Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

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

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

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

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

How to comment for Candidate Images Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional. Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly. You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case. Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. How to comment for Delist Images Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture. Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture. Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture. You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}. Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor adjusted correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.

To see recent changes, .

Current nominations

Four-seam fastball by Chris Young

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

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

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

Reason

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

Articles this image appears in

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

Creator

User:TonyTheTiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Parthenon

Original

Reason

Aesthetic composition, high technical quality. The picture is very encyclopedic because it clearly shows the columns, the metopes, and the roof tiles. Is an FP on Commons.

Proposed caption

The ruins of the Parthenon, here viewed from the south. Formerly a temple to Athena, it was built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports.

Built on the Acropolis of Athens in the 5th century B. C. E. as a temple to Athena, the Parthenon today stands in ruins. Much of the original marble that formed the roof and frieze now lies in a pile of rubble at its base. Even so, it remains ones of the most important surviving buildings of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy.

Articles this image appears in

Classical Greece and ruins. Minor contributions to Parthenon and Pericles

Creator

Thermos

• Support as nominator Malachirality 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Not perfectly sharp. Part of the building is missing... Although including it would make for a less appealing. the sky is really nice. Overall I think it very artistic and deserves feature. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeI do not like the composition.--Mbz1 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Really great photograph, but it doesn't illustrate the Parthenon very well. Iorek 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Support Now it illustrates ruins. Iorek 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Support Great photo. Maddie ^talk 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Iorek, this photo doesn't illustrate the Parthenon well enough to be featured on Wikipedia. It is, however, of great technical and aesthetic quality, and is fully deserving of being featured on Commons. --Aqwis 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps it would work better in ruins?--HereToHelp 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would voters think that it would have greater enc. value in ruins? Am I allowed to just add the picture into the article? Would it be perceived as an underhanded edit that was made just to validate an FPC? --Malachirality 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry for the multiple posts, but I have a question. Could the image be inserted into other articles, such as the aforementioned ruins and/or (perhaps even more appropriately) Classical Greece, where the enc. emphasis is on the style, individual architectural elements, and the feelings evoked by the place, rather than on the Parthenon itself? Consensus says (and I agree) that this picture is not very enc. regarding the latter, but IMO it is very enc. regarding the former. I think this picture is one of en.wiki's more distinctive pictures and definitely has the ability to draw readers into an article, and I would like to see it featured. That being said, I don't want to do anything that comes across as inappropriate or manipulative. Thanks. --Malachirality 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think too much of the subject is cut off for Parthenon. I suggested ruins (Classical Greece is another great idea) because I got a sense of what a mighty structure is was compared to what it is. I like the juxtaposition of still-smooth surfaces with the pile of fallen rubble. I can see that the Greeks cared about their architecture but also that the building has seen a lot of wear-and-tear. This is the image's strong point; putting it in a better article is not manipulative, it improves the encyclopedia.--HereToHelp 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The composition is beautiful, but the image is put together at the expense of the subject. It's missing a significant portion of the building and has no more detail than the more comprehensive images on the page. In my eyes, this combination torches the enc value because there's nothing to be learned about the subject from the photo. SingCal 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Pending a reworking of the caption. The image is much more encyclopedic now, but adding the word "ruins" to the caption just doesn't cut it for me. I will change to a full support once the caption is at least slightly reconsidered. SingCal 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have tweaked the caption. Better? --Malachirality 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. SingCal 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not sufficiently illustrative of its subject. Pstuart84 Talk 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral. I still don't like the abrut cutting off of the Parthenon, but since it's now being suggested for Ruins I'll abstain. Pstuart84 Talk 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added the picture to the articles ruins (replacing this painting) and Classical Greece (replacing a picture of the Parthenon--a fully enc. Parthenon pic occurs later in the article). Please take a look and assess the picture's stylistic and enc. contributions to those pages.
  • I agree with these changes - that pic has great power to open an article, as it is very eye-catching - made me want to read more about ruins and Classical Greece when I opened those articles. --84.90.46.116 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. For a very artistic picture, not enough of the subject included in the image. KyuuA4 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I would plead with people to reconsider this one. I fully admit I'm swayed by the fabulous lighting and arty perspective and supported this last time based on little more than that (tut-tut..) but now that it's in the Ruins article I think it's found a very enc niche. There are no longer grounds for opposing on the basis of not seeing all of the structure, as the intriguing rubble is now a major part of its value. It may look a little posterised at 100% but this completely disappears in print. It's very sharp, has fantastic depth of field and inspired me to copyedit, never mind read, the article. Support! --mikaul^talk 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I find that now the image has found a proper home at Ruins, it's encyclopedic value skyrocketed - and seeing as it is a very impressive photo (it has that WOW factor many photos fail at and the technical prowess) I figured it was the perfect photo to actually cast a vote for the first time. Cheers. (As mikaul above me said, I encourage people who opposed based on encyclopedic grounds to reconsider seeing the now fulfilled niche) --84.90.46.116 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi 84.90.46.116. I notice you've now made quite a few comments, etc, on this page, and as you say above, have now casted a vote. Please be aware, and I quote from the top of the page, "...anonymous votes are generally disregarded". Can I encourage you to register an account (it's easy and free) and contribute using that so that we can get some feeling for who we're dealing with, and so that you can participate fully. Cheers, --jjron 08:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That solved it ;) -Mad Tinman 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is just a lovely photograph. I initially had reservations about its encyclopedicity, but I think it's a great addition to Ruins, so that concern has been addressed. -- Coneslayer 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- definitely a great picture for Ruins. -- Merope 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to support as the picture works well in the article Ruins. --Aqwis 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent photo, nice light. Good enc in Ruins. Could be improved with slight cw rotation. --Janke | Talk 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Composition no encyclopaedic, but would do well on Commons. (Detailed reasons: subject cut off, too much space devoted to loose stones and sky) NB proposed caption references parthenon, not ruins. Separa 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The composition is encyclopaedic for ruins - works much better then just any front shot - and to adress your other concern, I propose we change the caption to "The Ruins of the Parthenon, here viewed from the south. The Parthenon is a temple to Athena built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports." Cheers. --Mad Tinman 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support A very attractive shot no doubt, and the sky is lovely. But the mere fact that the main subject has been chopped in half isn't particularly useful, especially when it's the first thing your eyes see. Hence only a weak support. -- Chris B • talk 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I went back and forth on this one-- it is such a stunning work of photography, but not encyclopedic for "Parthenon". But now that it has been submitted for "Ruins", it works for me. Compare the discussion of this FPC nomination, once it was submitted as encyclopedic for "Camouflage" rather than for "War in Afghanistan", it was recognized as encyclopedic. Spikebrennan 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support use in ruins. Matt Deres 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I want to see more of the subject. ^8thstar 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a lovely photo, but falls down on encyclopaedic grounds for me. Too cut off for the "Parthenon", and while the case has been made above for "Ruins", to me the so-called 'pile of rubble' at its base that dominates the foreground is all too neatly stacked to convince me. --jjron 08:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Parthenon from south.jpg MER-C 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Arc de Triomphe 2007

Original

Reason

Currently a FPC on Commons, earning a lot of support there. Beautiful image, more attractive (in my view) than this earlier nom.

Proposed caption

The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier.

Articles this image appears in

Arc de triomphe

Creator

en:User:blieusong

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support High resolution, very clear and detailed, very encyclopedic. Good composition (I like the Eiffel Tower and the tree leaves in the foreground). Perhaps a more detailed caption? --Malachirality 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed Revised Caption: The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier. --84.90.46.116 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! (I copied it). Spikebrennan 03:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --84.90.46.116 10:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support Excellent detail and knockout composition between the lighting and Eiffel Tower. I don't know who the anon was but s/he suggested a superior caption.--HereToHelp 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done blieusong. wonderful light, composition. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've struck-through some unnecessary words in the caption. Pstuart84 Talk 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is in fact better with these new changes. Well spotted ;). --84.90.46.116 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although i would've prefered a version without the leaves, this picture is stunning. The sharpness is unbelievable, and it illustrates the subject well. --Aqwis 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I myself like the leaves, I think they add to the image by helping frame subject (the arch). --84.90.46.116 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Meets all the criteria - especially lovely composition and execution. Pstuart84 Talk 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• oppose Because of the branches. AJUK ^Talk!! 14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I love the composition branches and all and the detail is Dilliffic! There is some fisheyeing but the image looks quite natural in the thumb, so I don't mind it. de Bivort 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Diliffic"…wow, I wish I thought of that!--HereToHelp 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support just as I did on commons, lovely --Pumpmeup 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I suppose I should take that 'Diliffic' as a compliment. :-) I wouldn't say there is fisheyeing (is there?), as it has been perspective corrected, but the verticals are not entirely vertical. Could do with a slight adjustment, but as you say, it looks quite natural in the thumbnail all the same. Detail is excellent, as is the shadow detail. Very good composition and exposure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I chose to have the vertical lines converging a little, so it looks "less unnatural". The vertical anchor line is on the left edge of the right arch. I can change this if requested (?). Blieusong 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No, its ok, I think it looks okay as is. I do appreciate that complete perspective correction results in excessive distortion sometimes. Its a tradeoff. I'm impressed by your photography by the way. We have a similar 'signature' style. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It's because one copied the other, (hint: it's not you). Your pictures inspired me a lot, and you are certainly responsible for me spending a lot (time and money) in photography :). Blieusong 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Astounding detail. It's as though I were there. --Bridgecross 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Verticals look a little off as discussed above (I just get the feeling of a slight lean to the right), and I've said it before, but I think daytime shots have a higher encyclopaedic value; however these issues are compensated for by a good capture with sufficient light, and overall attractiveness of the image. --jjron 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great picture. But I see blurrs around edges of it, that may just be due to my crappy monitor! — jacĸrм (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - would be "strong" if the leaves weren't in there. Besides being distracting they're also an odd colour and (obviously) out of focus. If they didn't occupy quite so much of the picture, I'd suggest removing them with PS; given the flat sky, the work would be fairly seamless. Still, an awesome picture. Matt Deres 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg MER-C 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Diffusion tensor imaging

Original

Reason

Featured on German wikipedia. Beautiful, and interest-provoking enough to make me wonder what it was. Nominated for FP status on Commons but the nom failed because the image did not satisfy the higher-resolution requirements that apply there.

