This is an archive page for featured picture status removal debates. These debates are closed and should not be edited. For more information see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Perspective is confusing without more context; we have much better pictures of both the airplane and the mountain, and this is a better picture of both. Currently slated for POTD for Jan. 30. Chick Bowen22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep imagine taking that shot! Wow, very interesting picture. Really considering it is actually pretty clear, and technically not bad. Arjun23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see it as all that impressive. I imagine it was taken from an escort plane. This image strikes me as more impressive in the combination of composition and timing, and this one in rarity and sheer luck. Chick Bowen23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this picture should be featured merely for the fact that it is an extremely rare photograph of the right side of Air Force One. Noclip03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. All of these grainy images need to go; they're unacceptable as FPs. The right side of Air Force One is basically the same as the left, so no big deal there. It being over mount rushmore doesn't do much for me and if anything it's just a huge ugly brown field in the image and detracts somewhat from the subject. --frothT08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The right side is the one with all the classified stuff, even if you can't see it from the outside. Most other photos show the left side, though a flip could take care of that...--HereToHelp14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is blocky and blurry, there exist countless of jpeg artifacts. the colors are rather strange, it has many overbright spots, and I can see many flying blocks over the moon!
Keep This was promoted only a 4 months ago with almost unanimous support. It must have been exceptionally hard to take, and I feel it is well worthy of FP status --Fir000208:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist. It's a shame that such an excellent shot has to be delisted but the artifacts in the corona are really just too much --frothTC22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep just imagine trying to take this pic! Look as you can see the sun's corona around the whole part of the moon, the timing is perfect. — Arjun15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I love this photo. It terrifically captures a fascinating natural phenomenal like few others. It definitely should remain an FP. Ackatsis02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In reference to the original complaints: Blurriness is largely a symptom of difficult-to-improve faults in the camera and/or the diffraction limit. What you are calling JPEG artifacts are probably also diffraction and/or sensor noise, the "strange colors" are actually correct, and overbright spots? come on, it's the sun! This is a very technically challenging photograph which is about as well executed as could be expected. —Dgiestc20:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Dgies said it well. What subject could have more difficult lighting conditions than an eclipse, with the contrast between the ultimate light source and the darkest of shadows, while the photographer is in the shadow. It's hard to claim that any 'strange' phenomenon in the photo could have been eliminated with a different process or equipment, and even so you would have to wait a long long time for the next eclipse to find out. --207.38.206.107 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw this on my page too (I get the FP a week in advance) and I considered applying for a delist. On second thought, however, I realized that the diagram is actually pretty cool, considering it's surgery on the inner pulp of the tooth. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — Ha! I was just about to nominate this image, but you beat me to the punch. It's too small and could VERY easily be traced into SVG format. If someone converts it to SVG, I will gladly support the FPC for that version. ♠ SG→Talk06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It's off by 200 pixels in length for being 1000 pixels, but if it was big enough I would support it as a featured picture. Why1991 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment In addition to my above delist vote, the image is also saved in PNG-8 format, as you can clearly see the dithering. So, not only is the image below resolution and not SVG, it's not even in the right lossless PNG format (PNG-24). unsigned comment by SG
Comment - I contacted the original uploader some time ago and asked for an SVG version. However, I don't think he's been able to find the original file, which was drawn in Illustrator (so an SVG conversion should be simple as doing a SAVE AS command). howcheng {chat}02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This makes me squirm even more than the eye surgery photo. I think this should stay until a higher resolution replacement is created. Spebudmak05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with the SVG trace one. In any case, the SVG one should appear on the front page in a couple days instead of the lossy PNG one since they're basically the same except for the format. One tiny comment though.. would it be possible to make the head on the drill a little (realistically) smaller? It looks like a toy --frothTC05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment done-- clear your cache! Sorry, I don't know anything about dentistry! Any more comments on the drawing, please tell :) Jellocube2709:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix the caption. And just stating nothing special is a little thin as an argument. From the nomination pageBeyond the manufactured imagery of Hollywood, this is a rare glimpse of what a real geisha looks like when she is working in the evening -- when the simple act of lighting a cigar becomes art. For the sake of authenticity and out of respect for the original tradition [this picture was nominated]. --Dschwen15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The image has some encyclopaedic value but it is not at all pleasing to my eyes (partly because of the unpleasant flash illumination and image noise). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going entirely off of Howcheng here, in that it's not a very common image. My comment about it being a typical photograph stands, however. --Tewy07:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Do you know how difficult is to get a picture of a real geisha? First of all, Japanese people are rarely ever allowed the chance to be entertained by a geisha, and non-Japanese even rarer. Then to actually have her and the client allow themselves to be photographed in a shot that could be widely reproduced? Tewy says it's probably reproducible and I would argue that it's not all likely. If you were lucky enough to even gain audience with a geisha, most photography would have to be of a private nature. howcheng {chat}02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It doesn't fit the size requirements, it's hardly encyclopedic, and it has no caption. Why1991 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Hardly encyclopedic"? Sorry, but I don't see how you can say that. This is a real geisha, not a movie image or a stereotype. Compare this with the picture of the two maiko (also up for delist) and see the world of difference. howcheng {chat}07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Real geisha? Big deal. If they don't want to be photographed, that doesn't mean their photographs should be considered "rare" and FP --frothTC21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uhm, actually, that's pretty much the definition of rare. If they don't like to be photographed, that means that not many photographs of real geisha are in existance, which makes it rare. Also, please change your delist in the above to comment, as you've already voted for delist. Makes it less confusing. 24.239.185.6302:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah sorry I had forgotten that I had already voted. But my point was that if I started my own little ninja clan that refused to be photographed nobody would even care and I would definately not get FP if some paparazzi got a shot of me. So that shouldn't necessarily be criteria for FP.. although I definately don't dispute the enc of the Geisha article --frothTC04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Not WP best work. And after all, is there any true evidence that this is rare? I still think any one interested in the art can pose like this. Even if it's rare, it's still not the best work. --Arad22:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am siding towards delisting due to the aesthetics and quality of this image, I feel there is a big difference between an actual geisha in action and someone interested in the art dressing up as a geisha. Thats like the difference between a rare photo of Marilyn Monroe naked and a Marilyn impersonator posing naked. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Actaully, there is only one Marilyn Monroe and that only one is dead. As long as i know, Japan is not out of Geishas and this is not the only Geisha. ;-) --Arad22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the point is that real geishas do no often allow themselves to be photographed, and that a mocked up image of a geisha would not be encyclopedic. Perhaps a simpler analogy would be getting someone to dress up as a New York Yankee and then using that to illustrate a baseball player.
How can you prove that this is a real geisha? I'm not saying it's not, but if I make an exact same image, with a fake geisha, and a superior quality, and never tell anyone that the geisha is fake, who would know that it is in fact fake? But if i do the same to (for example) Marilyn Monroe, if she was alive, she could say that the image is fake. I just want to say that Geishas are not going to disappear in one day, and I'm really sorry if they don't want to be photographed. --Arad22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why geishas don't want to be photographed? I've never heard that they don't want to. Maybe because I'm not interested in the but I'll be happy to know why they don't want to be photographed. In their wiki article, there's nothing about this, and i searched on Internet, i found nothing. --Arad22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the question, what I think it is is the fact that Geishas are rare, are rarely photographed. Arjun22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this photo...honestly, as a geisha "expert," I can't stress how rare an image like this is. A Western buisnessman being tended by a real geisha? At an ozashiki? If we delist this, FP doesn't mean anything. I feel very strongly that we keep it. --Iriseyes15:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a bit iffy on today's standards if it were to go up today but works as a current one and there's no real issue big enough that I can see making it worth delisting. Cat-five - talk11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The clouds look quite interesting but the image quality is very bad (compression artifacts and low resolution). This is definitely not Wikipedia's best work. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Very Weak Keep This is a hard one. One of the most fascinating pictures I've ever seen, but the size.....maybe somebody should contact the uploader, if he/she has access to a high-res version of this image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wutschwlllm (talk • contribs).
Weak Keep I know it doen't fit the size requirement but it's such a good photo in every way that it deserves to stay. By the way someone should come up with a good caption. Why1991 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delist A very cool pic but fails resolution and exhibits aliasing and compression artifacts. While it's a fairly rare shot, thunderstorms roll over major cities all the time. —Dgiestc19:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unfortunately it doesn't meet the requirements for FP. If it were to go through the process now it would be shot down. While it is an unusual/rare pic...that enough does not qualify it for Featured Picture. — Arjun20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I'm going to buck the trend here. I don't think it should automatically be kept until someone else finds a better capture of the subject. It either is or isn't at a certain quality level. It can easily service the article competently without being featured. It is a spectacular image but the quality is just too poor for me to support. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep erm, it is a map, how much larger does it need to be? I find it "very" informative and useful, clear and precise. And above all highly encyclopedic. — Arjun18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not serious, right? Maps are promoted frequently because they reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, and meet the criteria. Promoting them to FP also encourages the creation of new high quality maps. Debivort10:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO maps definately aren't FPs unless they're SVG, detailed, easy-to-read, and of an interesting area. Fails them all. --frothTC19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely that an SVG version can be created for this kind of map since the terrain/topography data is raster-based, not vector-based. --seav23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - While not terrible, wouldn't pass today. Not sure how much work it would be to trace an SVG version... probably too much with the terrain. —Dgiestc05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. While useful, this map does not particularly strike me as "the best" that Wikipedia can offer. If it's replaced with a scalable version, change my vote to keep. --Dante Alighieri | Talk19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being repetitive, a scalable version of this map is unlikely to be made because the topographic data is raster-based. --seav16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well done map showing major physical features. Keeping might also inspire others to create similar maps for other countries. --Polaron | Talk02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is coming up for picture of the day, but at (1024x481, 104 KB) it doesn't seem to fulfill our size requirements is at the low end of our size requirements, but suffers from jpg artifacts (check the edges of the high rises) and lack of detail (close in on the promenade area). Detail of one of the problem areas added.
Strong keep - 1) a beautiful image, 2) it does meet the requirements which say at least 1000px in height or width, 3) barely missing a current technical requirement (not that this image does) shouldn't be a sufficient reason to delist, i.m.o. Debivort21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Marginal on size, has compression artifacts. We can have higher standards for subjects which are easily accessible. —Dgiestc16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact is, it meets size requirements. Saying it's too small, even for a panorama, shouldn't matter. Joe23:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The requirements are arbitrarily chosen and aren't set in stone; expectation for wikipedia's "very best" panoramas is much higher than for other images. --frothTC02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMy Two Cents:-- I think delisting a photo from the past is like taking a gold medal from an athlete who won it in the 1936 Olympics because a modern athlete has performed better. Once you win an award, you should be able to keep it. -- Mactographer12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Featured represents the best Wikipedia can offer, and that standard can (and should) increase over time. Considering delisting is giving the photo a frank judgement based on current standards, i.e. if it was nominated now, would it pass? I don't think it would. Trebor19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally Like this image, while it has some (minor) problems, I see no reason to delist. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you just wanted a less-compressed version, why didn't you just ask the author first before coming to the delist process? howcheng {chat}06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever flaws I can see, it's still a very high detailed photo, one of the better skylines we have, and most important is brilliantly encyclopedic for the article. And it's much better than the other Chi-town skyline FP (which is also up for delisting below. Poor Chi-town). --Bridgecross15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
addendum I would like to refer to the the original nomination; support for this image was unanimous. Also a reminder; it is good form to inform the original nominator/author when putting an image up for delisting.
