the same drop detaching, but entirely different drops (correct me if I'm wrong Roger). To shoot an animation you'd need a camera with a framerate upwards of 100fps. I can ask at our non-linear dynamics lab... --Dschwen 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually, you don't have to have a special camera! A repetitive phenomenon like this can be recorded "in motion" with a still camera! It's a bit tricky to get the exact timing for the different frames (yes, different drops, but they all look the same), but it is entirely possible - especially if you shoot a lot of them. I just thought I'd present you with the challenge ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea, that's also how they capture 4d CTs of human hearts, but my faucet was dripping not too uniformly. I was thinking of getting a strobe light and pan the camera with the shutter open. Next week earliest. --Dschwen 21:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually, you don't have to have a special camera! A repetitive phenomenon like this can be recorded "in motion" with a still camera! It's a bit tricky to get the exact timing for the different frames (yes, different drops, but they all look the same), but it is entirely possible - especially if you shoot a lot of them. I just thought I'd present you with the challenge ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- That is easier said than done. Both pictures (I believe) show not the images of the same drop detaching, but entirely different drops (correct me if I'm wrong Roger). To shoot an animation you'd need a camera with a framerate upwards of 100fps. I can ask at our non-linear dynamics lab... --Dschwen 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as to the adding significantly to the article, has anyone looked at the Drop (liquid) page? It is a stub, heavily overloaded with pics, with the nominee taking up 50% screen real estate as a 500px monster (inserted into the article this morning to qualify for nomination). In that way, yes, it is contributing significantly. --Dschwen 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I'd prefer another background, but the drops themselves are great. Hein 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Interesting, and shows features of water well, but I don't like the background. enochlau (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not a vote but since there was a demand for a water drop animation, AND i got a new camera recently, i took about 300 pics of my sink. Here is the result. Looks pretty good. Small improvements would be the gif color error on the right between the tiles, and maybe show the first image a little bit longer than the others. The full scale 1944 x 2592 image was 50 MB, so I scaled it down to 400x640. Best regards -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, do you want to nominate that for FPC? If so, you might want to put it in a separate section so it gets the proper scrutiny. enochlau (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great! Throwing out the challenge worked! ;-) Will Roger or Dschwen make an attempt, too? Please do nominate yours separately, Chris! One thing you could do: remove a frame or two, now the drop seems to slow down just as it has detached... --Janke | Talk 08:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I made an attempt too (2.5 sec avi), but my faucet has an erratic drop pattern and the cycles do not match very well. Watch the video to see what I mean. I'll try another faucet tomorrow. --Dschwen 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great work! I'd certainly support it if it was nominated! --Dschwen 11:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you insist, here it goes: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Water drop animation. I made it a bit larger and also adjusted the time intervals between the pics to match physics. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great! Throwing out the challenge worked! ;-) Will Roger or Dschwen make an attempt, too? Please do nominate yours separately, Chris! One thing you could do: remove a frame or two, now the drop seems to slow down just as it has detached... --Janke | Talk 08:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, do you want to nominate that for FPC? If so, you might want to put it in a separate section so it gets the proper scrutiny. enochlau (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - shadows, again. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- ( − ) Oppose Animation is much better IMO --Fir0002 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support both Briseis 14:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Kessa Ligerro 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support It took me a while to reflect. But in spite of the dark shadows I now decided to support the picture because of the brilliant drops. Calderwood 07:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Mayamaxima 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
A photo taken by Jaron B. of Singapore's beautiful Marina Bay at night. This photo captures the elegant and relaxed atmosphere of the Marina Bay during the evening. The sleek metallic railing of the pedestrian bridge in the foreground is representative of Singapore's modernity and cleanliness. The couple walking along the bridge are far enough to not be a dominant aspect of the picture, however their leisurely pace of walking properly conveys the serene and romantic feel of the area. The raindrops on the railing add to the romantic and elegant atmosphere of the area.
The current article on Marina Bay does not contain an image of the area at night, when it is it's most brilliant.
- Nominate and support. - Jaronb 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much noise Glaurung 07:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I have been to Marina Bay, and must say that it is stunning at night. This picture just doesn't convey that though.--Ali K 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not stunning. --Janke | Talk 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, I've seen far better night shots on this page. Here at first glance you only see handrails. --Dschwen 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Exif suggests you took the photo was at f/2.8. You have no hope in hell of ensuring that everything is going to be in focus at such a narrow DOF (right from the front railings to the buildings in background). I'd get a tripod, stick the camera into aperture priority mode at about f/13 or f/16 or so, look what the camera's metering system suggests is necesscary to properly expose the image, then stick it into manual mode at at that aperture and the suggested shutter speed, and take a few images either side of that shutter speed to ensure that at least one is properly exposed. The image you uploaded looks somewhat under exposed and is very out of focus. There's also a dead pixel right in the middle. Additionally half of the image is obscured by the railing. Possibly taking another photo slightly to the right and stiching together with some panorama software would have solved the last problem. Gotta Opppose, sorry. chowells 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've just looked at my old Canon Powershot A40 and it has a manual mode, but no aperture priority mode. If your camera is the same I'd suggest you set the aperture to around f/13 or so and try an exposure of 10 or 15 seconds at ISO 100 or 200. You most definitely need a tripod. chowells 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose No licence; noisy; and not a match for our existing similarly-themed FPs. Diliff has spoilt us I'm afraid :-) Have you seen the competition? ~ Veledan • Talk 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The first Montreal one doesn't seem to have a file history displayed- is that a bug? - 86.138.87.64 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Montreal one is from commons. If you click the link to visit the commons version, you will see the file history. The one of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was uploaded to en.wiki directly. I only upload to commons these days. It just makes more sense. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with the above Mikeo 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The street lamps and the railings make the image look rather messy. enochlau (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page.
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage: {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}
- 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.
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Community Portal#New featured content - latest on bottom
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - latest on bottom
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
- You might want to use Template:FP: {{subst:FP|file=|description=|at=|by=}}
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs
- Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture}}, and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image.
- Notify the nominator by placing {{PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the person's talk page. For example: {{PromotedFPC|Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
- Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD.
Nomination for removal
Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Support = Delist | Oppose = Keep
- If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
- If consensus is to remove status then remove the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag and leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
- Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
A December 2004 nominee that is no longer up to scratch. It is small in size by today's standards and it was acknowledged at its nomination that it was unfocused due to lack of tripod. Could the first person to agree with my assessment leave the contributor a quick message (User_talk:Fir0002) to ask about the possibility of improving the uploaded version? Thanks. - Samsara contrib talk 17:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)