Proposed caption

Visualization of a DTI measurement of a human brain. Depicted are reconstructed fiber tracts that run through the mid-sagittal plane. Especially prominent are the U-shaped fibers that connect the two hemispheres through the corpus callosum (the fibers come out of the image plane and consequently bend towards the top) and the fiber tracts that descend toward the spine (blue, within the image plane). This image was rendered using the BioTensor application developed at the University of Utah, based on data provided by Gordon Kindlmann at the Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, and Andrew Alexander, W.M. Keck Laboratory for Functional Brain Imaging and Behaviour, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Articles this image appears in

Diffusion MRI

Creator

Thomas Schultz (who I believe is a user of German wikipedia)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - very nice, very informative - though I would like it better if there was a side-by-side key with structures labeled. de Bivort 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Informative; I've never seen a picture like this before.--HereToHelp 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Cat-five - talk 10:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. --Aqwis 15:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice, interesting. But can we leave out this stuff re noms on other Wikipedias and Commons - this is becoming increasingly common, but is irrelevant as a reason; reasons should be relevant to us here, not to what's happening with the image somewhere else. --jjron 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:DTI-sagittal-fibers.jpg MER-C 07:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tufa formations of Mono Lake

Original

Original 2

Reason

These are good images of unusual rocks. The images have educational and encyclopedic values. I hope that an image as a FP would "make the viewer want to know more" about tufa of Mono Lake , as well as tufa in general;

Proposed caption:Tufa towers like in the Mono Lake are calcium-carbonate spires and knobs formed by interaction of freshwater springs and alkaline lake water. Tufa can reach heights of 30 ft. (9.1m). Mono Lake is located is Eastern Sierra and covers about 65 square miles. Throughout the lake's existence of over 1 million years, the steady evaporation of freshwater originally coming from Eastern Sierra streams has left the salts and minerals behind so that the lake is now about 2 1/2 times as salty and 80 times as alkaline as the ocean. Mono Lake tufa is now California state reserve.

Articles this image appears in

Mono Lake; Tufa

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the lighting, I'm not sure ho informative the composition is. I feel like a better one could have been chosen to highlight the lake as well. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original 2, neutral on Original (which also seems a little tilted?). I really like the colors and the prettiness of both pictures, but for an image of a lake, the angle is too low. I also feel that the proposed caption does not sufficiently explain the concept of tufa at the first mention, and so the encyclopedicness of the first image is somewhat lost to me as a layman. (What I mean is it reads like "what you see is a tufa, which was formed like this and that" instead of maybe better(?) "a tufa is whatever and works like this and that; if you want to see one, look at the picture".) :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've changed the caption. Is it any better now? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Better but not perfect. I really do think that this FPC gains from putting Tufa over Mono Lake. So I offer a revised caption: Tufa towers like in the Mono Lake are calcium-carbonate spires and knobs formed by interaction of freshwater springs and alkaline lake water. Mono Lake is located is Eastern Sierra and covers about 65 square miles. Throughout the lake's existence of over 1 million years, the steady evaporation of freshwater originally coming from Eastern Sierra streams has left the salts and minerals behind so that the lake is now about 2 1/2 times as salty and 80 times as alkaline as the ocean. Mono Lake tufa is now California state reserve. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I like your caption much better. Thank you very much for helping me out.--Mbz1 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak support original 2 Aesthetically and technically good (but is the right side of the tufa overexposed?), but IMO this picture has very little encyclopedic value regarding Mono Lake, because from this perspective, the body of water can be anything with tufa and hills. Also, a valid reason is needed; right now, the reason does not really address the picture itself. --Malachirality 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess you and Fcb981 are right, when you say that the images have little encyclopedic value regarding Mono Lake. The images are more about Tufa formations of Mono Lake and maybe even tufa in general. The image is featured in tufa article. Tufa could be and is in other places too. On the other hand the tufa in my images is at Mono lake. It is tufa of Mono Lake, which is California state reserve, not the lake itself,but, if there were no this very special lake, there would not have been tufa either. I tried to addresse this issue by changing the title of the image to "Tufa formations of Mono Lake". Do you believe it is OK now or should I change it just to Tufa? Thank you.--Mbz1 03:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support either with revised caption. These are attractive images, and illustrative of tufa. I had never heard of tufa before looking at this nom; now I know what it is. Perhaps the caption could be improved a little more (by Mila) by indicating how large the structures are that we're looking at-- less than a meter high? Several meters high? It's difficult to get a sense of scale. Spikebrennan 16:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I added the information about the height of the tufa to the caption. It is also interesting to know that altough tufa could grow only in the water, now some tufa towers are completely out of the water, because the water that used to be there has evaporated. One could walk between these towers without getting feet wet.--Mbz1 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret. I very much like Original 2: it's a much better image than the original candidate (scanned film , yes? nice...) despite the small horizontal tilt, which somehow works here. It's just that enc problem again. It really doesn't belong at Limestone at all and should be removed. IMO it should appear at both Tufa and Mono Lake in place of your original candidate – but it isn't there! How can we promote an image which isn't (properly) in the encyclopedia yet? Please, do the pic a favour: delist it, sort out proper placement, and then nominate it. I'd happily support it then, and I think many others would too! --mikaul^talk 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you, sgeureka, for helping me out with the caption and thank you, everybody, for votes and comments.I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I took the Original 2 from Limestone (btw tufa is limestone). I will put to Tufa and Mono Lake whatever image will pass the nomination. If none is to pass, I'll put to Tufa and Mono Lake whatever image gets more votes. IMO it is common practice to nominate few images. Of course they cannot be in the articles all together at the time of the nomination, but it is understandable that whatever image is to get FP status will be posted in the articles as soon as the nomination process is over. I wanted to withdraw the nomination, but I believe it would not have been fair to the people, who spent their time voting and helping me with the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment At this point the nomination is almost over, and looks like more people prefer Original 2 to Original, so I've put Original 2 in both Tufa and Mono Lake. Mick, do you believe your oppose is still valid at this point? Thank you.--Mbz1 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mono lake tufa.JPG MER-C 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Necking between two male giraffes

Original

Reason

A well-composed image of good technical quality, showing a unique and perhaps misunderstood giraffe ritual. Encyclopedic and detailed. An FP on Commons.

Proposed caption

Male giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis), such as the two pictured here, often engage in necking for various reasons, including combat and competition over females. Males with longer necks and heavier heads are at an advantage in duels and thus have greater access to estrous females, suggesting that the giraffe's distinctive long neck may be a product of sexual selection.

Articles this image appears in

giraffe and Homosexuality in animals

Creator

user:LucaGaluzzi

• Support as nominator Malachirality 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support--Mbz1 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - At the first fleeting glance of the thumb, I thought this showed a windmill - yes, I'm myopic... ;-) Doesn't look like a very fierce necking battle, though. --Janke | Talk 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Does this really belong in the Homosexuality in animals article? I mean they're necking, not necking; I think it's a little bit misleading, especially with an image like this that could be misinterpreted that way. --jjron 07:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Had the same thoughts - but, in that article, this image is used more as an illustration than an example. One reason for my only weak support. --Janke | Talk 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is just being used as an illustration of giraffes, but the worry is that two male giraffes 'necking' could be interpreted by some as indicating that this is a homosexual behaviour, when it's not. If no image is available of actual homosexual giraffe behaviour, then perhaps a picture of a single giraffe would be better to avoid possible confusion. --jjron 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather take it off fromHomosexuality in animals too.--Mbz1 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it fits in the Homosexuality in animals article, it only makes mention of actual sexual activity and shows no correlation between necking and giraffe - related homosexual behaviour, potentially misleading people into believing that necking is in fact homosexual activity. --84.90.46.116 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I like it overall, but some concerns leading to the 'weak'. The colours seem just a little out, there's some distracting blurry grass in the extreme foreground, the grass around the giraffes is a bit too long obscuring a bit too much of their legs, and the long grass and shadows make it hard to tell whether the giraffe at the right in particular is a male (which is very relevant for this photo which is specifically nominated to show a male/male behaviour). Also questionable use in homosexuality article discussed above. --jjron 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming I'm looking at what I'm supposed to be looking at, it seems pretty evident at full resolution that the right giraffe is male. And per the "Homosexuality in animals" article, does either A) removing the pic or B) editing the section to incorporate the pic have an impact on the the picture's FP candidacy? I'd be willing to do one or the other. --Malachirality 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, you can see it's a male, my point was just that with the grass and shadows, and at this size (i.e., even at 'full size'), you have to look pretty closely to be sure. I'd rather it be removed from the other article for reasons stated above, rather than rewriting that section to try to make this fit there when it's potentially misleading (I'm not sure if you were just asking rhetorically, but yes, it does affect the FP candidacy, as an FP is meant to be encyclopaedic by being correct and adding value to an article - if it's potentially misleading in how it's being used, and I'm not the only one saying this, then it's actually being the opposite of encyclopaedic). --jjron 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too static. I would like to see an image where their heads are together (yes, they do use their little antlers) or with some motion blur in the appropriate place. Even better perhaps, an animation! So that's the encyclopaedic criterion again: doesn't illustrate the subject. Separa 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose My impression, and what seems to be the general consensus among voters, is that this article does not belong in Homosexuality in animals, which means that I'm only considering in terms of the other possible interpretations. As said above, the shot doesn't communicate combat really effectively, so it's not a really great portrayal of its proposed FPC5 subject matter. SingCal 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of the picture is not combat, but are rather giraffe and necking, which are clearly and aesthetically illustrated in the picture. Combat/competition is just one of many functions of necking, and is merely included in the caption as an interpretation and to introduce the interesting idea of sexual selection. The giraffes might not be fighting at all (and the caption can be edited), but this, IMO at least, does not detract from the picture's encyclopedic significance regarding the animal (giraffe) and the behavior (necking). --Malachirality 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Image was removed from "animals" article. --Malachirality 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It just looks like they're... passing by each other. ^8thstar 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1691 map of Kamianets-Podilskyi

Original

Reason

A High-resolution historic map done by famous French cartographer Nicolas de Fer.

Proposed caption

A 1691 French map of Kamianets-Podilskyi, depicting the city's old town neighborhood and castle, surrounded by the winding Smotrych River.