Keep. Even if the detail on a specific building isn't great, having more or less all of the skyline together makes for a great pic...at hi rez...--HereToHelp17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the author of the image I of course would like to cast my vote to keep. It is a beautiful image and adds a significant contribution to the Chicago page. Every city with a skyline is proud of it and loves to show it off.
Comment As to the JPEG artifacts: This image is 4mb, the image which is not compressed is massive. Even at 4mb it takes people with slower connections a significant amount of time to dl. Since this encyclopedia is for everyone I think featured pictures and pictures in general should not be too large to enjoy. I personally have this image printed out at 6'x9" and it is georgeous and there are NO artifacts visible so to say that the slightly compressed one has "Severe" is a gross overstatement.Buphoff07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is clearly a satisfactory image for FP and I don't think it has any danger of being below current standards. While it does have flaws (mainly in sharpness and noise), they could easily be fixed by running some noise reduction and downsampling a bit and still be very high resolution. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The engineThe focus shotAnother random area with smudges circlededit, salt and pepper filter
Reason
Good heavens this image is filthy. You'd be hard pressed to find a single area of this image that's free of heavy grainyness, or for that matter an area that's even in focus!
Keep stunning picture; since this was probably shot on photographic film, the graininess and scratches aren't that unusual (especially if you look at it that close). -Wutschwlllm19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I have to agree with the nom on this. The image looks very dirty, there are a lot of speckles (word?) and I see a large dirt smear on the photo. This evidence leads me to delist. — Arjun21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grain and focus problems are not that bad, especially when downsampled to typical monitor resolutions. And no, we should not replace it with a downsampled version because we would be throwing away detail along with the noise. It could benefit from some light retouching on the scratches. —Dgiestc21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The filter eliminated most of the speckles but the image is still dirty. Except for the actual flame, everything is blurry, badly oversampled, or smeared (dirty lens?). Check out focus 2. --frothTC22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but replace with edited and downsampled version. I'm not quite convinced that any meaningful detail is lost in this case after downsampling from 3000x2361 to 1500x1181 pixels as the original is so grainy and soft. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is obviously going to be replaced with one of the edits, but I need some more opinions on whether to go with the downsampled one or the filtered one. Could anyone who hasn't commented here please do so? Raven4x4x05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orignal, delete downsampled. Downsampling is simply destroying information, ... the images are already used downsampled in our article... No need for an extra pass of processing. --Gmaxwell21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Striking, good enc value, good composition, pretty good image quality. Not liking the art is a pretty poor reason to delist. —Dgiestc05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YarraEdit by Diliff. A re-processing of the RAW files from scratch and re-stitched with slightly better perspective correction. This image is also slightly darker as I noticed the contrast was lacking slightly in the original. The shadows are still there as I'm not prepared to remove them.Edit of Diliff's restitch to lighten it a bit, by Fir0002Edit of Diliff's restitch with an anti-noise median by User:Fcb981
Reason
Can you see those shadows under the bridge? I love this image but those are major technical flaws.
Keep I do see the shadows and also the blurred people on the bridge but I think the merits of the shot outweigh the flaws. The control of exposure is great, as is the subject and composition. I'd like to see this one stay -Fcb98101:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delist. Composition is awesome but blurry people, focus and compression problems are too much to overlook. —Dgiestc05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I love it when people make blatantly incorrect assumptions. Why do you think those shadows are faults? They are not. That is how it looked. There are numerous downlights on the arch of the bridge. The arch stretches diagonally across the bridge, meaning that their position varies and creates a number of independent shadows as the light passes by the bridge rails. That is what has caused the 'major technical flaws'. I don't mean to be blunt here but why don't you ask the original photographer about them before making assumptions? Its one of my earlier panoramas and I will happily admit is in't among my best, but I don't see any major compression or focus problems. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compression problems are noticeable in the haze near the lights on the distant bridge, and on the narrow spire on the right bank. What I was calling focus problems (in the trees) are on second thought probably related to wind movement and exposure length. Really both of these are fairly minor and my biggest problem is the smeared people on the bridge. —Dgiestc16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see some artifacts in the sky but I think they're quite minor but possibly made worse by some posterization which I could likely fix with a reprocess from RAW and re-stitch. As for the people, I don't really see them as a significant problem since they're incidental to the scene, but thats just how I see it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I admire your works. I was sure enough that you'll check this page and comment on the delisting as you did. Even if those are not technical, they are weird, unusual shadows on water which are almost 3D for some reason. Even the water changes the color from brown to black. Anyway, i don't think this is FP with those unusual shadows. But If you can make the compression problem better, then why not? Maybe you can also remove those shadows, even if they are natural? --Arad21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with removing things from photos in principle though. The shadows are real and are part of the reality of the scene. As always, FP is a subjective thing but I can't see how 'strange' (they're perfectly normal if you consider the physics) shadows on the water should affect it. Obviously nobody even noticed them during the original nomination and it seemed that most people were voting to delist based on the incorrect notion that they were technical flaws in the stitching or something. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you could tell the same to those people in commons, when everyone were opposing because of those shadows, which means if it was nominated today, it wouldn't make it. --Arad21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did tell them at the time of the nomination on commons! I quote: "It is a reflection of numerous lights from behind the bridge through the geometric shapes of the bridge supports. Thats why there is overlap of shapes in the reflections. Definitely not an optical artifact of the lens". Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the shadows looked natural enough when I first glanced at it but I was willing to take the noms word that they were flaws. as I said before the composition, control of exposure etc. out weighs the blurred people on the bridge. also the second edit exaserbates the artifacts. nuke it.-Fcb98106:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I propose that Edit 1 replace the FP as I feel it is an improvement in artifacts (or lack thereof), sharpness, perspective correction and contrast. I put a bit more effort into this attempt than last time. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepKeep but replace …with edit Fir0002 (third version from top). Very impressive picture. Made me click on it for a larger view and spend some time studying it. P.S. I like the original better only because it's easier to see the cloud detail on my LCD monitor. I have a gamma-adjusted monitor and have observed that it shows shadow detail better than many barbarian-adjusted monitors that I happen upon. Many LCD monitors make shadow detail look very dark so the clouds in edit #2 will probably still be visible. On my monitor, edit #2 looks wonderful. If there is poor support for the Fir0002 version, then any of these is fine with me; just go with the consensus here. Greg L 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Greg L21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change to edit Fcb981. yes it is my own edit but I think it does a good jod of killing the distracting artifacts in the sky. there is bound to be a little loss of detail on the very tops of the buildings that extend into the sky because I did a color select then feathered it 15px before doing a 7px median. -Fcb98106:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly what technique you used on your edit but it has messed up the bright highlights in the sky and the water. Switch between both images and you will see obvious manipulation of them. For example, the spire on the right hand size is very dull at the top. There are similar changes all over the image. Do you really think there ARE artifacts in the sky? Could you be more specific? I don't really see them. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Square reigons of pixles in the low light gradieants in the sky... maybe my lcd display creats them but I havent experienced them mostly, they become very apperant in Fir0002's edit. I'm sure you can see them there. there is also noiese in the clouds on that Edit. Although, clearly if the noise isn't visible to two other people it's more likely me than the picture. and yes there is some change to the skyline but if I had run a median or despeckle on the entire image you would have lost loads of sharpness. It's a nice picture in any event -Fcb98115:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your LCD screen's gamma might be slightly off. However, I do believe that you're right about it being there even though its essentially not visible to me. That sort of thing (compression artifacts in dark areas) is actually often very difficult to avoid.. I saved it at a high quality/low compression setting in Photoshop so artifacts were minimised but JPEG compression loves to turn what it considers dark detail-less areas into squares. Short of bumping quality levels as high as they can go (and tripling file size), such things are almost impossible to avoid with lossy file formats (although I'm sure if a new lossy standard were to be developed and popularised today, quality would be far better). You could introduce luminance noise into the sky to force the JPEG algorithm to save all detail and not try to cut corners, but then you'd be left with... *drum roll* luminance noise! Working with lossless formats is the only way to avoid it really and obviously that is impractical for the web. My take on it is this: yes it exists; no it isn't that important. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at Fir's edit and the artifacts are clearly visible in that version. That's because they're present (but unavoidable at reasonable file sizes and nigh-invisible) in the original JPEG and exacerbated by the processing that Fir's applied. I often find that with LCD screens (I regularly use three different ones), even if they're properly calibrated you can often see flaws in images which aren't visible on a CRT, due to the change in brightness/contrast with viewing angle. That can sometimes be handy when you're trying to make sure that an edit hasn't, for example, introduced clipping in dark or bright areas. More often, though, I find that using an LCD makes very minor quality issues seem distracting. If we want high-resolution images that remain accessible to people using slower internet connections, we sadly have to accept a (small) degree of lossy compression. --YFB¿17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Diliff's Edit 1 - I find it mildly ridiculous that an image of this standard is even being considered for delisting, given some of the other images people have voted Keep for recently. Diliff's explanation makes sense and the shadows are only distracting if you're looking for them; removing them to suit the tastes of the ill-informed would be A Bad Thing. I don't see artifacts on my (properly calibrated) monitor and Fcb981's edit has introduced unsightly effects along the skyline. --YFB¿12:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a marvelous photograph, but it may not be public domain. The Library of Congress owns the negative but is not the author and thus not the copyright-holder (there's been some confusion about this in the past). The photographer, John T. Daniels, died in 1947 as far as I can tell. So it won't be {{PD-old-70}} until 2018. If it was published before 1922, it's {{PD-US}}, but I haven't been able to determine the date of first publication--taking a photograph is not publication. Chick Bowen23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the source: "There are no known restrictions on the photographs taken by the Wright Brothers. Privacy and publicity rights may apply." HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph was donated to the LOC along with the Wright brothers' personal collection. But it was not taken by the Wright brothers; it was taken by Mr. Daniels. Chick Bowen23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Attributed to Wilbur and/or Orville Wright.", it could be Mr. Daniels was in their employ at the time. It also says "Orville Wright preset the camera and had John T. Daniels squeeze the rubber bulb, tripping the shutter.", it seems Mr. Daniels was an assistant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that the LOC isn't going to miss something as obvious as 70 years pma. If Daniels was an assistant, then it's likely a work-for-hire and he wouldn't own the copyright. I don't see why we can't trust the "No known restrictions" bit. howcheng {chat}23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone else could put a statement together I'd appreciate that. I'm still not fully comfortable with declaring it to be public domain, when the reality is only that no rights-holder has placed restrictions on use. Chick Bowen21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The air flow from the wing of this agricultural plane is made visible by a technique that uses colored smoke rising from the ground.Edit by trialsanderrors — Color corrected, noise reduced, cropped, downsampled.
Keep unless alternative can be found. It's a stunning image! Yes, it's grainy in full size, but that full size is almost 3000 px! Downsample and you have much less grain... --Janke | Talk08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is of high quality. It is sharp and of pleasing colour balance, contrast and brightness, free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files), burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess"), and other distracting factors.
Typically, the only exception to this rule is in the case of one-of-a-kind historical images. If it can reasonably be considered impossible to find a higher-quality image of a given subject, low quality may sometimes be allowed. For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images, so a poor picture of the moon landing would not be accepted given that many others are available.