Articles this image appears in

Kamianets-Podilskyi

Creator

Nicolas de Fer

• Support as nominator —dima/talk/ 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion - Maybe someone could present a translation to the text in the map? Would help with the understanding by some, such as myself, who either know nothing or very little of french. --84.90.46.116 20:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I too do not know anything in French.. There is however a site which translates the map.. perhaps I can incorporate the translation into the image description page. —dima/talk/ 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent find there, don't see any reason why you shouldn't include it in the image page. Well done. --84.90.46.116 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It would be best to do it from scratch; translations can be copyrighted if they have creative content. Chick Bowen 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I have provided a translation of the two left and right portions of the map with the help of Google translate and some portions of the website's translation... hopefully its good. —dima/talk/ 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I asked a friend with some french understanding to verify, and he says it's pretty accurate - still, if someone with a complete understanding could verify it'd be better xD --84.90.46.116 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - high res and rare picture.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support nice, good, rare pic --Boguslav 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice scan of an encyclopedic image. NauticaShades 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting, high res, rare and support per above reasons. — jacĸrм (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like old maps, and kind of like this at full size, and would probably support if it was on French Wikipedia. But since we don't seem to have a definite translation, that to me lowers its value. Also I feel that if we're making exceptions for foreign languages, there should be a reason - so a map of a city in the Ukraine with writing in Ukrainian may make more sense than a Ukrainian city with a French map. Now perhaps if the city was ruled by the French at this time we would also consider that a reason, but according to the article in 1691 it was under Turkish rule, and Polish rule soon after - so why French? OK, some other reasons; every time I look at this in thumbnail I think it's a diagram of a cell or some type of cell structure, and as far as it's use in the article, it really looks like it's just been jammed in there, it just doesn't look comfortable. --jjron 08:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Kamianets-Podilskyi map 1691.jpg MER-C 07:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lampides boeticus

Original

Crop - a more balanced crop? (For discussion only, not for voting)

Alternative

Reason

High resolution photograph of Lampides boeticus (Peablue).

Proposed caption

The Peablue (Lampides boeticus) is a small butterfly found in Europe, Africa and Asia that belongs to the Lycaenids family. The forewing length of the imago is 15mm - 20mm.

Articles this image appears in

Lampides boeticus, Lycaenidae

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator --Laitche 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Stunning, very sharp and high value. --Aqwis 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support alternative More balanced composition. --Aqwis 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very encyclopedic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-25 14:24Z
• CommentIt's good, I don't mind the OOF antennae, but it appears over-sharpened in places and the composition/crop could be better. Fixable issues, I think. --mikaul^talk 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can see the crop version at the image page in old version. I already did, the crop was not better. This one is the best, I think :) Laitche 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I find the picture balance a bit awkward too, with the purple on the left and nothing on the right; you're correct that the cropped version isn't any better, but perhaps a more aggressive crop is needed so that the butterfly itself balances up the flowers. Also agree that sharpening appears a bit overdone. DOF seems a bit narrow, but helped by the fact the wings are basically flat. Haven't decided which way to vote yet. --jjron 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can also see the aggressive crop version and the cloned out the flowers on the left side version. I already did and I think the original is better :) Laitche 09:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Per Aqwis. There's no debate here, FP no doubt. NyyDave 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen pictures shot down for nearly invisible flaws, so I can't believe that this one is getting by. The lack of focus on the antennae is simply too much for FP status, IMO. Perhaps if only one of them was out of focus, then fine, but both are blurred beyond acceptibility at their ends, which is a critical part of the picture. And I can't see how its fixable. Look, it's a stunning picture, but "No debate"? We're supposed to be talking about FPs here. Unschool 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think debate and discussion are good thing （＾＾）／ Laitche 11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think he meant "No debate" as a way of expressing just how good he thought the picture was, not in the literal interpretation. --84.90.46.116 13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Laitche 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I meant no doubt as in the quality. The first part was "per aqwis" is which the great quality was mentioned.NyyDave 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support very clear image - especially of the scales. Nothing says an antenna needs to be in focus. The antenna are not really critical to this image - the species could be keyed easily without them. de Bivort 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Separa 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The out-of-focus antennae is a minor issue (and one that's extremely hard to avoid with this kind of shot). I would have cropped some from the right, but it's an outstanding shot as is.--ragesoss 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Uploaded cropped version which I think looks better (it's only low-res, so for discussion only, not voting). --jjron 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• That crop makes me feel narrow and unbalance. I think space is not a nothing, space is a space. There are flowers on the left side therefore need the space on the right side for balance, I think :) Laitche 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Laitche, I reckon that if you added just a bit more of space to the side to have the butterfly stand in the center it would be a great improvement over the original (which is in itself quite good.) --84.90.46.116 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chip in, in support of a more subtle crop, if someones is up for re-dong it. I agree the negative space is trashed with the latest crop (as it was with the original nomination) and suggest a 10% crop from the right would be all it needs. --mikaul^talk 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I felt exactly the same as you. Then I cropped the image like this. But after that I felt the space on the right side is not enough. That's why I quit cropping. Laitche 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually like that last crop , the subject seems better centered then the original or the first edit - maybe submit it as an edit open to vote? --84.90.46.116 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, that's really nice now. If you're going to put it up as an alternative, maybe shade (darken) the extreme right hand side a little, to balance out the flowers; I think that's why you want more space there, but it's tonal, rather than spatial weight it needs, I think. --mikaul^talk 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Mick's point - however I'm going to Support the now submitted alternative, as I find it better then the original. --Mad Tinman 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC) (PS: I'm the above anon, by the way.)

• Info I uploaded the alternative. I feel that the original is better, but the decision is yours. :) --Laitche 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Nice detail on the wing; original has much better composition. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peablue October 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cox

Original

Reason

High visual appeal; bright, eyecatching colours and interesting textures while maintaining a professional portrait appearance. Also has high resolution, is encyclopedic, and is effectively captioned.

Proposed caption

Peter Cox, the author of more than 20 books, including You Don't Need Meat (the best-selling vegetarian book of all time), was the first chief executive of the Vegetarian Society and is now a literary agent working in London and New York.

Articles this image appears in

Peter Cox (author)

Creator

John Buckman

• Support as nominator Lambyte 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm only an occasional participant in FP discussions, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I can't see that a photo portrait adds such great value to a bio article that it meets FP standards. I mean, would any article be significantly weaker for the lack of this photo? Unschool 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah ... no offense meant, but I don't think you do know what you're talking about - photos do add enc value to bios - how else would you know what the person looks like?

• None taken. I mean, I'm asking the question seriously. If the picture is of a place, I understand the importance. If it's of a person whose looks are a subject of the article, I see the importance. I don't deny that I wish for bio articles to have pictures, I'm just saying that, if this article on Mr. Cox didn't have his picture, I would still be able to learn that which was significant about him. That's not true if the picture is of Cappadocia or of Joseph Merrick; if those articles lack appropriate illustrations, my understanding of the subject is greatly limited. I don't need to see a picture of Mr. Cox to understand why he's noteworthy. Accordingly, his picture is inherently less able to add value to the article than the other examples I've cited. Unschool 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it does add less value than the elephant man, but surely you could "still be able to learn that which was significant about" Cappadocia without a photo of it, or the elephant man. In all cases this is true, and in all cases photos or illustrations enhance the article. de Bivort 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I find that biographical articles without pictures are somewhat... at the lack of a better word, disappointing - it helps me visualize the subject I'm reading about, personalize him\her - without the picture, the only thing there is a bunch of text, and I find it difficult to contextualize that to a human being - maybe that's just me. On picture merits themselves, I find that the technical merits don't quite cut it, and that crop diverts a lot from any value it might have. I , of course, refrain from voting as IP's have no suffrage. --84.90.46.116 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually agree with this anon's sentiment—that is, that I too am disappointed by biographical articles that lack a picture. It's only natural to want to know what the subject of the article looks like. But what I'm saying is that a bio article without a picture is not hurt as much as would be many other articles lacking a picture. I completely disagree with Bivort above when he says that you could learn all that is significant about Cappadocia without a picture. An article that is actually long enough to describe Cappadocia well enough for me to visualize what the place looks like would be an article far too long and too boring to hold the attention of even one reader in a hundred. In such a case, the picture almost makes the article. That's not true of an article about Mr. Cox or most people. An article without his picture will perhaps disappoint, but I will still leave it with the knowledge that one would expect an encyclopedia to impart on the subject. Not likely with an article on The Elephant Man. Unschool 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• That does make sense - an article about a person whose looks are not the key to, but rather the acts taken by said person, can function without a picture - while when speaking of a subject like Cappadocia a pictureless article will most likely fail in catching any attention. Of course I still find that it's much easier to get interested in a biography with a good picture to open it, but it isn't made or broken by the photo itself. --84.90.46.116 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - washed out, grainy at full rez, subject is cut off. de Bivort 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the subject is cut off at the top. --Malachirality 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Malachirality- it makes the image look a lot less professional/encyclopedic. J Milburn 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Unschool's sentiment. It has no "wow" factor, and does not make me want to learn more about this subject (in fact, I didn't even click on the article). There certainly *are* portraits that make me want to learn more (like today's FP of William T. Sherman or the one illustrating Benoît Mandelbrot), but things like this and some of the recent portraits of modern people are excellently enc., but not up to the FP standard of "among Wikipedia's best work" in my opinion. --Sean 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to colour posterisation and lack of anything compelling, per TotoBaggins. The crop doesn't bother me at all, I often shoot portraits this way... --mikaul^talk 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The right side(looking at the picture) of his face is way too bright. NyyDave 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fall in Yosemite National Park

Original

Edit 1

Reason

Many people do not realize that Yosemite National Park is the park of all seasons. One cannot see waterfalls in fall, but leaves fall and fall colors are also a beautiful sight. In my opinion the image adds value to the article by showing how beautiful a fall in Yosemite National Park is

Proposed caption

Fall in Yosemite National Park with El Capitan viewed from the Valley Floor. See the climbers out there?

Articles this image appears in

Yosemite National Park;El Capitan

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 04:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's beautiful, and the seasonal angle is a nice one. But I predict that this will go down because of critics who say that it "lacks scale". But I feel that that's irrelevant to the reason it's being offered here. And the picture is flawless. Unschool 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the vote and for the comment. In my opinion the caption of the image does provide a scale. Have you clicked at climbers link? You could find the place, where climbers are at the original image really easy and in my opinion it is a good scale (of course, if I understood what you meant under the scale correctly).--Mbz1 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question. What did you do for post-processing? The sky looks over-saturated, but maybe that's just because I'm used to shooting drab New England skies.--ragesoss 04:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not very good with photo shops. I adjusted brightess, contrast and made it a litlle bit sharper.--Mbz1 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose dark halo along the skyline. de Bivort 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral The original is extremely poor. I'm not concerned about the sky, which looks great, but you have misused local contrast settings or unsharp mask (with a high radius) and basically destroyed the picture. Edit 1 is much better, but i'm not convinced about its encylopaedic value. --Aqwis 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per enc value, and disregard for the layout of the article (Featured, no less) it was pasted into. Already reverted and reinstated, I can't see it lasting there. I hate to bang on about it, but this simply shouldn't be allowed. --mikaul

^talk 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for bringing this up. I expressed my thought wrongly and it is not what I meant to say. What I wanted to say is:
    Looks like it is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the fall in Yosemite. Maybe the image does not have much encyclopedic value(in my opinion it does by showing seasanol changes), but in my opinion it does have informational and educational value. The caption of the image provides the link to the image of the climbers. I do not think there's any other image at Wikipedia, which shows the climbers at El Capitan.
    I agree with you that the image probably will not last long in the article, but in my opinion it adds value to the article and should stay there. Surely I'm not going to post it back, if it is removed again.I agree that to put image in the article only to get an FP status should not be allowed, but I do believe the image adds value to the article. I agree that I disregarded the layout of the article by putting the image at the top section. I removed it from there and put it in the climate section of the same article, where it belongs. Do you still believe the layout of the article is disregarded? Thank you --Mbz1 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the given image size the quality is just not enough for FP IMO. Sky has artifacts, forground is OOF, sky is too dark, and the top rim looks fuzzy. (that would probably make it a weak oppose, but for formal reasons stated above I go with a full oppose). --Dschwen 13:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've made two big mistakes with the image. First one was, when I put it at the top of the article. It does not belong there. The second one was my comment in history, when I put it back after it was removed. It was a very wrong comment. This comment was not what I meant to say and I accept full responsibility for it. Of course the image(rather photographer) deserved to be opposed. Thank you for the lesson,MIckStephenson. I wish you answered my question, if you still believe the layout of the article is disregarded after the image was moved to the climate section? Oh, well... What about the image? Well, the image is in the article in climate section and in my opinion it is there to stay. In my opinion it is a good image with encyclopedic value and it adds value to the article. I'd like to thank Unschool for not withdrawing his support after reading this. Thank you all for the votes and comments--Mbz1 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Annie Oakley film clip

Original

Reason

Remarkable pd film of a well-known public figure in action

Proposed caption

Annie Oakley, a 19th century sharpshooter and exhibition shooter who performed as part of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, demonstrates her rifle target skills in this 1894 film.