It's all subjective. Find a better quality, free license image of a vortex like this, and we can have that as a FP, while this is delisted. Simple as that... ;-) --Janke | Talk09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have mistaken what a FP is, a vortex is not a "one-of-a-kind historical image", thus it shouldn't be able to except §1 in the criteria. →AzaToth10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people don't understand the FP criteria. It's a guideline. It's there to guide you what we expect from FPs. It's not Wikipedia's absolute rule. There is always exeptions to it. So as stated above it's subjective. Get a btter image and we gladly delist this one. This is IMHO --Arad18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wonderful illustration of the subject. Complaining about graininess in this image is like complaining about seeing the brush strokes in a Monet. -- Cyrius|✎19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit? I don't have much problem with the grain, but the turquoise background is garish and the picture needs to be cropped at the bottom. I might give it a shot later. ~ trialsanderrors22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another "shopped" coin via the US Mint and edited by fellow Wikipedians.
Reason
Per this delist, this current nomination and two former failed nominations (this one and this one) it features the same cameo effect as the 4 other coins, abeit with heavy editing by other wikipedia editors. If we're gonna discuss more about this type of shop, we should also include this one to the table as well.
I'd like to clarify. If there's a version of the same resolution but without the cameo effect, I recommend that to be nominated for FP. But in the meantime there seems no reason to delist this image. --Tewy23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Cameo and unnecessarily huge resolution. Not only is it oversampled to that resolution but I have a very hard time viewing it at full size- since it's just a coin there are very large fields of solid color --frothTC23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's less image data than pixels.. I don't know how that happened though. Looking around the image intuition tells me I see maybe 1.1 pixel sized groups of samples --frothTC00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cameo proofs and US Mint photography style sometimes look tacky, but not in this case. Also, the cameo style is problematic with coins that are in regular circulation because most people see them in a scuffed, non-cameo form, while a bullion coin like this is meant to be sold to collectors and most specimens should look this shiny. —Dgiestc23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I say again elsewhere: Can you guarantee 100% that if I bought said coin, it'll look like that? I have seen examples of said coin in hand, and it DOESN'T look like the US Mint Picture.--293.xx.xxx.xx05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Methinks the licence tag on all US Mint coins is wrong: [2]. This seems to be a "covered coin"", but the stament that the coin is ineligible for copyright is contradicted by the link. In particular the Sacagawea Golden Dollar has a copyright notice embedded in the picture. ~ trialsanderrors00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The buffalo nickel seems to be covered by those additional terms. Anyway the only applicable term seems to be the last one and wikipedia does that very well: When the obverse and/or reverse design of any Covered Coin obtained from any United States Mint source is reproduced for publication, credit should be given as follows: "United States Mint image." The credit should be clearly legible and placed next to the coin design reproduction. The following may be used instead if a credit page is provided: "United States coin image [or images] from the United States Mint." --frothTC00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words this one is a copyvio since it's not a "Covered Coin"? → "This policy does not cover use of the design of any coin not specifically defined above as a Covered Coin. For example, it does not cover the Golden Dollar coin featuring Sacagawea." In any case, the licence tag should be corrected since it's clearly not true that US coins are "ineligible for copyright" and in the public domain. Currency in my understanding is always copyrighted by the Central Bank. ~ trialsanderrors01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read your quote: "This policy doesn't cover use of non-covered coins. For example it doesn't cover use of the golden dollar." Therefore the golden dollar isn't covered by the terms.. but even if it was wikipedia satisfies the terms. --frothTC02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Covered Coins ← OK to reproduce with attribution, Non-covered Coins ← Not ok to reproduce, even with attribution. "The United States Mint will not object to use of the obverse or reverse design of (... long list ...) (each, a "Covered Coin" and collectively, "Covered Coins")" This one does not seem to be among the listed Covered Coins (since it's not the Buffalo Nickel) and so the US Mint objects and "does not grant any waiver, release, or written permission of the Director under 18 U.S.C. § 709i or 31 U.S.C. § 333". ~ trialsanderrors02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That specific policy doesn't grant any release to non covered coins, but it doesn't mean that release hasn't been granted elsewhere. Presumably since that branch of the mint doesn't have jurisdiction over all coins. --frothTC05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That argument sounds a bit, uh, manufactured, especially since the headline of the webpage is "United States Mint Circulating Coin Design Use Policy". ~ trialsanderrors06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.. well try this argument: The policy releases the specifically mentioned coins under certain conditions that make them ineligable for Public Domain. The policy also makes it clear that these conditions do not extend in any way to coins not mentioned (golden dollar for example). Since those other coins have no specific terms, and they're the work of the US Government, they're automatically released into the public domain. --frothTC06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However works of the US govenment aren't eligible for copyright protection.. they're automatically released into the public domain unless withheld by additional conditions. see [3][4][5] --frothTC20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
$105, "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" applies here, as clearly stated on the US Mint website. ~ trialsanderrors21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you might have a good point about all US currency not being public domain since some of it seems to be released under conditions (albiet conditions that WP satisfies) --frothTC02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the designer and engraver credit listed is the designer of the 1913 Buffalo nickel, which is a "Covered coin". I think the only way this would not be PD is if there was copyright held by the photographer. Still it would be good to know for sure. —Dgiestc21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's licensing@usmint.treas.gov but I'd rather not be the one to ask permission. In any case, with "Federal Fridays" I doubt we'll get an answer before Monday. —Dgiestc21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I may have used the term incorrectly. I meant to refer to the photoshopped background, and thought we have been using the term "cameo" to refer to that. In either case, I vote delist because of obvious photoshoppery in the background. Debivort06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that it is just fine with the cameo in this case. It is an excellent picture of a collecter Buffalo Gold Coin. Why1991 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as this seems to just be up for delisting to bolster an FPC argument and to prove a point, this is hardly the place for either... the better place to mention this if you want to use this as an example why these shouldn't be listed would be just to mention it in the current noms for coins. Cat-five - talk11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not list it? We're questioning the validity of another shopped US coin, which is completely unnatural in apperance and doesn't have any equilvelent counterpart in real life. This coin also has the same questioned criteria as well. Which might be a moot point, because of the pending copyright problem above. --293.xx.xxx.xx10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin images are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal?--293.xx.xxx.xx22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After I closed this User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of this picture hasn't been resolved yet. I'm putting this here in 'suspended nominations' until it can be sorted out fully. Raven4x4x12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This source gives the date of original engraving as 1913, which would put it into the PD as expired copyright, but I would think it's the burden of the original uploader to confirm this. ~ trialsanderrors18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, the design was "refreshed" for the $50 denomination, so that kinda leaves a grey area of sorts. The design might be PD, but the additions of the legends and denominations might lend the coin to be "copyright" by the US Mint. Just want to be 100% sure it's legit.--293.xx.xxx.xx22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, because by keeping it here, we can get a clear understanding if it violates or fulfills Criteria #4. The FP tag hasn't been changed on the image page yet, and nobody has given a clear opinion on whats what. --293.xx.xxx.xx12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought on the refreshing of the design: in german copyright law there is the concept of Schoepfungshoehe which describes the amount of creative work. Trivial additions such as legendtext, contrast enhancement or putting numbers on the engraving would most likely not lead to sustainable copyright claims under german law. Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. --Dschwen(A) 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any copyrighted expression must be “original.” Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). Although the amount of creative input by the author required to meet the originality standard is low, it is not negligible. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 362. There must be something more than a “merely trivial” variation, something recognizably the artist’s own. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 489 (9th Cir. 2000). The originality requirement mandates that objective “facts” and ideas are not copyrightable. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 99 (1879); Feist, 499 U.S. at 347; Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 1970). Similarly, expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium are not protectable under copyright law. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). --Dschwen06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two more things (always considering IANAL):
In 1991 in the case of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (499 US 340) the U.S. Supreme Court basically rejected the Sweat of brow doctrine. I.e. just because something took a lot of work to create does not justify a copyright claim.
Facts are not copyrightable. Ok I mentioned this before, but the denomination of the coin: fact, the year it was issued: fact, the issuer: fact. The arrangement of the letters: trivial.
IMHO this case can be closed. And there wasn't any helpful input for one and a half months. It all boils down to the original artwork, which has already determined to be free. --Dschwen08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've been in contact with the U.S. Mint and have a phone call scheduled for tomorrow. So I hope we'll get some more info then, although I doubt it will be a decisive Yes or No. ~ trialsanderrors00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did it go? Tomorrow was two days ago. I still stand by my argument (which nobody bothered to comment on :-( ) that we should be fine keeping this pic. --Dschwen19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phone call never came. I'll wait until tomorrow night and if nothing happens I'll summarize the e-mail exchange on the Commons page. ~ trialsanderrors21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a scan of a print or a negative, but there is a lot of dirt on it, especially to the immediate right of the spouting lava. Granted, some of it might be lava fragments, but I think these are scanning artifacts.
At the original nomination, the pic was heavily edited in order to arrive at the current version. I vote Keep since it's a unique pic and there are not that many other volcano pics of similar quality. JumpingcheeseCont@ct06:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good image and VERY very hard to catch. It has a free licence too. Who's going to risk to take such a photo? Plus the quality is OK (I agree it might not be FP quality but quality is not the only criteria here). And to HereToHelp, I always try to see if I can help "delistees" and edit them but mostly, the "delistess" are far too small or very bad quality. In this case, it doesn't even need an edit. --Arad20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Arad. I think the dirt is likely to be spashes — Jack · talk · 16:28, Saturday, 31 March 2007
Photograph from the mid-1870s of a pile of American Bison skulls waiting to be ground for fertilizer. Courtesy of the Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library.
Reason
It is very small, blurry and not very interesting.
Keep. Not very interesting? This image really puts into context just how many American Bison were exterminated in the late 1800s, and most certainly has the "wow" factor. --Tewy19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't say nothing to me, and I don't know anything about extermination of American Bisons in the late 1800s. It should link to the article of the subject it talks about. Anyhow, it is very very small. Tomer T10:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's historic value, uniqueness, and strikingness override the size concerns. Also, it does link to the relevant articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 19:17Z
Keep: I never comment around here, but I do check in once in awhile. I had to comment here. I first saw this image in a history textbook somewhere in the annals of educational career, it is still one of the most memorable photographs I have ever seen. IvoShandor07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally found/uploaded this image. This is the clearest and largest version available. And of course it's very interesting and striking. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 19:12Z
Delist The aerogel is bisected by the background and very hard to see. Other pictures of aerogel much more clearly show what it looks like. Enuja05:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/maybe/dunno I don't have a problem with the bisection. It shows the texture of the material quite well. I also like the fact that the attention is first drawn to the brick, just to realize on second view that the aerosol is actually the stuff that props up the brick. I'd like to see/vote on an alternative first before this should be delisted. ~ trialsanderrors20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it still fails the resolution requirements. Were it nominated today, it would quickly be shot down for that.--HereToHelp01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In new nominations, it would have a very hard time surviving, even if it is only a guideline. And part of the brick is blown to white anyway.--HereToHelp23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because the other images on the aerogel page lead me to believe that images are not so rare that we can't find a better one than this. grenグレン09:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Delist/Keep - It's interesting and made me read the article. But the photo I added to nomination clearly shows that we can have a better image. I have no sens of scale on this image. And how heavy is the brick? I'm not sure though. I go with the census. --Arad22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as I've understood the criteria correctly; that because we can't reproduce this image easily, it should be okay if it doesn't quite meet size guidelines? (Or does that only apply to historical images?) Anyhow, I think it's a good striking image, if it is okay :) -Ishaana16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I also prefer this version to the new SVG, maybe have a SVG version of this and replace the currently used one? --antilivedT | C | G05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't intend this to be a replacement nom as the SVG has some problems that would have to be fixed first. One such problem is that the background color for the lower left corner is different from the background for the rest of image. The SVG version includes some information that is not in the PNG, the "La Elipa" station on line 2 for example. There is also a third map, Image:Madrid Metro 2003-2006.svg, that includes planned extensions (thumbnail and preview versions of this image are currently not working, it seems). --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would tell me how to create an SVG version from a Photoshop vector image, I'd be happy to do so, or to send my version to someone who can do so for me. - Montréalais14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Pinar de Chamartín. God, if only we could build metro anywhere near this fast.
OK, then let's get the svg version up to speed and replace this one. Otoh, if this was part of a specual en-bloc nomination maybe it belongs to a "featured set" under the new proposed definition? ~ trialsanderrors20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – original is much better than newer map (though the garish blue and red “Metro de Madrid” lettering at the bottom is pretty awful). --jacobolus(t)23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photographers crowd around a starlet at the Cannes Film Festival.
Reason
Another one that probably wouldn't make it these days IMO - nominated 2 years ago. Low quality pic, the girl's face is blurry, no longer appears at photojournalism (it's "core" article).
Keep. Great composition, still appears in (and contributes to!) three articles. Blurry face is irrelevant, the starlet is nameless and the focus is on the photographers. Puzzles me how this shot could be considered low quality. --Dschwen12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "low quality" I didn't mean aesthetically, I meant that it is not particularly high res/clear shot - the film quality is low, probably due to the fact that it was taken before digital cameras (assumption based on the other cameras in the shot) and has been scanned and blown-up later. WittyLama13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The film is Kodachrome 25 the best of the time. It was scanned from transparency. I have a 24 megapixels scan if you want. Ericd18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Striking enough to be featured in my opinion. Technically it looks like most pictures in the 70s looked like, but that's no major problem in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wutschwlllm. The majority of the model is in focus — Jack · talk · 03:08, Wednesday, 25 April 2007
"dubious relevance"? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this summary? What's so dubious about it? I'm going to add it again. -Wutschwlllm20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism...that creates images in order to tell a news story." I don't see anything in this photo that is remotely involved with "telling a news story." Rdikeman02:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, whether you deem it newsworthy or not, this stuff is what fills thousands of print pages in periodicals every day. It is not our job to cast judgement on this sad fact. --Dschwen07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this shot is pretty unique.... If it were a still object instead of a scene I would want to delist it, but it's a scene and I'm not sure how you'd duplicate it. grenグレン04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The image suffers from fuzziness and the composition suffers too as the woman at the bottom is cut off. It doesn't have enough historical significance to ignore its technical faults. Besides, it is reproduceable (though not with the same unnamed starlette). If someone visits a movie premiere, they could easily shoot an equivalent pic to illustrate photojournalism. - Mgm|(talk)09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically significant (dig those strides, dude!) compelling and generally exempt from nit-picking technical gripes. Great composition and opportune capture to boot. Absence of effective time-travel machine makes reproducability rather moot. mikaultalk00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Shows the 70s. It's not reproducible as some people think. You can't go back in 70s and take the pic again. I like the dudes in the back and how they are dressed. And I don't think you see a model like this in movie premiers. You might see in festivals but not premiers. My keep is weak, because the quality is not the best of Wikipedia. --Arad23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detail at 4800dpi (around 24mpixels for the whole picture)at the edge where resolution is not optimal for a wide angle. Notice she didn't shave her legs. Ericd18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click to see full detail.
Strong Keep Like I said in another delist, until you can come up with a better photograph, I suggest keeping. And this is a rather special image, made more so by the fact that it is quite an old image... in fact, I think I saved this to my hard drive some time ago. --Vaelta17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A traditional coconut shy, established in 1936 by Mrs E. Harris, is still being run by her son today.True vertical and horizantals are in green. lines that should be such are pink. measures of the deviations apear in pink. Average tilt is about 3.6 degrees. that isn't minor.
Reason
Poor composition. no sence of size of tent and location. Distracting lights, blown red in places. subject blends in with background. Tilted to the right. Not particularly ENC.
Delist I remember perfectly when it was nominated. The support was so overwhelming I was afraid to oppose. I think it's now the time for it to go. The resolution is not very high also. --23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep high quality, size of the tent is easily inferable based on the person there. tilt is admittedly hard to assess. The rest of the technical problems are minor. Debivort00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the height maybe but not the portion behind the camera, for all the reader knows the tent is 300 meters in length with the game at the end!! -Fcb98120:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to not measure plumb lines on flexible surfaces, like open tent corners. A pole that has to ballance a coconut might be more appropriate as a necessarily vertical element in a photo. Debivort00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you didn't actually look at the image and I wonder why you think they are bullshit. I respect that there are trialsanderrors but try to get a few more correct. This is the most un-ENC picture ever to be featured. -Fcb98121:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it long enough to have a good laugh at the lines you drew in. I don't even know what the 4.0° line is supposed to follow. The tent pole? Certainly not, and it also ignores the coconut poles right next it (which need to be vertical since they balance the coconuts). The 3.6° line is perspective distortion: the eyeline, roughly at the level of his hairline, is horizontal as it should be, all lines above it slope upwards just like it happens under normal perspective. The 3.4° might be distortion, but it might also be that the sign is slanted like the one to the left. Those lines show absolutely nothing. ~ trialsanderrors03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist. This stretches the definition of encyclopedicity - the coconut shies are hardly visible, the signage is totally inappropriate and irrelevant to the game, the tent is cut off on all sides. Incidentally, there is terrible overexposure of most of the light bulbs. Pstuart84Talk15:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepDelist - It's not an especially good illustration of a coconut shy (not bad to illustrate fairground stalls in general though), but I find Fcb's complaints about tilt and tent size pretty bizarre - there's no proper reference to measure the tilt and it's quite likely the tent isn't even put up straight. If we were going to delist every image where you couldn't see what was behind the camera then we'd be restricted to 360º panoramas. I also agree with trialsanderrors about the lightbulbs - to expose this so that the lightbulbs weren't blown, you'd have to either use HDR to make one of the most unrealistic-looking images ever, or have nice unblown lightbulbs floating in a sea of almost-black. People seem to throw around blown highlights with no understanding of basic photographic principles. --YFB¿03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because I don't think there was at the time any serious error of judgement in promoting the picture, which is IMO the only valid reason for delisting. Alvesgaspar12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist - The colours and general composition is quite ugly. There is little encyclopaedic value as the coconuts can hardly been seen. Also why are parts of the tent cut off? It's not up to the standard of some of our Features pictures. Centy 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This a a great, unique, moody picture that technically meets the requirements; it wouldn't pass FPC today, but I don't see a compelling reason to delist it.--ragesoss21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this is a great scene that I am not fully sure how we could replicate it... but I'm not 100% sure it's the best for the article. grenグレン04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a wonderful picture, and illustrates fun fair well. (Changed my vote now that I see it isn't just being used to illustrate "coconut shy," which it does an admittedly lousy job at.) Calliopejen108:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ignoring the question of whether the verticals are accurate or not, this isn't a good illustration of a coconut shy. The subject of the photo is clearly the man, and the coconuts themselves are partially obscured and hidden in a sea of distracting "other stuff." -- Moondigger14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the red channel is blown in several areas -- I'm not referring to the lightbulbs, either.
Delist Is it just me or is the white balance severely off? Not used in any articles and after looking at it for a few minutes I still have no idea what the tent is about or what the man is supposed to do. Tilt is not a major problem as the tent may not be straight in the first place, but otherwise it's not of great quality. --antilivedT | C | G05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree about the blown red highlights and the sad fact that the subject blends in so well with his surroundings, but it is still a very interesting photo. I don't see any reason to delist it. And if you've got nothing better to do than work out the "tilt" factor of this image, then... --Vaelta17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO many comments about tilted pictures rely on the false hypothesis that something shoud be vertical in the picture. I noticed it with some picture of an old monastery. There was something that looked "wrong" in the picture but the floor was horizontal. I made a another visit to the monastery. (It's close to my workplace. In fact the wall on the right was both tilted and twisted ! Ericd23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this picture is not that good I tried to hack it a bit to get a cooler color balance. Its better with more blue but then JPEG artifacts jumps to your face ! Ericd02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a great picture, meets the criteria of FPCs and illustrates the subject well. The lines are also meaningless so I oppose those. Cumulus Clouds17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how hard you look, you may not be able to convince yourself that the two squares are the identical shade of grey.PNG version for replacementSVG version
Reason
Tiny image, that really should be in svg (or at least png), rather than jpg.
replace with PNG / very strong oppose SVG - how much larger does this really need to be? Debivort 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - SVG version has wonky geometry and the sharp shadow reduces the illusion. Debivort04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point — Jack · talk · 02:26, Monday, 9 April 2007
Replace with PNG, almost delist. It's not necessary for many diagram type images to be SVG or as large as they are for computer monintors. But, it does allow them to be printed as posters or look better from projectors. It's important to take into account non-monitor applications and some day I plan on pasting this on the side of the Empire State Building and an SVG would help. grenグレン05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave original – the PNG looks identical (the jpeg version has no noticeable artifacts), and takes up 5 times as much space (~70k vs. ~15k). This type of image, with a blur, is not particularly suited to a png. So there is no reason to change its format. A larger sized jpeg (the jpeg could be 200% as big as now and still be of a smaller file size than the png) would be preferable. Additionally, the jpeg uses better colors (more contrast) to illustrate the effect. --jacobolus(t)04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I found this image, the first thing I did (in understandable disbelief at its content) was to copy the image into paint and play with the colours. When I realised the JPG version made this very hard, I tracked down the source image, found it to be a PNG and uploaded that to supersede the original. The JPG is smaller because it's lower quality, and you shouldn't let worries about performance affect your decisions — Jack · talk · 17:59, Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Delist. I've decided that this image is really not interesting enough to be featured anyway. But anyway, the jpeg is smaller because it is a better format for an image with such color gradients. PNG has no advantage for an image like this. It just takes up more space. Also, as I said before, the jpg has higher contrast, which helps demonstrate the effect. Incidentally, you would have little trouble playing with either format image if you were using a program more powerful than Paint. If you want, put up a jpeg at 200% the size, and it will be of comparable or smaller file size to the png, and much higher quality. --jacobolus(t)08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with PNG, the gradient on the JPG is not as good, I notice artifact in it as well--at least more fuzziness. Viewing in thumbnail the difference is 4kB vs. 14kB and I think that is how many people will be viewing it, which minimizes any worry I had about the (startling) size difference. grenグレン09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nifty. There are some problems... the board doesn't look straight since something is wrong with the angles. I also think some margins after the end of the board would be beneficial. I'm not sure how to fix it, but the SVG would be better than the PNG if they were fixed. grenグレン05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may have a second optical illusion on our hands! I can however, tolerate the SVG, and I'm voting anything but JPEG — Jack · talk · 16:53, Friday, 20 April 2007
Comment: the SVG file has worse colors than the jpeg, and wacky geometry to boot! I still say the jpeg is the best of the three images for illustrating the point (based on color and geometry), but reiterate my suggestion to delist this, as not worth being a featured image. --jacobolus(t)23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with PNG - This is probably the best example of optical illusions on Wikipedia, and the PNG version does seem cleaner and is within the size requirements. Centy 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Does SVG have technical limitations that prevent the original drawing from being reproduced satisfactorily? Or is it just that no one has been able to draw it correctly in that format? Punctured Bicycle01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current FPReplacement candidate (was uploaded in Feb 2005)
Reason
Would like to replace with Image:Douglas MacArthur signs formal surrender.jpg, which has its brightness and contrast adjusted. Note that the current FP is schedule for POTD on July 1, 2007. If the replacement nomination is successful, the POTD image will need to be swapped out.