Articles this image appears in

Annie Oakley

Creator

William Heise (camera) in Thomas Edison's "Black Maria" studio (1894)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have a few issues with the size and the clip length, but the enc value is so high that I'll overlook them. SingCal 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Valuable. Even though most videos this old would be anyway.NyyDave 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Impressive for 1894. -Malachirality 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Low quality, slow to load. A woman (and frankly for all you can see it could be anyone) firing a gun - that's not that hard to understand without this. And it appears that some of the shots miss, so it doesn't even impress me re her sharpshooter skills, in fact it makes me think less of her. I'd rather a picture that actually let you see this woman; something like the show poster in the article is far more interesting and usable. --jjron 09:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom--Mbz1 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose per jjron. de Bivort 06:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support This movie is one of the first of its kind. It shows moving footage of someone who lived over 100 years ago. Very encyclopedic. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I don't think she actually misses (It looks like some of the targets get hit but don't fall right away) But it's awfully small, and that limits its value. Surely there's a little more detail that could be brought out? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not just the targets on the wall. Later in the video, when she's shooting what I assume are the glass balls referred to in the image name that are tossed up by the bloke, it looks to me like she misses some and they just fall back to the ground. Now, maybe it's just fragments that are falling, but who can really tell with this quality, so my assumption is they're a miss. --jjron 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very unique and valuable motion picture with a dynamic and highly notable subject. Is there any reason why this particular frame is shown as the still? Oakley looks to be about to shoot his his rear end. If it is possible, I'd rather see the still as one with the gunsmoke going into the air, or something more engaging/dynamic. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogv MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

New solar systems in a making

Original

File:Mira the star-by Nasa.jpg

Original down-sampled

Original down-sampled, cropped and corrected orientation

Edit 3 Original recropped to remove an unrelated star that could be confused with having something to do with Mira, which it does not.

Reason

Just think about this! We are witnessing the birth of new solar systems! A great educational image of a wonderful star. Btw Mira is named after the Latin word for "wonderful" .

Proposed caption

Mira A is a red giant variable star in the constellation Cetus. This ultraviolet-wavelength image mosaic, taken by NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, shows a comet-like "tail" stretching 13 Light-years across space. The "tail" consists of hydrogen gas blown off of the star, with the material at the furthest end of the "tail" having been emitted about 30,000 years ago. The tail-like configuration of the emitted material appears to result from Mira's uncommonly high speed relative to the Milky Way galaxy's ambient gas-- about 130 kilometers per second.Mira itself is seen as a small white dot inside a blue bulb. You could also see many stars and galaxies at the image. Please click for more images and information http://www.galex.caltech.edu/MEDIA/2007-04/images.html

Articles this image appears in

Mira

Creator

NASA

• Support edit 3 as nominator Mbz1 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Why display this photograph vertically? Displaying it horizontally might make it easier to put it in articles. Caption needs work too. Spikebrennan 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. When I first saw the picture at NASA site, it was horizontal. I'm not sure why the original uploader has changed the orientation. I just down sampled his image. Anyway I've changed it again and it is horizontal now. Could you, please, give me some hints about the caption. Thank you. --Mbz1 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about the following (add links to taste):

"Mira is a red giant star in the constellation Cetus. This ultraviolet-wavelength image mosaic, taken by NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, shows a comet-like "tail" stretching 13 light-years across space. The "tail" consists of hydrogen gas blown off of the star, with the material at the furthest end of the "tail" having been emitted about 30,000 years ago. The tail-like configuration of the emitted material appears to result from Mira's uncommonly high speed relative to the Milky Way galaxy's ambient gas-- about 130 kilometers per second." (a lot of this caption is nicked from here). The more I read, the more I realize that this star is a pretty weird and unique object. Spikebrennan 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the caption and she is an amazing star. I still left something from my original caption. In my opinion it is important to stress that Mira is a variable star. If you see problems with my English, please, correct them. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What's with the black triangle sticking in the side? Unschool 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The image is a mosaic. Sometimes it misses a part for some reason. All images of the tail I've seen have it. I'll try to contact somebody from NASA to ask how it came about.--Mbz1 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't bother writing NASA - the triangle is from the mosaic. de Bivort 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support downsampled, rotated version Edit 3 - I don't like the smoothing - I would rather have a noisy 3k x 700px image that could be further downsampled than a filtered image like this one. tsk NASA. That said, very enc. de Bivort 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Original version (10.1 MB tiff), see also http://www.galex.caltech.edu/MEDIA/2007-04/images.html. MER-C 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link. Should we use the original tiff image? In any case I'm adding the link to the caption.--Mbz1 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The way the image is in the article isn't the best right now, could someone do something about it? It just seems to not fit in there so well - otherwise great image. --84.90.46.116 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. I believe we'll see, if any image gets promoted and change the article later. If none gets promoted, I'll probably post horizontal version there.--Mbz1 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, thanks for addressing my concern - much appreciated. --84.90.46.116 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very grainy and nasty looking, just not impressive sorry --ffroth 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to be sorry about. It is me, who should be sorry that I could not find the right words to explain how impressive, unique and encyclopedic the imafe is.--Mbz1 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support (Edit 3) Very cool. Double check the orientation of the horizontal; on the Caltech website] the image goes the other way around. Double check the punctuation on the caption, I'm not sure whether that needs to be an emdash or how to code that in markup. Always insert a space after a Full stop. The caltech website also mentions that "It dims and brightens by a factor of 1,500 every 332 days, and will become bright enough to see with the naked eye in mid-November 2007." So we can keep an eye out for it! The caltech website has a few other images of Myra, including a UV and Visible comparison, which is interesting. Consider cropping the image so that the unrelated star (again see the caltech website for explanation) is out of the way, because it is confusing, and is not related to Myra at all. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've cropped the image a little bit, I've changed the orientation to correct one. To tell you the truth I do not feel comfortable changing NASA images. I just hope, that, if the image is to pass, people, who are interested in the subject would click at the original images links.

I had a different strategy in mind for the cropping. OK to leave the background stars, but the large bright star in the image has nothing to do with Mira but could be confused as being part of it. This star has nothing to do with Mira, so it shouldn't compete for viewer attention. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jeff, you are right, sometimes you could see Mira with a naked eye as I did last year . Of course it looks just as another star in the sky, but when you'd think about the magnificent tail, I hope you will not get disappointed. Thank you.

84.90.46.116, I've changed lay out of the article. Do you believe it is better now? Thank you.--Mbz1 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although it's not one of my favourite pictures of our universe, it is a very encylopaedic and unique picture with acceptable quality. --Aqwis 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 3, this kind of picture needs to be accurate - removing or adding anything from it makes it less accurate. --Aqwis 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In this case I feel cropping actually makes the image more accurate, since Mira is not composed of two stars. Of course, keeping background stars are totally fine because they wouldn't be confused with Mira, but the original image gives the wrong idea about this celestial object. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You're very right - for some reason i thought the star had been cloned out of the image. I'll change my vote then. --Aqwis 13:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I've changed my vote too. Thank you, Jeff.--Mbz1 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, which version? Please reference a specific version in your supports. MER-C 06:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 3]]] Spikebrennan 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like the last edit by Jeff has more supports. --Mbz1 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The concept behind the picture is certainly impressive, but IMO the picture itself is much less so. The picture is uninformative--just a blur of dots--and there is no sense of scale or size. Are the dots stars? galaxies? dust particles? I think even looking closely, this picture could be mistaken for a comet, and for me, that makes it unenc. And why is there a triangle of completely blank darkness on the lower left edge? The dark triangle on the lower left edge is also a minor problem for me. --Malachirality 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mira the star-by Nasa alt crop.jpg MER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic spectrum

Original

Edit1 with continuous colour scale

Reason

Ultra-enc value + svg + high quality (it's a pity the article isn't in the same shape)

Proposed caption

The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses all electromagnetic radiation - ranging from radio waves through microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays in order of increasing frequency.