I did notice that the whites were more blown in the replacement candidate, so I didn't want to just assume that this would have been a preferred version if it had been available during the original nomination period. howcheng {chat}20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace At first glance it looks like someone just lightened the original…but switching back and forth between tabs i found a few spots that were only present in the old one. Either they were removed or added because of a lower-quality scan.--HereToHelp20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have no idea. I found it on the Commons whilst searching 'fire'. Centy 13:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I downloaded it as a .tif, but I don't have photoshop on this computer and didn't want to compress it with MS Paint's awful jpeg algorithm. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't think it's up to FP standard. There's huge artifacts in the top left where the trees are on fire. Centy20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has been put up for removal before and it had a lot of support to keep, my support remains. Its not the technical aspects of the photo, it is what the image encapsulates as a whole- the deer the water, the fire. It is a beautiful image
Keep. Technical qualities aside, the superseding image linked above isn't in the same league as this one, one of the best compositions of any FP. I wouldn't support it as a new FP nomination, but it is quite good enough to retain.--ragesoss01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know there's a better version of this out there, I've seen one with something like a 1600x1023 resolution somewhere. The quality on this version is weak though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with high res jpg version I uploaded a jpg version of the png file. The pic is still the same quality, but 3mb smaller. Much shaper and cleaner than current jpg version. JumpingcheeseCont@ct07:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the more striking photos I've ever seen. Not really reproducible, unless you want Smokey the Bear to smack you with his shovel and bellow "Only you! Only you!" at you . Spikebrennan22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The high-resolution addicts strikes again ! It was good enough for a 2 page spread in Time Magazine as part of its "Photos of the Year" series see [8]Ericd03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or replace with higher rez version if possible, as with every time in the past and everything listed here in favor of keeping, despite a few quality issues overall it is a stunning picture and more than worthy of FPC. Cat-five - talk15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously biased but I love the lighting and composition where you really get a sense of lots of hazelnuts but still get good close up detail (achieved mainly through using "valleys" and crests). By the way guys, thanks for notifying me of this, as I had a higher res version of this image.... --Fir000202:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially now that the hi-res version has been substituted. I mean really, folks. This image depicts the subject matter from pretty much every conceivable angle. What would a better image of hazelnuts look like? Spikebrennan02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does it add to the article other than being a "pretty picture"? Per criterion 5 it should "Add value to an article and help readers to understand an article". How does a heap of hazelnuts help the reader understand the article? --snowolfD4( talk / @ )19:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a super image. Just because most people know what a hazelnut looks like doesn't mean it doesn't have enc value. I can't imagine a better photo of the subject and it's v attractive too. Thanks for the October desktop Fir :-) ~ Veledan • Talk22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current FPReplacement candidate 1Replacement candidiate 2
Reason
This amazing animation no longer appears in the article for the subject it depicts: a tesseract. I posit that if it's not good enough to be in there, it shouldn't be a featured picture either. There are two other animated tesseracts from the article that I would propose to replace this one, so take your pick. I joe nuts pls candidate 1 myself.
What is the purpose of the reflections in the first image? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-05 14:32Z
You can see the philosophical debate about the different versions here. Basically, candidate 1 is designed to be maximally visually impressive, showing off the complex geometry, and candidate 2 is designed to be maximally understandable, keeping it as simple as possible.--Pharos18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with candidate 2 — I prefer this edit, as it is much better suited for an encyclopedia. We're trying to understand the image, not make it more complicated in favor of aesthetics. ♠ SG→Talk18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support either one, really. My reasoning was, if they are both being used in the article (as they are now), then we might as well make the more visually impressive one the FP. But either one would be acceptable.--Pharos05:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with none I think that the perspective is confusing. It is turning on its side like any cube could but also doing the weird inside-out thing that we're trying to have the reader understand. I like the perspective of this one, but the quality will have to be improved (or a new one created).--HereToHelp15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with candidate 2 Candidate 1 is too shiny and the animation is a bit too fast for my taste. Candidate 2 is much better in showing the concept. JumpingcheeseCont@ct09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Candidate 2 I like this one best. It is very good, and it goes slowly enough for you to see what it is showing. And the fact that the other ones rotate makes it harder to see what is going on. Althepal18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the original artist: The original tesseract animation was removed from the tesseract page because I wanted to maintain some consistency with the other 4D geometry animations that I had rendered, and those were all done in the style of candidate #1. I find it interesting how much debate the different versions have sparked. I would be willing to render new versions of the tesseract at any angle or speed, but fear that additional versions would only make a consensus more difficult to reach. This really does appear to be a conflict between function and form. I suspect that there are four orthogonal issues that actually need to be decided.
A) Should we keep the reflections?
B) Should the tesseract rotate about a single plane, or two planes simultaneously?
C) What camera orientation should be used? (Should starting frame center view on a face, edge, or corner? Should tesseract rotate horizontally or vertically?)
D) What speed should the animation be rendered at?
I suspect that because explanatory power should probably trump eye candy in any encyclopedia, both A and B will be decided in favor of simplicity. But to add to the confusion, I also have the ability to render the center cube in a different color, as seen in the logo I developed for this page: http://www.hc-info.net/
I will be happy to go with whatever the community consensus is... I just hope that I have not created a religious divide by offering too many options :) JasonHise16:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with 2 - The subtle planes make it easier to understand than the original. Candidate 1 is distractingly shiny, includes a confusing and unnecessary second axis of rotation and is too fast. When it comes to trying to visualize 4-dimensional shapes, clarity should beat pretty every time. —dgiestc06:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture faills few Featured picture criteria: not high technical standard - the giraffe is underexposed and the background is distracting; Is not among Wikipedia's best work -there are better pictures with the much higher resolution are available in commons:
The picture does not add any value to an articleGiraffe it appears into and has no encyclopedic value at all. The resolution of the picture is less than 2 mega pixels; The picture has a bad caption
Keep Mbz, I respect that you are essentially a newbie and more familiar with commons, but please make sure you become familiar with en:FPC before delisting, particularly mass delisting as it doesn't look like you have a grasp of what we look for here. First compared to your shots my image is much better exposed (I honestly can't see how you can claim yours are not underexposed and mine is). And same deal with the background. Second there isn't "better pictures" in the ones you linked too - all your's suffer from bad noise and are extremely blurry/soft. Third yours show the animal in a clearly unnatural surrounding (the pine tree), mine you couldn't tell it was in a zoo because the trees are nicely blurred out. Fourth please check criteria before claiming it violates them, pictures on wikipedia FPC, unlike commons, only have to have a resolution of 1000 pixels in the longest dimension!. Also per very long discussions on the talk page, the caption on the images on FPC should reflect the standard of a caption in an article. And this caption is perfectly valid (not to mention the absurdity of delisting a photo because of it's caption). Please start up Featured Caption Candidates if you are still concerned. For your information a few key quotes (some of which from the guy who does POTD) regarding captions: "I think the subject's information remain the responsability of POTD (and/or the nominator, if he wishes to help)", "my reading of the requirement that the extended caption should be on the image page is to ensure that the picture is explained even outside the context of an article", "I don't want rehashes of the article -- I can do that myself when I write the POTD blurb" --Fir000222:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I even cannot see the eye of giraffe well in your "Head of a Giraffe, taken at the Melbourne Zoo". Even, if all of above is correct, the picture adds nothing to the article. It has no value whatsoever.What should I learn while looking at your picture? After all it is encyclopedia and not a beautiful, sharp pictures photo contest. Every each of my last three blurry pictures has more value in every blur than your not blurry picture in whole. Believe me, normal enciclopedia readers, who do not vote here, but just read articles will like three of my last pictures much more than yours because they show some more or less rare action. By the way I see you speedy moved the image to another section letting way to my blurry pictures. How nice of you. Thanks. Oh one more thing, if you believe that blurry background makes the picture look like it was taken in the wild, you cannot be more wrong. Here's, for example, my picture from Ngorongoro Crater(it is a low resolution, digital copy of my old film picture), so relax for a moment, do not look at quality, look at background and enjoy the view. Why in the world would I want to blur backround to pretend that the picture was taken in the wild? It was taken in a wild! Period. --Mbz123:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Hmm, without sounding overly rude, but do you own a pair of glasses? Or perhaps your monitor needs calibrating (please see the "Is my monitor calibrated correctly?" section on top of FPC). They eyes are there, trust me! :)
And yes it is an encyclopaedia, which is why I assumed a photo of a giraffe was pretty useful in an article on the subject, I could be wrong but photos of grasshoppers, gnats and gnus are unlikely to add much. I'm sorry but rare action? A giraffe sitting down?
I see you speedily removed mine again - please do not do this a third time.
The point you seemed to have missed is that your photo and indeed mine are not taken in the wild, and hence a blurred background separates mine from a pine-tree-in-the-background-of-an-african-animal-snapshot. Sure there isn't much point in blurring the background in the pic you linked, but it's in the wild not in a zoo!