Articles this image appears in

Electromagnetic spectrum

Creator

commons:User:Inductiveload

• Support as nominator MER-C 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. We should have an excellent chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, but I'm not sure this one is quite excellent. I have some nitpicks; for example, the minus signs in negative exponents look like hyphens, and are hard to see (cf. "-2" with "−2"). It should be easy to line up the numbers on the different scales (wavelength, frequency, temperature) but they're too far apart and are interrupted by the little pictures. This xkcd version, while not entirely encyclopedic, is actually easier to use for converting frequency and wavelength. The idea of showing objects with the same physical size as the wavelength makes some sense, but it might lead the reader to think that radiation of that wavelength interacts strongly with objects of that size; this isn't really the case. Molecules have a lot of transitions in the infrared, and most atomic transitions are in the UV. In the atmospheric transmission bar, there are gray blocks that aren't explained (probably because there's a complex band structure in some of them). I've come across published charts that have been more useful to me (with features like a plot of atmospheric transmittivity, common radio bands like X band denoted, etc.), but maybe something that information-dense would be too much for someone new to the subject. -- Coneslayer 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree it difficult to line up the numbers, but the scales aren't precise as they spectrum is not linear or logarithmic here - it's been stretched and squashed to give about equal weight to each "band". I am going to make a dedicated frequency-wavelength scale that will be precise to complement this picture. Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do the humans have to be naked? Little unnecessary if you ask me. NyyDave 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. --84.90.46.116 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, they're from the Pioneer plaque. -- Coneslayer 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think they're pretty standard for representing humans when it comes to size\scale, sadly I can't think of any particular example now :\ --84.90.46.116 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the actual Pioneer plaques - they were drawn to show humans' size and shape in the first place. :D Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well said xD --84.90.46.116 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• NyyDave, I hope you are kidding.--Svetovid 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it just seems like we don't need to represent ourselves that naturally. Whatever.NyyDave 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Coneslayer issues - another problem is that the units look like divisors: "Wavelength / m" looks like wavelength per meter - should be "Wavelength (m)". de Bivort 16:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, they ARE divisors. Dividing by the units is the accepted way to label a graph, as you are ploting numbers, not quantities (how do you draw a Hertz on a graph?). Therfore, Freq. / Hz is a dimensionless quantity. If you write f(Hz), it looks like multiplication or a function of Hz, neither of which makes sense. Also, am I allowed to vote here? Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that out, I was wondering about it myself - It seemed correct, but I just wasn't sure ;) Also, I'm pretty certain that you can vote here, yeah - as far as I know only IP's don't have suffrage. --84.90.46.116 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed to (units) convetion, because ths seems to cause endless confusion, and consensus at Commons was to use this way, as although the / units way is more correct, this is more accessible to the layman. Since this is not a highly accurate image anyway, and is designed for use in teaching the basics to people who may not know the / units convention, I think this is the best option. --Inductiveload 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Very cluttered. If it can be simplified, it would make for a much more powerful image. Sometimes little pictures like this are helpful, but in this case, instead of thinking about the science, I'm distracted thinking about what the little pictures mean. The color temperature bar shows discrete steps, but in reality it is a continuum, and why are X-rays and gamma rays shown as pink when they are colorless? I've seen scores of these kinds of diagrams, and while it's great to have this one, I've seen many better. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I wondered about a transmission plot that but I couldn't find a transmission plot that goes from radio to gamma, and anyway, it's horrible cluttered and spiky. If people want one they can go to the relevant article and get a much more detailed one. It is more of an indication of the general transmission in that area. No scale on this picture is designed to be very precise - it's more of a concise overveiw of the spectrum than a very accurate plot. I'm working on a continous black body scale. Also, I am going to make a dedicated frequency-wavelength scale that will be precise. That may be a few days though.Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • On seconds thoughts, I'm NOT going to make one as there is one in the article already. --Inductiveload 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you prefer this edit with a continuous colour scale?(right)Inductiveload 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've moved this edit to the top below the original, and labeled it Edit1, as is customary on FPC. --jjron 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support If I'm allowed. Inductiveload 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure you're allowed. --jjron 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question Is there something that I'm not seeing, or does this image fall far short of the size requirements? --Malachirality 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics). If you open it in the right software you can resize it to any size you want without loss of quality. Thus the size stated on the image page doesn't have the same meaning as for a jpg, png, gif, etc. --jjron 07:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Gives impression that radio waves etc. are red and X-rays are fuchsia. I'm really not sure about the little pictures (butterfly, atom, etc) - I'm not sure they help or distract. Also, how can frequency be measured in meters? Shouldn't that be Hz or something (I'm talking about the edit, the original is different)? Matt Deres 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cappadocia

Original

Edit 1

Edit 2 - noise reduction, saturation boost

Reason

Cappadocia is an amazing, but not well known natural wonder. I hope that the image as a FP would "make the viewer want to know more" about Cappadocia.

Proposed caption

Cappadocia, a region in central Turkey, is known for its Göreme National Park, which was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1985.The first period of settlement within the region reaches to Roman period of Christianity era. The area is also famous for its "fairy chimneys" rock formations, some of which reach 40 meters (130 feet) in height. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year.

Articles this image appears in

Cappadocia

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• These look almost identical to the tent rocks of New Mexico. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-24 14:12Z
  • To tell you the truth not even close. Of course some rocks could resemble other rocks and they really do, but Cappadocia is so much bigger, than anything else of a kind. I hope these aditional images could help you to see more: ;;;. --Mbz1 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • All I meant is that the tent-shaped mounds were likely created in exactly the same way in both places (volcanic deposits) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-24 19:01Z
      • Sure, the process of creating the rocks was the same.--Mbz1 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and Support. Is the horizon tilted? Hard to tell with the mountains in the background. (The geologic layers in the rocks seem to be tited, but they might be tilted in real life.) Beautiful photo.

Spikebrennan 00:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Spikebrennan. It is a beautiful place. I do not think the image is tilted.--Mbz1 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Magnificent! Does just what an FP should do—drew me in to read an article that I would never have otherwise read. This is both beautiful and fascinating. Wholehearted support. Unschool 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but it's really a shame it's not bigger. A full resolution version might also give us a better indication of whether the verticals are straight; it definitely makes me tilt my head a little as it is now.--ragesoss 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is the highest resolution I have. The image was taken 1.5 years ago, long before I started posting images to Wikipedia. I do not sell my images and for myself the resolution was just fine at that time. I did not have cd burner and my hard drive was over filled with the images.--Mbz1 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - from first hand experience there, the horizon is tilted, also the caption is not enc. de Bivort 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you, please, give me a hint what should be added to the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As in the surfer image, specific details, what town is shown? How long has it been occupied? What type of stone is carved to make the homes? etc. No flowery statements like "wondrous landscape" "natural wonders" etc.. de Bivort 07:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you find the caption and the image any better? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There is dust in the sky, the horizon appears tilted, the image appears undersaturated(?). I will most likely support the image if you address these concerns. --Aqwis 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Support edit 2, but please remove the peacock terms from the caption. --Aqwis 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• • What does "peacock" means? I'm not very strong in English. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms details what they are and how to avoid them. MER-C 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C. I tried to delete at least some of them.--Mbz1 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The picture illustrates the landscape, but not the reason why it is a UNESCO World Heritage site. I would much prefer a composition that has one of the previously or currently (?) human-inhabited tent rocks in the foreground, with windows and doors clearly visible. I have such a picture on my wall (not my copyright, sry), so it's definitely possible to get. So my reject reason would be "not sufficiently encyclopaedic - does not illustrate crucial aspect of subject". Separa 13:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No people live in Göreme. It is an open air museum. I could add the link to this as well as few other links to the images, which were taken inside Göreme to the caption. Would it do it for you?--Mbz1 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the mounds. At least some of them have been inhabited. Separa 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll add few other links to the nominated image. Please come back later and take a look. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I looked over my pictures once again. There's no mounds in Göreme. Maybe you're talking about something like this? It is not Göreme. --Mbz1 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
          • The image is not currently included in the Goereme article, and the proposed inclusion is for Cappadocia. Please stick to what you propose in your nomination. Thank you. 129.215.191.74 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
            • • Thank you,129.215.191.74.--Mbz1 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2, technical quality is totally sufficient and this is a great view. I will suggest a revised caption: Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed revised caption: Known for its Göreme, or "Fairy chimney" rock formations, the landscape of Cappadocia in central Turkey is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year.

• • I like the caption and I have a question. You said: "Known for its Göreme, or "Fairy chimney" rock formations". Shuld not be it "and" instead of "or"? Thank you.--Mbz1 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought the word Göreme was the same thing as "Fairy chimney" rock formations; if this is so then the sentence is technically correct, though I can improve:

• "Known for its rock formations called Göreme (or "Fairy chimneys"), the landscape of Cappadocia...

If it still doesn't work I can give it another try. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, Göreme is a town and "Fairy chimney" are rock formations. It is all my fault. I cannot explain the things properly with my English. Sorry about this. What do you think about this: Cappadocia, a region in central Turkey, is known for its Göreme National Park, which was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1985. The area is famous for its "fairy chimneys" rock formations, some of which reach 40 meters (130 feet) in height. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year.
Thank you.--Mbz1 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, got it. I went to Göreme, saw the pictures, and thought that this was the Turkish word for the formations. Anyway I edited the caption a little more, I think it should be OK. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I used the proposed caption. Just added one sentence. I hope it is ok now. Thank you for helping me out.--Mbz1 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:View of Cappadocia edit.jpg MER-C 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Glaucus atlanticus

Original

Natural History

Glaucus atlanticus, commonly known as the blue sea slug, is a striking marine gastropod found in the open ocean. Its vivid blue coloration serves as both camouflage and a warning signal, while its unique feeding behavior involves consuming venomous prey such as Portuguese man-of-war Physalia, contributing to its ecological significance in ocean ecosystems.

Reason

This is is a striking composition of two Delft blue otherworldly sea creatures, expertly photogaphed. The work appears to have been photoshopped to highten the background contrast; otherwise, based on other photos available on the Web, the colours appear to be true. Featuring this image will draw attention to the marvellous variety of sea life.

Proposed caption

Glaucus atlanticus. This is a nudibranch, or sea slug, of the family Glaucidae, the only member of the genus Glaucus. It typically grows to 4 cm in length. The slug is distributed throughout the world's oceans in temperate and tropical waters. G. atlanticus preys on the Portuguese Man o' War and other surface-dwelling sea animals. Occasionally Glaucus will feed on others of its kind

Articles this image appears in

Glaucus atlanticus

Creator

Taro Taylor

• Support as nominator Verne Equinox 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • By coincidence, this morning I noticed a very similar looking image of Glaucus atlanticus in the latest issue of National Geographic; it was photographed in Hawaii.Verne Equinox 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very striking. Nice find, VE. SingCal 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support a high quality image. very encyclopedic. --Malachirality 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very clean, illustrates the subject well. -- Coneslayer 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above.I tried to add some links to the caption.--HereToHelp 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support especially if the shadows are authentic, not synthetic. They look that way to me, but it'd be nice to have that confirmed. de Bivort 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Whoa! Extraordinary animal photograph. What a weird critter. Spikebrennan 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow. High value, high quality. --Aqwis 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. NauticaShades 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Glaucus atlanticus 1.jpg MER-C 06:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Physical and Political World Map

Original

Reason

High Resolution World Map Of Large-Format Print Quality

Proposed caption

This is a composite of the Physical and the Political World Maps from the CIA World Factbook website surrounded by images of constellations and a stary background from NASA.