I'm afraid you are the one, who missed the point. Nobody, who's taking pictures of common zoo animals in the wild will blur background. There's no need because you could go to nearby zoo and blur background there--Mbz115:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this image, in fact I think it's really good -- you can almost feel the texture of the giraffe's fur by looking at it -- and I strongly disagree that the proposed alternates are better. Spebudmak 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Note, since I made this remark, three more alternates were added above.Spebudmak01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There is nothing wrong with this image" is not good enough reasin to keep it. An image should be special in some way. Is it? I just did a search at Flickr for giraffe and ZOO. I 've got 27,859 results and most of them show a sharp giraffe head. By the way I do not offer above pictures as alternates to be FP. I'll be ashamed to nominate them at FP not because there are problems with them, but just because they have no value, as well as the image offered for delist has no value. I believe that niether two first alternates nor the original image have encyclopedic value. I believe that the original image as well as the 2 first alternates add nothing to the article. I do believe that the last three alternates add a lot to the article, but of course they are too blurry to become FP at that sharp, no value photo contest --Mbz100:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Don't you understand that that I cannot care less about FP. How many people are voting here? How many people read articles? From all pictures in that article your picture has the smalest value, if at all (in my opinion).--Mbz115:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Keep. Mbz1, please stop being a pain. At least the FPC procedure stops people like you from taking it upon yourself to have the absolute authority on such matters, albeit in a slow and bureaucratic way. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi, Diliff,I remember you,Diliff. Weren't you the one,Diliff, who said that, if I'm to take a picture of an alien in alien ship,but it would not be perfect, you,Diliff, will oppose it? I really fealt sorry for you, Diliff after that. I still do,Diliff. Oh and by the way you,Diliff, are the one, who , in my opinion, also have feutered quite a few in my opinion no value pictures. I'm not a pain, Diliff (after all it is my very first delist request, Diliff). I exercise my rights for free speech and free opinion, Diliff. Do you have a problem with the freedom of speech,Diliff? --Mbz115:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
It would also be nice if you could say "I think that the picture adds no value.." rather than just stating it as if it is an absolute fact. It comes across as quite arrogant, particularly in light of everyone disagreeing with you. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put Diliff. I wonder, Mbz1, if you, Mbz1, have any concept of how irritating it is, Mbz1, to talk like this Mbz1? If you want to continue voting here I would suggest you lose a little of the drama queen attitude and adopt a little more civility. Trolls are not welcome on FPC --Fir000209:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The nature of this delist nom is going from the bizarre to the obsessive. Of probably even more concern are the repeated edits to the giraffe article by this user that is starting to head towards vandalism. Please think before you act. --jjron14:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please,Jjron, do not ask me "think before I act". The more I think,Jjron, the more I want to remove that picture from the article,Jjron. Can I also suggest,Jjron, that you think before using such words as "vandalism". --Mbz115:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
comment I wish somebody would tell me what that picture adds to the article, but I doubt somebody will, because in my opinion(Diliff) it adds nothing. It was artificially put in section "food and feeding", but of course the head of giraffe in Melburn zoo does not eat anything. Then it was artificially moved to section "description", but of course the head of giraffe in Melburn zoo does not describe anything. The last movement so far brought the poor head of giraffe in Melburn zoo to "Social structure and breeding habits" section. Please forgive me being so naive, but I kind of believe that to describe Social structure and breeding habits we need to have at least two giraffes. Am I right, Diliff? But please do not respond. I really cannot care lese what you think, Diliff. If somebody (but Diliff and Jjron) were kind enough instead of spitting saliva out (Diliff and Jjron) and calling me a pain or a vandal (Diliff and Jjron) to explain to me what vallue that pictures adds to "Social structure and breeding habits" section, where it is now, or to any of the sections it was before, or to the article in general,I would be the first one to say "keep". Fir0002, can you please, explain me that? Until then I'd say "delist" and remove from the article. It is my last comment, everybody. I wish you all good luck with the keeping that no value(in my opinion,Diliff) picture and with FP in general.I'm glad that sometimes some great pictures still could get through the bias wall and some no value pictures are stopped.--Mbz115:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I'm sorry, but I am going to respond (briefly), regardless of whether you want me to or not. I do agree with you that a single giraffe head does not describe social structure and breeding habits, but I think you will find that images do not always specifically illustrate the section they are placed in. Of course it is preferable to put them in sections that best suit, but not being in such a section does not justify the complete removal of the image - not that I even commented on its removal from the article in the first place. That was, as far as I know, just between you and Fir0002. If there is a high quality image that does better illustrate it, then by all means, move the image to the section, and move Fir0002's featured image somewhere else. To say it offers nothing to the article is over-the-top. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a valid response I'd like to answer it. First of all you did not tell me what value that image adds to the article in general, except it is being sharp and properly exposed what is that image about? Isn't this the truth that FP pictures criterie number 5 says: "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value"? And now I'dlike to hear your honest opinion. Don't you think that image would have added much more value to the section "Social structure and breeding habits". I know you will probably tell me that the image is blurry or something else. I will not argue that. I just do not care.It is where we differ. I believe that a bad image of a difficult subject or a bad image of a rare behavior is much better than a good image of a common, no action subject and that encyclopedic value should be given priority over its artistic value.Oh, yes, everybody, please forgive me my spelling. I've learned English not so long ago--Mbz117:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Keep - There's nothing wrong with this image; it adds to the article in that it shows you with excellent detail what a giraffe's head looks like. In my opinion, a delist candidate should have a lower bar to remain an FP than a new-FPC candidate has to become an FP; otherwise, we'll just be rehashing settled issues. --TotoBaggins19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TotoBaggins' point is a very good one. Although this may not be the place to discuss this, I strongly agree. If I'd even consider supporting a FP now, I'll easily agree to keep. Zakolantern22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the nomination no one seems to have remarked that there are stitching errors all over the place. Latitude and longitude lines break at a number of points, for example, and text as well (look in the Caribbean for examples of text too). Then there's the lack of an extended caption. I was trying to schedule this for POTD and I had nothing to say beyond, "World map produced in 1689." What's with all the artwork? Is there any significance to it? Who is Van Schagen? To top it all off, there's no source listed beyond "Scanned copy". Was it published in a book? Does the uploader have a physical copy of it? What's the deal?
UPDATE: The Commons uploader supplied the source. And I did some due diligence (aka Google search) to find some more information about the map. Found [9] (in Dutch), [10] which gives us some info about the mapmaker (including his first name, Gerard), and a JSTOR article [11] which is only available to members. So that's a little more context, but to me, the stitching errors are still unforgivable. howcheng {chat}16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A world map is a map of the surface of the Earth, which may be made using any of a number of different map projections.
Maps of the world are often either 'political' or 'physical'. The most important purpose of the political map is to show territorial borders; the purpose of the physical map is to show features of geography such as mountains, soil type or land use. Geological maps show not only the physical surface, but characteristics of the underlying rock, fault lines, and subsurface structures."Bewareofdog23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that it doesn't talk about the image itself. I used to write captions like this when I first started doing the POTD last year and I got a lot of complaints about them. People want to know about the specific images, not about the article that the image can be found in. howcheng {chat}00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's one of the reasons we have criterion 8. If we don't know anything about the image, how can we know that it's encyclopedic? If you're going to point to POTD blurbs about animals and people portraits that don't discuss the specific image, don't bother -- for those, there usually isn't much more to say than, "A male doohickey bird", but when I can say something specific about the image, I do. In this case, if I go with this caption, I guarantee you people will complain. howcheng {chat}20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. When I couldn't come up with anything that worked well, I brought it here and even did some research that was sorely lacking. Mgm is going to see what else he can find in the Dutch source page I found as well as in the JSTOR article. But still, how did nobody notice the glaring stitching errors in the file? Those by themselves should be enough to delist this. howcheng {chat}02:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image is indeed encyclopedic, and it must be able to fix these errors (any defects also appearing on the original image should not be changed), and technical errors on maps from this time are common. The map is interesting in so far as it shows several geographical misconceptions that were only corrected later: It shows southern Greenland and California as islands (neither of them are). The Californian example is well known from other maps, so the misconception must have been widespread. It shows a region of Canada as "Nova Dania" (New Denmark) a name I've never seen before although I'm both Danish and a history student. However, the name makes perfect sense as a Dano-Norwegian explorer around 1620, en:Jens Munk, led an expedition that tried to find a sea way to Asia but never made it further than the great bays of Canada. I just checked the English Wikipedia's article about him and it does indeed refer to him naming a territory "New Denmark". It also features the first names for Australia and Tasmania: respectively "New Holland" and "Van Diemen's Land". The lack of detail to some regions (e.g. Alaska and the Canadian North West) illustrate the imperfect European knowledge of the world during the Age of Englightenment. It also illustrates that the cartographer recognized that the Earth is round. Two isolated islands near the Equator are also interesting, as they could be an indication that Hawaii was known in Europe before the arrival of James Cook. The crown worn by Poseidon on the top left part of the image is an illustration of the heraldic concept of an "antique crown" which e.g. features in a few prominent coats of arms in Danish heraldry. It is also interesting how relatively accurate it is. Just a few noteworthy details that off the top of my head. ValentinianT / C20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of what you say may be true, but it's all original research by you. Cite references about this map or this mapmaker and what he knew or didn't know and the encyclopedicness goes way way up. Without references, it's all conjecture. howcheng {chat}21:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your post seems to be so far from WP:AGF, that I don't see any reason to contribute further to this thread, since I don't jump through hoops just to amuse others. All of this can be picked up quite readily from any half-decent book on the history of geography, and should be basic knowledge by any would-be student of history or geography. But here are a few hints just for the fun of it. Jens Munk: the Danish title of the book is "Efterretning af Navigationen og Reisen til det Nye Danmark af Styrmand Jens Munk" which means "Recollection of the Navigation and Travel to the New Denmark by Pilot Jens Munk". California: here is one tiny link, just for the amusement of it: [12]. You might also be interested in Island of California, Van Diemen's Land, and New Holland (Australia) which also seem appropriate, and the details about Australia are common knowledge in any decent book about the history of that country. The cartographer here might be completely irrelvant, but the thing the map shows aren't. If you can find another 17th century world map of a similar quality, be my guest. ValentinianT / C21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF directs me to assume that you are working towards betterment of the encyclopedia, which I believe you are doing, and I certainly didn't mean any offense, so please accept my apologies for not being clearer with my words. However, FPs are about the images and what they represent and how they are used in the articles. As it stands, this image isn't being used beyond an example of a world map from 1689. Being a Californian, I am well aware of the Island of California misconception, but you stated, "the misconception must have been widespread," which is conjecture. Similarly, you said two islands in the Pacific "could be an indication that Hawaii was known in Europe" -- again, conjecture. The "antique crown" concept -- how common was this? Is this included in many of Van Schagen's maps? These kinds of details are vital to determining the encyclopedicness of the map. I think accuracy and verifiability are Good Things, and I don't understand why anyone is opposed to my insisting on this information. howcheng {chat}21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we might have gotten our wires crossed. Apology accepted. The "island of California" is a very famous blunder in the history of cartography, for the singular reason that it lasted so long. The article about this misconception dates the blunder to c. 1510, the error was widespread for c. 200 years, and this map is a good illustration of it. The other maps on Island of California aren't bad either, but this map shows an entire world view, rather than a "local map". I have no information about the Ancient Crown in other works of this artist, as I don't know him, but the version of the crown shown here is not a bad image. Why European heraldists believed that crowns had looked this way a millennium earlier is beyond me, but it can also be seen in the British tradition of heraldry. See e.g. here. What characterises this shape is the rays and the absence of any pearls or precious stones. There is another definition of it here. On the other hand, I'll probably just pick a coat of arms of one of the three historical illegitimate branches of the Danish royal family (Danneskiold-Samsøe, Danneskiold-Laurvigen and Danneskiold-Løvendal) should I need an illustration for this symbol, as the crown features in all three insignia. The Hawaii observation is merely the impression this map gives me, but the History of Hawaii page mentions that indications for an early Spanish visit to Hawaii exist, although the first thoroughly documented European visit to the islands is James Cook in the 1770s. The latter event is well described since Cook was killed there.[13] The page here gives a little more information about this debate. I don't consider it much conjecture to notice that this map has two islands in roughly the right place, and that the map is relatively accurate in other areas. Regarding Munk, this Danish page agrees with the positioning of Dania Nova, and I'll probably do a crop of this image for an illustration of this region. But again, if you can find a better-quality map of the world according to a 17th century European, feel free. ValentinianT / C23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see what information about the source has to do with this been a FP. The map illustrates the geographic knowledge people of the time pocessed. As per Valentinia, a caption pointing out errors/accuracies could be derived from countless other sources. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason There are at least six significant labeling inaccuracies in the image. (Three sections of the spine mislabeled, the horse is indicated to have a collarbone and horses do not have a collarbone, the radius and ulna are identified as the right and left forelegs, the coffin bone is labeled as the "hoof", plus several significant points have no label at all.) The image quality is good, but the labeling is very misleading, to the extent that it provides false information. Several of the horse article editors can relabel the image correctly and are willing to do so, but it should not be featured in its current form.