Articles this image appears in

World Map, Eye

Creator

IMtheEyeInTheSky

• Support as nominator Eye 03:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

* Oppose reluctantly - it looks like the classic map, but there are a lot of unnecessary border elements, and mostly the smallest text is not legible at full rez. de Bivort 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the formatting, as you suggested, which cleared up the legibility issue of the minute 6pt text of original source files. I even went so far as to print this out on a 54" Roland SolJet III Wide-Format Printer (45" x 27") to test print legibility. IMHEO the jpg's text is most legible, in print and even on my monitor with my poor eyesight. I fully appreciate it that every one can have their helpful opinions. (c.f. World Map of 1689 from Amsterdam. Too much ornamentation there, too, eh?)  :-) Eye —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I forgot to recheck the image after the type conversion. Yes - it is more legible. There are jpeg artifacts now, which make me hesitant to support, so I'll hold off on voting for a little while. de Bivort 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fat ugly border lines that make it impossible to tell where anything is in Europe. Plus a giant border around the thing filled with useless/unclear info --ffroth 06:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Why is Cancer a lobster? de Bivort 07:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question. We should probably take this image out of every article until that is fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 12:54Z
    • Actually, it looks like in the past, Cancer was also referred to as a lobster or a crayfish. Although for its purpose here, it's probably best to use the currently-most-popular representation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 12:59Z
• Oppose - incorrect crustacean, and the borders (around the map and between countries) are overkill. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 12:54Z
• Oppose - Some text is illegible, such as the text below where it says "Death Valley" in the US. Huge borders. --Aqwis 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. What are the criteria for including, or not including, a city on this map? Spikebrennan 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - excessive ornamentation (national borders, backdrop to map, etc.), arbitrary inclusion of cities, no legend regarding elevations, "Cancer the lobster", etc. Matt Deres 00:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud

Original

Reason

Protea is interesting and big family of beautiful and exotic flowers. Native to South Africa they grow well in San Francisco, where the image was taken. In my opinion the image has encyclopedic value because it showing the bud in process of transition to become a flower.

Proposed caption

Nodding Pincushion Protea,Leucospermum 'Veldfire'

Flower Bud in process of flowering transition from a bud to a flower

Articles this image appears in

Leucospermum;San Francisco Botanical Garden

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The flower depicted is in the family Proteaceae, but is not a Protea. Appears to be a cultivar of Leucospermum, Leucospermum 'Veldfire' - see this picture which was also taken in San Francisco Botanical Garden. Melburnian 16:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Nice clear shot, but it really needs a latin name and a better "home" than bud or flower, IMO. It doesn't appear on the Protea page, where it might have some solid enc value. As a FP it would "make the viewer want to know more" but ultimately fail to provide that information.

--mikaul^talk 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much for comments and clarification. I could explain to you how I've got the name. The name of the flower was written next to it like they usually do in botanical gardens. I've done some recearch at the NET and I believe now the flower is Leucospermum `Scarlet Ribbon` Here is a whole family tree. In my opinion the image adds value to the article flower and bud because it is showing a bud in a clearly visible transition. Should the image be added to cultivar or/and Leucospermum? Thank you.--Mbz1 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Definitely add it to Leucospermum but consider removing it from Flower and even Bud, as it's typical of neither, impressive though it is. If you're now sure of its identity, don't forget to amend your caption & add the Latin name. --mikaul^talk 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I guess I'm not sure in anything any more yet it is very interesting to learn something new even about my own images. I've changed my mind once again and believe that the flower is Leucospermum 'Veldfire'. What is interesting that tha family tree of this flower does not indicates that it is a cultivar. I added it to Leucospermum and removed it from flower and bud. Thank you.--Mbz1 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, simply because the up close version of this gave me the willies. Not often that a FP candidate unintentionally creeps me out. Sharp detail. Unschool 04:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sure in ID now.--Mbz1 02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice detail, and I like the contrast between the few filaments who have shed their sheath and the rest who haven't. caption will need to be expanded, however.--HereToHelp 23:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose' Composition is too centered, BG is badly exposed, ie. darker or lighter but not as is.
• Comment. Is this vote from the above anon to be taken seriously? Unschool 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment,Unschool. To answer your question, I'm not sure that non-register user have right to vote, but, if he/she has, I believe it should be taken in account like all other votes are. Everybody entitled to have their own opinion.--Mbz1 01:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP's only contributions are to this debate. IPs generally don't have suffrage (but I'm willing to make exceptions for 84.90.46.116). MER-C 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats really quite weird, The only contrib by a IP is FPC? He/She raises actually some good points. in fact: Neutral good sharpness, neutral is per comments by Ip: 24.00... ; ) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice picture of a curious subject, technical details are more than adequate. I've never seen one of these before! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud.jpg MER-C 06:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.

Older nominations requiring additional input from voters

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   • {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
3. Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions. If any of those images were on Commons, be sure to tag the description pages with {{missing image}}.

When promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]

   • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

   Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 10 are listed at all times
4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
5. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

6. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on bottom

   The caption should for a Wikipedian should read "Description at Article, by Photographer". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the photographer (or organization) does not have an article, use an external link. Additionally, the description is optional -- if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Photographer". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture |image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
9. If an alternate version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
10. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
11. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}

Nomination for delisting

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

Meissner effect

thumb|200px|

Reason

The object/phenomenon being illustrated takes up less than 5% of the image's area, mood lighting is distracting and unencyclopedic, jpg artifacts, hardly our "best work". Ask: "If we cropped away the mood lighting, would this photo still pass as a FP?"

Nominator

Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs)

• Delist — Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The uploader has been notified. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'd say keep. It is a really tough subject to shoot. I tried it a couple of months ago ([1], [2]) but it is hard to see the levitation and get good contrast. The mood lighting actually helps by separating the superconductor from the liquid nitrogen and the background. (Plus the angle is pretty good) --Dschwen 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A perfectly reasonable FP that illustrates the subject, I disagree that the reasons given in the nom is sufficent reason to delist. Cat-five - talk 10:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep in mind that's a pool of liquid nitrogen o_o --ffroth 07:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's quite hard to reproduce, and it's relatively good quality. NauticaShades 16:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Sorry, but the nom is right: the subject is very small (you can hardly see that it's levitating in the thumbnail) and has severe artifacts. Although it is superior to the external links above, we do not need a featured picture of the subject. We do not simply take the best available (except historical images), we take anything above our set quality standards.--HereToHelp 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist A real toughie. Ultimately, it's a poorly reproduced version of a rather-too-arty shot of a fascinating subject. The "mood lighting" wouldn't fail it if it came up today; the tech quality certainly would. Bottom line: it doesn't have to be featured to be a valuable asset on the encycolpedia, which it undoubtedly is. FP isn't feature subjects, that's what FA is for. --mikaul^talk 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I don't mind the mood lighting or the fact that the subject is small, but the severe artifacting is inexcusable by today's FP standards. It's a shame though. --Malachirality 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per Malachirality et al. Matt Deres 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, criterion #5. This image is far clearer and more informative. Chick Bowen 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Does not even appear in Meissner effect article (has not since June). The better photo Chick lists above is there instead. --Bridgecross 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Great shot - I think the atmospherics add a lot to image which really is about cool and mysterious science! :) --Fir0002 11:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing mysterious about science :) --Bridgecross 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hehe true for most cases, but there's something about an object levitating in a magnetic field which instils a bit of mystery back into science IMO :) --Fir0002 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Fir on this one, that thing just feels mystical mysterious - sadly I can't look past the technical flaws (that quality just isn't enough), so I must vote Delist --Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. MER-C 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mandelbrot

No caption?

Reason

Unacceptably low resolution (it's a fractal!) and bad compression artifacts

Nominator

ffroth

• Delist — ffroth 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - artifacts are deceptive in an image of a fractal. de Bivort 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Did someone notify the uploader? maybe they can give us a better image. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Uploader notified. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. Cat-five - talk 10:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following debate relating to this featured picture review is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the featured picture candidates talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delist. MER-C 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan full length

Wikipe-tan, a moe anthropomorphization of Wikipedia.

Nothing-tan, a moe anthropomorphization of Nothingness.

Reason

Aliasing, minimal encyclopedic value, and self references to wikipedia are generally not featured

Nominator

Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs)

Past FPC

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan

• Delist — Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I managed to drop a note on the uploader's talk page over on the Japanese wiki letting that person know about the delist nom. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Replace with Nothing-tan. How is this not encyclopedic? It is perfect for moe anthropomorphism, and one of the few free pics we have to demonstrate the anime style. Keep keep keep! The aliasing can be easily fixed. And where did you get the idea that this is a self reference? We have an article on wikipedia don't we? So why can't we have a moe anthropomorphism of wikipedia? This would be a self reference if we let that influence our decision! --ffroth 04:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was not to feature self references. Also take a few minutes to read the objections to the original nom. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-references are not an issue. Anyone who has taken the time to read WP:SELF will understand that using Wikipedia as an example is completely appropriate. Self-reference issues deals with two things, one is to make it easier to use content on another site without having to reformat it (if you say "here on WIkipedia we.." it won't make sense for other sites), and the other is possible COI when writing about Wikipedia. WP:SELF, in no way, is applicable to this image. This has been a painful misconception from day one. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess Raul654's comment here was what gave me the impression that self-refs were bad. I didn't quite remember it the way it was written, though. This is a little different than WP:SELF. I agree with you that the image probably shouldn't be delisted on this basis, but on the other hand, it was a mistake to put it on the main page, that much is clear. I still think it has major quality problems though, and I hope you can understand my rationale for the delist nom. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist The aliasing is a big problem. Also, I find its enc value a little shaky; it just seems like a piece of fan-art to me. CillaИ ♦ XC 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Per above - the original voting was almost painful to witness in terms of the amount of ballot stuffing that went on from members of Wikiproject anime --Fir0002 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I take offense to the accusation of ballot stuffing. Sure, there was a bit of pile-on in good fun, but it was the arguments, not the number of users, that mattered in that discussion. Strong arguments were provided, and it's too convenient to write all those people off as screaming anime nerds. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Sure, there was a bit of pile-on in good fun...". Ah, no, actually this just proves Fir's point. These are a type of Meatpuppet vote, and as the policy page states "..when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity". In other words, all the 'votes' from users that have been recruited into this debate in both the original nom and this delist nom should be treated as a single entity (or single vote). I hope the closer will take more note of this this time around. --jjron 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that there were a few people who came and supported probably for "the hell of it" (like the ones who just showed up and didn't really comment, like in many discussions), and that just because of that you cannot discount the thought out and more honest supporters. We count arguments, not votes, and that is why this is a featured picture. Saying that everyone who feels the same way about this image, and found out about the discussion from the same place, should only be seen as one person.. is total bullshit. Not everyone in the Anime WikiProject even likes Wikipe-tan, which is evident in the original nomination. Anime is not just some blanket genre, where everyone shares the same tastes. There are as many different preferences within anime for style and characters as there are for any form of media. We are separate voices with our own thought-out rationales. You don't like the picture, fine, but do not belittle our rationales. -- Ned Scott 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist per all above. I remember cringing during the original nomination, it brought out every kawaii-screaming fan. --Bridgecross 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "Support Creepy as hell, but the perfect example. Staxringold 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" from the original FPC? Several non-anime fans were supportive of the image, and several of the anime fans had very good rationales for supporting the image. There even were some anime fans who opposed it, so being a fan of anime was hardly the deciding factor, far from it. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. This is borderline for me, because I like user-created content that is encyclopedic, but I vote Delist if only for the reason that it strikes me in some way as original research and self-referencing. It does illustrate the article, but the subject of the image is a non-notable invention of a Wikipedia user, created as a self-reference. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 17:36Z
• Strong Delist Fir0002 and Bridgecross. NyyDave 04:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist: I remember the original nomination as well. This always has been a disaster, per the reasons stated above. --Hetar 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Per ffroth TheOtherSiguy 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with Nothing-tan It seems a shame to loose user-created attractive images like this one from FP status. This version has no Wiki-affiliation and is therefore not a meta reference. It is slightly downsampled, so aliasing is no longer a problem. As for its encyclopedic value, it could not illustrate moe anthropomorphism any more, but it remains highly encyclopedic for fan service and anime, or kawaii. de Bivort 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome, replace with nothing-tan. This is actually better than wikipe-tan IMO since the no-self-reference thing was kind of touchy --ffroth 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now that we have a proposed replacement, why don't we delist wikipe-tan now and let nothing-tan go through a formal FPC nom like everyone else? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist without prejudice to a nomination of nothing-tan, per Jeff Dahl. Spikebrennan 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per votes on the original nom (but I'm still waiting for all the voters from some wikiproject who have never been seen on FPC before or since who voted en masse to get this promoted originally to now reappear and vote to keep it). --jjron 10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:VOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring - it shouldn't matter how many 'wanted/unwanted' voters show up, decision is only decided on the strength of their arguments. (so 'per user xxx' votes don't have an impact either) Ninja neko 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• This may be raised as an argument 'in theory'; in practice it is rarely (if ever) put into effect, and certainly not when there are large numbers of votes for/against (the only occasional exceptions are things that are found to be scientifically inaccurate for example, and even that's no guarantee). Incidentally the 'per user xxx' votes are usually perfectly acceptable and do have an impact (why repeat the same point if you're just going to say it in different words?). ----jjron 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delist Wikipe-tan, find a better name for Nothing-tan and propose it for featured picture. John Carter 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) See changed comment below. John Carter 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm partial to Non-tan myself. —Quasirandom 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not quite sure why in the world it should be delisted, unless one of the criteria is that it must be on aritcles -- AND on the article(s) it was on it's replaced with the Nothing-tan. I don't quite see the issue with self-ref in this case, for a VERY simple reason - since HOW THE PIC IS USED is unrelated to it being on Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Nobody gives a shit outside of this website. The Wikipedia featured pictures list is not considered a place to find images of "encyclopedic value," nor do I see anyone crying about the self-reference on magazines or journals of literary merit. On the contrary, this picture was used to illustrate stuff in various publications. The featured pictures list assists in finding pictures like this one. I feel sorry for the guy who spent hours making this picture and other versions of it, only to have people bump it around because OZOOOMGMGMGGGZZZ IT'S A REFERENCE TO WIKIPEDIA THAT'S TOATALLLY UPROFESSIONAL GET IT AWAY. I bet even Editor & Publisher publishes articles referencing itself. Get it into your heads that you are not running an art critique magazine and these pedantic standards for featured pictures are not helping people who just want to find good pictures. In short, get a life. 春日様、すみません。ヲタクたちの口論はやめられません。Shii (tock) 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  Whether people "give a shit" or not... I would start laughing if in Britanica's anime article had a picture of Brit-tan-ica... ha ha ha. World book-Tan, Really, I'm laughing as I type this. Featured picture's is to showcase exeptionally stunning, high quality and informative contributions. I disagree that nobody gives a shit. look at the number of user pages with the picture of the day on them. In short, close the tab with the anime porn that you get off on in the evenings put down the box of pokemon cards and... get a life. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know about anyone else, but I have a life. Couldn't type this message otherwise. And granted, I may be feeding the troll, but this photo IS quite informative for such articles as Moe (slang) (which at the moment appears to have a differerent Wikipe-tan pic on it). I'm sorry if you don't like anime style, but would Worldbook or Britannica have an article on Fucking, Austria, Male lactation, McDonald's urban legends, Chess boxing, or hundreds of other unusual articles? And besides, there's no actual article on WP-tan, her place is on a WP space, not article space. The pic itself is somewhat unrelated to that; it's simply a libre image used to illustrate things. Which is the whole point of the feature picture system in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Try to keep it civil. You can get your point across without attacking others, and if you can't, then it doesn't really belong in this discussion. --84.90.46.116 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You can also not hide behind an anonymous IP when participating. At least Shii is willing to present his opinion (poorly worded though it may be) as him/herself rather than hiding behind anonymity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, keep the personal attacks down, since when do I, as an IP, have less worth then a registered user? Attempting to lower the value of my opinion by calling out that I am an IP is discrimination, and that doesn't belong here either. Seriously though, hiding? I chose not to make an account. My choice and you have nothing to do with it. If you must contact me, drop a message in my talk page, which as an IP, I have like everyone else. I'm as contactable as the next guy. So, in the future, refrain from making assumptions without a fact basis about me personally or anyone else, as they are irrelavant to discussions and their integrity and tend to make the assumer look silly once he makes them and is proven wrong. --84.90.46.116 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • • I made no personal attack, so there's no reason to wave that flag around. That's like calling someone a homophobe just because they disagree with that lifestyle choice—just plain retarded. It takes all of 30 seconds to create an account, so there should be no reason not to create one if you plan to contribute even semi-regularly to Wikipedia. And dropping you a message on the IP talk page won;t necessarily do anything because for all I know, you may not be the same person who originally wrote the comment above. That's one of the main reasons to create an account: so message intended for you get to you. You are not anywhere near as contactable as the next guy as long as you fail to create an account. ···日本穣

^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • Actually, telling me that I should stop hiding is a personal attack because you're lowering the value of the things I say by saying that I am in fact hiding. This is my home IP, and I'm the only person with access to it. When and whether I create an account is up to me really, and I intend to do so - when I have some degree of experience with the wiki and the people in it. Right now, however, the only thing I can't do is vote here - my opinion is worth as much as yours or as anyone elses. Also, your little indirect nudge at calling me retarded also counts as a personal attack ;) I'd try to take things easier if I were you, seems like you're taking it way too seriously. --84.90.46.116 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • hear hear. de Bivort 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep listed 1, self references do not apply to images such as this. Please take the time to look at WP:SELF. 2, "minimal encyclopedic value", Right now Wikipe-tan is not only an excellent representation of anime style, the concept of "moe", and a few other examples we have of her, but is one of the only free images we have for such articles. 3, Aliasing, an easy fix. One could literally re-size the image and this would be corrected and it would still be large enough to be considered an FP. -- Ned Scott 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) slight refractor comment. Caught in the moment, sorry :) -- Ned Scott 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Not that resizing would be the desired option of fixing the aliasing, but just pointing out how it is an easy fix. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - previous opinion was based on having not actually read WP:SELF, for which I apologize. On that basis, there is no reason that I can see to delist this image. John Carter 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:SELF does not cover this, and the image illustrates moe anthropomorphism very well and with far more personality than Nothing-tan. TomTheHand 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP per above 3 posts. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Ned Scott. WP:SELF does not apply in this instance, and as Ned pointed out, the image is an excellent example image for several articles, and it's a FREE image. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ned Scott. So don't see solid reason for delisting. L-Zwei 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• This is absurd! Now that Project Anime and Manga have got their pitchforks out is there any chance of this getting unbiased critique? It really brings up the question as to whether such canvassed "blow in" votes should be counted at all... --Fir0002 05:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANIME uses the image for several things because it's a free image. If the nominator had taken the time to determine where proper notices should have been placed (WT:ANIME and here, and then placed them there, this wouldn't even be an issue. Involved parties should always be notified of discussions such as this, regardless of whether you agree with their likely stance. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on their contributions, not who they are. What's this, an apartheid? _dk 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Canvassed votes tend to be ignored whether it's FPC, RFA or AFD. MER-C 08:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a notice on the main page for the image being considered, so it's hardly canvassing. As the image is hosted on Commons, it's the only logical place to put a notice regarding the discussion (a notice which should have been placed by the nominator, I should add). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope arguements from both sides are judged accordingly by their merits, not solely because they were "canvassed" or not. The number of votes shouldn't matter here, but the opinions should. _dk 08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)\

Everybody has the right to vote here, whatever be the reason - the closer has the responsibility of sorting through them, seeing what is ballot stuffing and what isn't and thus choosing what to take into account and what not to - We have NO right to blow off peoples votes and their opinions or even to attempt and prevent them from voting because of a group that someone belongs to. That is effective discrimination and does not belong in wikipedia. --84.90.46.116 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You canNOT be seriously suggesting that a comment on a Wikipe-tan page is a bad thing. I can't even FATHOM how anyone could argue that. Absurd? Unbiased? Please explain how it's unbiased for someone to have come across this a different way, but not because they happened to be watching a certain page. I swear, people take the canvass thing WAY to the extreme. This is no different than someone seeing an AFD notice at the top of articlespace. (And note, I didn't mention WP:Anime.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the link provided by Fir does not really constitute canvasing - even though it did stir up a hornet's nest. de Bivort 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Proposal Thank you everyone for your comments, I feel everyone should be welcome to comment here, as long as we keep it civil. Please keep in mind that this is not a deletion discussion, it is a delist discussion. A user suggested I should have notified the Anime wikiproject about the delist nomination. I understand this user's frustration at not having been notified, but keep in mind that notifying a wikiproject is not mentioned in the delist guidelines. I did notify the uploader, as suggested. Because I understand the importance of notification, I'd like to propose a different solution to the problem in the future, since no one can really predict, on any given image, what users/projects will want to be notified. If we add a template, such as {{FPdelist}} to the image page, then any users who have the image watchlisted can see right away about the discussion; this is even better than trying to have the nominator decide which people/projects need to be notified. If someone can help with the links/syntax of the template, I would appreciate it. Will this solution be acceptable for the notification problem in the future? I implore everyone to keep the discussion on point and civil. If someone can upload an SVG version of wikipe-tan without the aliasing, I think it would go a long way towards fixing the problem. With respect to notification on commons, I don't agree about that in this instance, since this process is not relevant to commons users. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If need be, it's much more reasonable to run a review again, rather than "defending" the current status of the image. "someone can upload an SVG version of wikipe-tan without the aliasing", well, gonna have to contact the creator. KyuuA4 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to de-list her because some people have a misconception about the self-reference guideline, or fear that us big-bad anime fans are some kind of hive-mind. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Jeff Dahl's idea of the delist template - is there any particular area of wikipedia where to suggest templates for regularized use? If so, I'm quite certain that practical idea would pass. --84.90.46.116 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with who the nominator notified, because others can give additional notification if they want. I've gotten a bit tired of this WP:CANVASS paranoia. My problem is that the nom didn't look at the guideline about self-references before nominating the image. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delist Highly unasthetic. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• erm ... this rationale is subjective to the point of meaningless. Can you give a specific concern - like "colors clash" or "unbalanced composition" or "low contrast" because if the root of your reason is that you don't like anime-style art, I don't think that's valid. de Bivort 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• something about it go against my perception of artistic. It has nothing to do with the subject matter, I have nothing against anime per se. sorry I can't be more specific. :-/ -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, there's a LARGE number of features pics that are far less aesthetically pleasing. Having a quick peak at this month's, the slave-whipping one, for instance. A couple of the war ones, as well. Not to mention, what Debivort said. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question. What criteria under WP:WIAFP did this image fail? KyuuA4 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The only one it could remotely be questioned on is #3, "is among Wikipedia's best work", so far as I can tell. John Carter 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The concerns are that there is significant aliasing (FP criteria #1, #3) and lack of enc value (FP criteria #5). As far as I can tell, nobody on the keep side has addressed the technical concerns. MER-C 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone explain for me how this is not OR? On wikipe-tan's talk page, Ned Scott says that "images are except (sic) from the no original research policy" but what WP:OR#Original images actually says is "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy...This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments...Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed..." (emphasis original). In contrast to maps, diagrams, and photos which can be checked for factual accuracy against published sources, a creation such as this was made up (not simply created) specifically for wikipedia.