Oppose Delist and request speedy closeMontanabw Requested I make changes to the diagram on the 30th of July, just one and a half days later he has requested a delist despite me telling him I would make changes later today. I realise the user feels passionately about the horse related articles however, this isn't text, one must allow a reasonable amount of time for an image to be edited. Especially when the master image is 7000 x 6000 pixels and 250mb in file size and not the most up to date version. Just opening the file is no small affair. I have however now corrected the errors which came about due to one of my original sources being less than scientifically accurate. The only shame is we made it through the FP noms without this coming to light. However, it has now been corrected, hence the request for speedy closure of what seems a somewhat pointless delist to me.WikipedianProlific(Talk)22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the image can now be kept as the major inaccuracies have been remedied (a few minor ones left, but as long as they are addressed, there should be no problem). However, the creator did initially suggest (see discussion on his talk page) that it might take "weeks" to fix the image, so I am pleased that a request for delisting got some prompt and appropriate action. The errors in the image only came to my attention when I was reviewing Skeletal system of the horse, a new article created July 27. Montanabw(talk)20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The randomized, or thermal, energy of particles such as atoms and molecules gives a substance its temperature. For ideal monatomic gases this means kinetic energy from translations. Here, the size of helium atoms relative to their spacing is shown to scale under 136 atmospheres of pressure. These room-temperature atoms have a certain, average speed (slowed down here two trillion fold). At any given instant however, a particular helium atom may be moving much faster than average while another may be nearly motionless. Five atoms are colored red to facilitate following their motions.
Reason
Image is not accurate. These atoms are represented as moving in a two dimensional square instead of in a three dimensional box. Because we live in a 3-D universe, this image can't be an accurate representation of what helium atoms do at room temperature and 136 atmospheres. In the real world, they could pass in front of and behind each other, and my suspicion is that the image misrepresents many things like Mean free path and Collision frequency because of this. It looks good but it's factually incorrect.
Keep Granted, we live in a 3-D universe but there is a dearth of 3-D computer monitors. Accordingly, concepts like the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution are best conveyed in 2-D. Clearly, atoms don’t live in 0.062-nm-thick windows; this much is just too obvious. The point of the animation is to demonstrate how random elastic collisions result—at any particular instant—with a certain portion of atoms moving quickly while others are moving slowly. To this extent, the animation engine is spot-on. It’s algorithm precisely recreates rebound kinetics of elastic collisions, and—if you tally all the velocities over time and plot them on a histogram—generates a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution bell curve. Greg L (my talk)03:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only for all the work that must have been put into so precisely simulating the subject. Also I find it fascinating that the atoms are so close to each other in a gas at only 136 atmospheres.. in other words it's a valuable image, and interesting image- not the best featured but still it deserved the original promotion. keep --frotht04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken your recommendation and read that article. As a model of elastic collisions and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, this is a fantastic animation worthy of featured article status. However, the caption describes it as a model of the translational motion of helium atoms at room temperature and 136 atm. To Froth and myself and lots of other people, that supposed correspondence to physical reality is the fascinating part of the animation, but the animation is not a good model of that situation. With a different caption reflecting what is actually being shown, I'd withdraw my delist nomination. Flying Jazz11:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a three-dimensional model might perhaps be more encyclopedic, there are a number of points against it. Firstly, it's my feeling that it would be far more difficult for the layman to follow, or even understand. The size of such an image would also be a factor - most simulations I've seen have been pretty hefty files. As I recall in the nomination of this image, even just anti-aliasing the particles shown would quadruple filesize. I do agree with the nominator that the model is incomplete, and worse, that it doesn't state its limitations either in the caption or on the description page. However, barring any proof to the contrary, I'll stick with my earlier Support vote, since I feel this is likely to be the best representation of temperature at this scale that we're going to see uploaded to Wikipedia. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 11:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a good point- we certainly need a good picture somewhere showing little balls bouncing around to demonstrate the idea of average motion making up temperature. And this is pretty much as good as that could get --frotht17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Accuracy first, above everything else. A pseudo-3D image could be made by drawing an outline of a cube, with the particles changing size and apparent motion to illustrate depth. I'm not saying such an image would be easy to make, but the filesize would be comparable and it would be decidedly more accurate. Matt Deres11:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's ever a proper way of doing this without resorting to a 2D projection, then I'd wholeheartedly agree, but there's no svg animation yet and gif wouldn't work since without the balls being textured (with a gradient perhaps instead of a solid color) there would be no illusion of depth- just balls getting bigger and smaller inside a projection of a cube --frotht17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on how detailed and realistic you wanted the animation. A GIF is essentially nothing more than a flipbook (though you can play with the filesize and other optimizations to a limited extent); if you want the particles to fade or darken, shrink or grow, you just need to draw them that way. When dots of differing shades and sizes passed over one another, there would be an illusion of depth. Even with keeping some particles red for demonstration purposes, you'd still be well within the 256 colour limit. I'm not sure if I've properly understood your objection, though. Matt Deres17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical background, from Greg L: Computers aren't infinitely fast and the broadband connections don’t have infinite bandwidth. Tradeoffs must necessarily be made in animations, otherwise their file size rapidly gets out of hand and file download times become bothersome. Doing a 3-D animation necessarily requires shading. Four bits per pixels looks like crap so once you head down that path, you really need at least eight. You’ll notice that the edges of the above balls don’t have anti-aliased edges. I purposely used only pure red, blue, black, and white in this animation so all the color content could be described using only two bits of data per pixel. Anti-aliasing the edges would have doubled or quadrupled the size of the file! This also explains why the five tracking balls are all red instead of a mix of colors: bigger file size. File size is especially important for the thermodynamic temperature article because it features three animations plus eleven other graphics. This animation has 371 frames, which is a lot. Doing so provides a nice long viewing period before it loops. In turn, this leads to another trade-off: frame rate. This animation runs near the edge of what is considered to be fluid motion: between 16.4 to 18.2 frames per second. This is the frame rate of Super 8 movie film. The interframe delay is set at 50 ms. All computers wait the required 50 ms while displaying a frame. After that wait, most computers devote between about 5 and 11 ms to actually process the next frame. This totals between 55 to 61 ms per frame (18.2 to 16.4 frames/second).
No one in their right mind could possibly think that a 2-D representation of this phenomenon is a perfectly accurate representation of what really occurs in 3-D, nor does any caption so suggest. And who would want to watch a 3-D animation for a period of time necessary to witness very many collisions? The real issue surrounding this vote shouldn’t be the technical limitations that pertain to all GIF-based animations; it should be whether constraining the animation to 2-D is a valid way to demonstrate the rebound kinetics of elastic collisions and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution bell curve. If you consider the mathematics of the issue, one can perfectly model the 3-D physics of rebound kinetics in 2-D (like steel balls in a pinball game). The bottom-line issue should be this: does the animation effectively demonstrate how, in perfectly random elastic collisions “a particular helium atom may be moving much faster than average while another may be nearly motionless.” Was there a serious flaw in this underlying premiss that warrants delisting? I don’t think there is any flaw in the premiss. Greg L (my talk)19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: The speed of the “helium atoms” is quite accurately represented as two-trillion times slower than at room temperature. The “disks with the radius of atoms” (they also happen to have color, which atoms don’t really have) move an average of 7.16 pixels per frame. Given that the atoms are 11 pixels in diameter and have an actual diameter of 62 pm, this is 40.3 pm of movement per frame. Notice that the speed is independent of size as displayed on any particular computer monitor; displayed diameter and displayed movement per frame scale proportionally. After going through all the frame-rate issues, this works out to beween 1.852 trillion and 2.055 trillion times slower than at room temperature. I think this is also part of what makes the animation interesting to me and others: seeing how quickly atoms move and knowing they really move two trillion times faster. Greg L (my talk)21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now with the dimensions of the interior of the square, you can calculate the surface pressure shown by the animation and report that in the caption instead of the incorrect 136 atm value. Flying Jazz13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the caption says "atoms" instead of "disks with the radius of atoms" and says "atmospheres" (a 3-D pressure) instead of "Newtons per meter" (or other 2-D units of pressure) then many people in their right mind will think this is an animation that depicts atoms at a certain number of atmospheres. The physics of elastic collisions can also be modeled in 1-D, and you can get Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curves that way too. But line segments bouncing into each other on a line are just as much not-atoms as disks bouncing into each other in a plane. Either the animation should be altered to match the caption or, if that is too technically difficult, the caption should be altered to match the current animation. Great animations (with proper units of pressure) of 1-D, 2-D, and really pretty 3-D situations can be made with the Java software at [14]. Flying Jazz21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the caption can easily be rewritten for clarity, but that's no reason to delist the picture. The whole complaint about 2D versus 3D is completely bogus. This is a teaching tool, not an accurate representation of reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-08-17 19:54Z
Takakkaw Falls with rainbow in mist.Edit 1 by Fir0002 - fixed cloning errors
Reason
Under current standards, this image is quite small at only 800x533 pixels. The image looks nice, but I don't really think it meets the requirements. If a similar, higher resolution image could be posted, that would be great.
Keep I probably wouldn't vote for it on a new FPC, but I don't think it should be deslisted based on the size alone. Otherwise it is a great photo. Cacophony05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "I wouldn't vote for it on a new FPC" means it's not up to current FP standards, which is why FP's get delisted? Additionally, it seems that new FPC's get oppose votes based solely (or primarily at the very least) on low resolution; the wording in the criteria sounds pretty strict too, and I wouldn't classify this as an exception to that rule (e.g. historical). If it were higher resolution, or if resolution weren't a deal-breaker, I'd definitely say keep it. --Peter04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a pretty lengthy discussion about this on the talk page awhile ago. Some argued that the standard should be "would it be promoted if it were nominated today". Others (myself included), don't really agree with that sentiment and think that images that were promoted a long time ago (when the standards were different) should have to fall considerably below the standards that exist today. Otherwise we are just going to rehash old points of contention over and over. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to vote to delist it just because it is a bit on the small size. Cacophony07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delist - Nevermind, I looked at it again and it is more than a bit too small. The cloning errors that Debivort pointed out are another problem. Cacophony07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per Debivort; that clone job is horrible. I bet it was beautiful to see, but the picture itself isn't that great. Matt Deres23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per debivort- nice spot! Also the resolution is pretty terrible. It probably deserved FP at the time it was nominated but can you honestly say this is one of wikipedia's best images? --frotht04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes nice spot for the cloning error, but with a little more skilled cloning it can be fixed. See my edit --Fir000210:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still weak delist but in any case replace with fir's edit. I still have problems with the image, especially the totally-black shadows on the trees in the foreground and a weird compression halo between rock and sky --frotht17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if Replaced. The picture, while a nice composition, is quite small. If it is kept, it should definitely be replaced with the edit. --NauticaShades01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis) at Mount Rainier National Park, July 2006. Taken at or near Panorama Point on the Skyline Trail.This image, by Diliff, is what a featured picture-quality photo of a squirrel should look like.File:Battle-of-the-Squirrels.pngZoomed at 200%, the differences become much clearer.