Well, I don't really know, but my instinct is that it isn't "Original Research" because it isn't Research at all. It's an illustration of a concept, not an exploration of it. Would the images illustrating Perspective (graphical) be OR? No... just an illustration of a concept. It's an original creation but it doesn't purport to add knowledge or insight to a field - so hard to call it research. de Bivort 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The existance of moe anthropomorphization is hardly in question.Geni 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep KyuuA4 makes a good point that this discussion should be based on if the image still meets the Featured picture criteria, not if you personally like the image or not. These are the Featured picture criteria (my opinion in the parentheses): 1. Is of a high technical standard. (yes), 2. Is of high resolution. (yes, 1110 × 2100 pixel), 3. Is among Wikipedia's best work. (yes, per the criteria that it is "best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" and "illustrates the subject in a compelling way"), 4. Has a free license. (yes), 5. Adds value to an article. (yes, to the Moe anthropomorphism article), 6. Is accurate. (yes), 7. Has a good caption (yes), 8. Is neutral.(yes), 9. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. (yes) (Duane543 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
• Strong Keep per Duane543, this image still meets the guidelines and anti-anime and pro anime alike should be discounted about this and it should be about whether the image meets the guidelines (which Duane outlined above) which it does. Cat-five - talk 10:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it is a high technical standard, is among WP's best work and adds value to "Moe". Self-references are not an issue though Nothing-tan is good, too. --Kurihaya 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. It still fits all the featured picture criteria, so why is this even a question? Self-reference isn't a problem unless it's labelled "the moe of this website" rather than "the moe of Wikipedia". We're allowed to mention WP, just not to call it "us". So unless you want to delete the Wikipedia article itself, I don't see a problem. --Masamage ♫ 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. If nothing this is a very good illustration of anime and perhaps manga as well as many other articles (hence encyclopedic). It is indeed "fan art". Had it been professional, it would have been copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  WP:SELF: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website."

  How is the image in question violating that? Images by very nature can't violate WP:SELF. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is intended for article namespace. -- Cat ^chi? 21:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  WP:OR#Original images: "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy...This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments...Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed..." (as quoted above)

  Had the image in question be claimed as a new genre, you would be right. It is an illustration of an existing genre. It is a free alternative to an otherwise heavily copyrighted genre. Manga and anime are commercial products. This freely licensed image and images like it is a treat. Such images should be encouraged. -- Cat ^chi? 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. With regards to WP:SELF, the image is about Wikipedia, not Wikipedia itself. That follows the same logic as Wikipedia having an article about Wikipedia. Wikipe-tan serves as Wikipedia's mascot, selected from a mascot contest two years ago. KyuuA4 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah you can really tell consensus was for Wikipe-tan to be Wikipedia's mascot. 26 votes in support of wikipe-tan over (pretty useless) competition but 21 votes of the people who actually knew that this competition existed said they'd rather Wikipedia had no mascot! So no, Wikipe-tan does not serve as Wikipedia's mascot --124.176.241.101 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  WP:SELF was intended to prevent articles like Featured picture candidates. In other words articles about wikipedia processes that any wikipedian would know but rest of the world would not care. Wikipe-tan is not an image on wikipedia. The world would care about wikipe-tan as an illustration of anime-style art and not as a wikipedia mascot which is why Wikipe-tan is a red link. -- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. This is not encyclopedic material. All it took to create ‘Nothing-Tan’ was removing a couple of jigsaw pieces from ‘Wikipe-Tan’. The end product of such an arbitrary process cannot be encyclopedic. Pstuart84 Talk 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um ... What are you talking about? It encyclopedically illustrates anime fan service and could easily illustrate other articles. It is a free image in a world of copyrighted ones - how else would you illustrate those article? Come on now. Also removing the puzzle pieces wasn't arbitrary! It was deliberate to remove any aspect of self-reference. So, what on earth do you mean it isn't encyclopedic because it was "arbitrary"? de Bivort 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• We're not talking about Nothing-tan here. _dk 23:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• If it isn't encyclopedic, please delete all the content in category:anime and category:manga as they are not encyclopedic either then. -- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Restart nom My concerns over "self-ref" are gone, but aliasing problems remain. If this were voting, the count stands as 11 keep (6 strong), 11 delist (4 strong) and 2 replace. Restarting nom will allow the community to assess the remaining issue: aliasing. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm competent enough to assess that the aliasing is a very serious and irreparable issue. None of the keep opinions addressed this, and this is the reason why FPC is not a vote. Delisted . MER-C 01:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the the featured picture candidates talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

USS Shaw Exploding

A navy photographer snapped this photograph of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941, just as the USS Shaw exploded. (80-G-16871)

The better image

Reason

I uploaded Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg on 17:51, 2 January 2007 not knowing that the same photo existed at Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png which was uploaded three months earlier on 02:14, 4 September 2006. Since Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg was uploaded it received a Featured Picture status on 08:46, 31 May 2007. Then while migrating other pictures to the wikicommons I found the much better Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png image. The Featured Picture status should be moved to the better Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png image because:

• Wikipedia shouldn't have duplicate images
• Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png is located on the Wikicommons a better place for images
• Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png is the original image as it doesn't have the blemishes that Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg has. Looking at this cropped version from the US archives you can see the original doesn't have any blemishes. -- Esemono 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Esemono

• Delist — Esemono 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Replace and delete as redundant per nom. The new version is losslessly compressed too. MER-C 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Replace --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Photographs are most appropriately in JPEG, I believe WP guidelines have stated, and the PNG has photo-shopped out the blemishes from the JPEG. I whole-heartedly think the blemishes are fine, given that the photograph is almost 66 years old. The correcting of the blemishes was adequate, but not perfect. Puddyglum 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• But are the blemishes on the original print? Looking at this cropped version of the same picture from the US archives there aren't any of the blemishes found in the JPEG version of this picture. I believe the blemishes are from the scanning technology used to digitize the photo because the blemishes aren't seen in other versions of the image, like this one. Therefore the PNG version with the blemishes removed is closer to the original than the JPEG version. -- Esemono 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The US archive picture does not follow your point, as there are blemishes on it, and it's such a high compression and low resolution that the blemishes aren't able to be seen. Your proposal is simply this: Digitally correct the blemishes of the JPEG and put into PNG format. Or contrariwise, scan print as a PNG and digitally correct the blemishes. My stipulation with this proposal is that PNG is less desirable according to wiki-guidelines, and correcting blemishes loses authenticity. Either way, it's a great featured pic, but the blemishes bring out the remarkableness of the photo: an historical photo with such amazing composition and detail.

• But they're not the same blemishes and my proposal is this: Wikipedia doesn't need two pictures that are are exactly the same. The point of the blemishes is the digitizing and scanning of the original print created the blemishes as shown by two completely different prints with two different sets of blemishes. The argument that that the blemishes are part of the picture's history are moot because they're not on the original as shown by the existence of two images scanned from the original print that have two different sets of blemishes. -- Esemono 23:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• My point was that the blemishes in the JPEG are so small that they can't be seen in the low-quality US archive picture. That being said, how can you say that the blemishes are different? It's splitting hairs at this point. JPEG = preferred over PNG. The PNG has smudges where blemishes used to be. My goal is to defraud the PNG as being a better scan than the JPEG, and also insist that "restoring" a picture is not the same as "smudging over blemishes". Puddyglum 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; I think the flaws in this image are fine, given its historical value. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• But as shown above; are the flaws part of the pictures history or a recent addition? -- Esemono 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, good point. And I obviously did not look at the delist reason either...fine! My vote has changed to Delist. Thanks for the little pointer, Esemono. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Delist per redundancy. Delist per redundancy. Delist per redundancy. --Sharkface217 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep the JPEG version, migrating it over to Commons if you'd like (but that's irrelevant for featured status, as its already featured). The PNG has dark smudges where some of the apparent image scratches are in the JPEG. So, instead of having obvious artifacts, the PNG has things that look, at first glance, like part of the scene but are probably artifacts from an image "repair." Enuja (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The .png version is without a doubt a very poorly retouched version of the delist candidate jpeg. They are clearly both from the same scan, but the .png has had some original detail (assumed to be blemishes by the retoucher) cloned out, making it a (marginally) less accurate record of the event. I restore images like this for a living and would be happy to attempt a better clean-up of the jpeg, if that's the consensus opinion. But please, don't delist it in favour of the .png! --mikaul^talk 10:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that it looks like the PNG version is the retouched derivative.--ragesoss 16:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Indeed the png looks a bit over-retouched. If anyone wants to try to create a new clean-up, there's an original master image (TIFF, 7MB) of a crop of this image. The DVIC has a hi-res JPEG image of that version here. Lupo 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• What's the deal with improvements to existing FPs? A very similar situation is being discussed on the FPC talk page: should a newly retouched version be delisted, or allowed to stand as a (clearly) improved version of the original candidate image? I've downloaded this one to correct but it's far from clear whether I should re-upload by over-writing the original, or delist as proposed here and re-nominate, which seems a bit of a pointless rubber stamp operation. Thoughts? --mikaul^talk 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason

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

Articles this image appears in

potentially India and Taj Mahal

Creator

Samuel Bourne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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