I've added another image as an example of what a featured picture of a squirrel SHOULD look like. Compare the details of the nominated image to Diliff's. The former looks as if it was smudged to remove noise, while the latter has a much clearer sharpness to it. The problem isn't that it's blurry, the image lacks detail. ♠ SG→Talk01:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist lack of focus and a somewhat un-illustrative pose do it for me. To end on a positive, I like that it is in its natural environment. Matt Deres23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very disappointing to again see that the creator of the image has not been notified of the delisting. Until this is done this nomination can not proceed further --Fir000208:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I nominated this photo and I still believe it's up to today's standards. And how can you delist such a cute animal? (BTW, I think we're getting very picky in Featured Pictures these days!)--Arad01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because we are becoming more stringent in our standards of quality, which is a good thing. Originally, we had a lack of images (most notably, quality images), so we had to lower our standards so as to not repeat the same POTD more than once per year. As our membership has grown, so has the volume of our content. I should also point out that technological advancements in photography have lead to the further general improvement of all new images. ♠ SG→Talk01:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist At first I wasn't sure what to think. It is a cute little squirrel after all, and the problems aren't so glaring. But I don't think this would pass if it had to go through a FP candidacy again. So delist. But can we wait until round 3 at least? I want to see how this battle shapes up! :) Jeff Dahl03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although David images are always the best in quality, I prefer the position of the squirrel in the first one. It shows more of the body. IMHO. Up to this day, I see it FP. I wouldn't give it strong support but it's still fine. Perhaps in a few years... --Arad04:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I really like this one... but at 1MP I think we can expect a bit more. The difference is obvious in the crops, but even that isn't entirely fair, since Diliff's has twice the resolution. thegreen J Are you green?00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Exceptions can be made to the 1000px size requirement if the image is unique, and I think this one is pretty unique. CillaИ ♦ XC02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IGNORE states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How would the quality of Wikipedia be degraded if this picture is no longer featured? Cacophony06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist A stunning composition, but just not enough detail. Storm clouds are not infrequent and they're often spectacular as a glance through the internet illustrates. Yes, this storm was a specific 'unique' event, but no more so than all the other unique storms that rage around the world. I understand Phoenix 15's arguments, but IMO we're going too far the other way - FPs should be the very, very best; maybe we need a "Good Picture" designation for pictures like this (and the ground squirrel above) so that we can recognize that they're above average pictures that are encyclopedic, but not quite at the very pinnacle of the picture material we have. 99.236.51.219 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that was me; I've removed the strikethrough Matt Deres13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not because of the resolution, but the technical quality is low, there are a lot of compression artifacts because of low file size, besides it looks like the buildings are leaning towards the center from both ends (lens distortion?) Atomsgive00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist again. The subject is impressive and the composition is good but the quality is just far too bad, I think (compare with with the quality of this cloud image, for example). Also, the image is not used to illustrate any particular storm or other event... --KFP (talk | contribs) 07:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. Puddyglum20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Esemono12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Esemono23:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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". Puddyglum16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! --mikaultalk10:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Lupo11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --mikaultalk16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?"
Hmm, I'd say keep. It is a really tough subject to shoot. I tried it a couple of months ago ([15], [16]) 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) --Dschwen00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 - talk10:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--HereToHelp22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --mikaultalk18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Malachirality23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Does not even appear in Meissner effect article (has not since June). The better photo Chick lists above is there instead. --Bridgecross20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great shot - I think the atmospherics add a lot to image which really is about cool and mysterious science! :) --Fir000211:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 :) --Fir000221:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fir on this one, that thing just feelsmystical mysterious - sadly I can't look past the technical flaws (that quality just isn't enough), so I must vote Delist --Mad TinmanTC23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On close inspection, this image is a composite of two images. Zoom into the bow on the swimsuit, it is obvious that the subject was originally against a white background, and the lie of the bow also suggests that she was not in an upright position. As a (poorly) photoshopped composite, I do not believe this image is of featured quality. Also, look closely at the background, it seem to be a composite in itself.
No, it isn't. The shadows round her back support the same conclusion. As indeed does a close inspection of the background itself. What I think we're seeing here is the keylighting, shadows, and some reflection onto the back of the shadowed parts from the light background against which the photograph was originally taken. The edges of the body, the lighting on the fine body hairs and various other details convince me that this is a composite. Finally, look carefuly at the cords of the swimsuit bow. They look as if they are falling to the left. I'd say this was taken lying on her side, to get the hair effects, and then turned through 90 degrees and slapped on a composite background image of a model or GCI. The waterfall effect is out of scale. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I finally read the original discussion. One editor felt the image was poorly Photoshopped; two others said they felt it was retouched skillfully. Agree that this is not a new discovery and certainly not an inherently disqualifying one.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the original debate as well. The photoshop comments were in passing and didn't gain much attention. Guy has done a better job of starting a discussion about the Photoshopping (I disagree on the exact points he is raising), and he is raising different Photoshopping concerns, so saying that it has already been discussed is missing the point. Carcharoth15:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - not for Guy's "Photoshopped" comment (I don't think the "bow on the swimsuit" is evidence of Photoshopping at all - though I am sure the photo was retouched in some photo editing software), but because the image has no encyclopedic value that sets it apart from similar images. I didn't take part in the original discussion. For the record, I would support a picture of a famous model, or a picture taken by a famous photographer. Wikidemo provided some examples earlier in another discussion. But this image is nothing more than an example of good photographic technique. For me, it doesn't have that extra factor of artistic or educational or historical value. Carcharoth14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As said above, all this has been discussed before in the original discussion.
Yes, it's almost certainly been retouched: it would be surprising if a glamour photograph wasn't.
No, I don't think it's a composite in the way suggested: the highlights around the bow and legs are completely consistent with natural backlighting, and matting from a white background would not look like that. If the highlights on the bow were created by poor matting of a foreground picture taken on a white background, it would be a sign of very poor retouching indeed, and this is just not consistent with the rest of the image (if the compositor can't get the bow right, how could they have done such a good job on the much more difficult hair?) It's also very unlikely that a compositor would deliberately add the appearance of highlights on fine leg and body hair to a glamour photo, just to perplex attempts at detecting retouching. As for the shadows and highlights on her skin; they are consistent with reflective fill lighting (take a look at her eyes; reflections in eyes are windows on a photograph's lighting environment). As for lying on her back: her hair appears to be blown by the wind, not arranged lying down flat, or hanging downwards (again, look at the highlights, with are consistent with backlighting). Artificial or real wind strong enough to do that to long hair is certainly strong enough to blow a bikini bow upwards. The backlighting of the waterfall is also consistent with the overall lighting. Even the visible Mach banding around the sun is consistent with quantization stepping from the reduction to 24-bit colour of a photograph taken on a very clear day with a digital camera (again, if I'd have been retouching the photo, I'd have dithered it away.) If it's a composite, it's a very, very good one, and would take way more effort than a typical glamour shot. Since Occam's Razor suggests that it isn't a composite, and I can't be bothered to do image forensics to find out, I think it's for real. -- The Anome15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a fine image, the composite nature is debatable, was discussed earlier, and would not be a disqualifier even if it were, and there is an important aspect of encyclopedic value; in the sense of value to the encyclopedia, not necessaarily any other encyclopedia, but a lot of value to this encyclopedia. That is that this is one of the first professionally taken, posed, and composed photographs to be released under a free license. Don't forget, that one of the goals of the Wikipedia is to make more content free as in speech; Jimbo Wales is adamant about that, and strongly encourages people to ask content owners to make their content free. Anyone remember when people were saying that professional quality photos would never be put under a free license? It wasn't that long ago, I've been here less than two years. This image is an important landmark towards that goal. That doesn't mean it should get any more play in articles. But it does mean it should get our Featured Picture marking, and, yes, display on our front page, all of which are similarly items of interest to this encyclopedia, not to any other encyclopedia. The Britannica wouldn't think this picture is anything special, because the Britannica isn't interested in making content free. We are. Also, the Britannica doesn't have featured pictures. Only we do. Featured status is a benefit to our contributors, who get a nice warm glow when their hard work is recognized. This is very valuable hard work that deserves that recognition. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree that this is not a composite (merely retouched slightly). But I can't find any previous discussion of this possibly being a composite image. As far I can tell, the previous discussion was only about retouching, not about the possibility of it being a composite. Before anyone else says "this has been discussed before", please quote from the previous discussion. Carcharoth16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, keep? This isn't a deletion debate, it's about whether the image is representative of the best images Wikipedia has to offer. No need to delete it, nobody's even suggesting that, but I think enough concern exists that we can'tr say with confidence that it is among the best images on Wikipedia, and that's what "featured image" means. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also like to quote what Guy said elsewhere: "POTD should be for pictures taken by Wikipedians, or from sources that routinely make their content available freely; it's a way of promoting the value of free content images and encouraging people to join the free content movement by making great images available freely, not a way for article subjects to get their article on the front page by releasing one or a very small number of carefully selected promotional images. The front page should be a showcase for what's best about Wikipedia, the rare promotional images uploaded by article subjects are not one of those things. It wouldn't matter if it was Kellogg's uploading a picture of a packet of corn flakes, it's not about the nature of the subject, it's about what I believe POTD and Wikipedia are about. This subject does not GFDL most images, is not a part of the free content movement, and is not a member of the Wikipedia community, so her image is not "our best work"." - I agree 100% with this. NASA and the Library of Congress are (hopefully) continuous sources of PD images. Selectively releasing GFDL is good for the free content movement in the short term, but may be harmful in the long term. Carcharoth15:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. Since when is it required for everything that someone does to be free content in order for them to be part of the free content movement? Linus Torvalds worked for commercial companies during much of the time he was developing Linux, and didn't release all of that work; would you have said he wasn't part of the free content movement? You and I and everyone here have day jobs, and except for the small percentage that actually do paying work for Wikipedia or Red Hat or something, we don't release all of our work, are we not part of the free content movement? All or nothing has never been what free content is about, and, frankly, is a terrible strategy in most fields.
As for this image specifically, nothing succeeds like success, and prominently displaying the fact that professional images can be released is an incredible benefit towards more content being released. Just speaking for myself, the fact that this high quality image was released is a direct cause of my asking for more images to be released. This image was uploaded on July 14, 2007. I noticed it soon afterwards. Before then, I had asked for a few images to be released, and usually been turned down; I had taken it as a given that no professionals would ever make their work free for anyone to use, and that even amateurs would be reluctant. I had thought I was doing pretty well by getting half a dozen images. Here is what my image page, where I put those images that I found and asked for free license release, looked like then. [17] It took me a year and a half to do that. The fact that Videmus Omnia could get such high quality images released under a free license was an incredible goad to me. Here is what it looks like now, 4 months later: User:AnonEMouse/Images. The main reason for that is User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and the "star" of that incredible archive is this image. My "success rate" getting has gone from about 45% to about 60%, and it isn't that I'm asking in a different way, it's that I'm asking much more, and am more confident that people will say "yes". I can only speak for myself with complete certainty, but have no doubt that making this image Featured is a huge benefit for the free content movement, short and long term. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at both those image galleries, and I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but your one is mostly poorly composited and poorly shot Flickr photos. Videmius Omnia's one has a preponderance of, shall we say "glamour photos", though they are of better quality than the Flickr ones. It's a good start, but nearly every single one of those pictures could be replaced by a better quality one at some point in the future. I'm firmly in the "images need to be of a high quality, and poor images makes Wikipedia look unprofessional" school of thought. A particular bugbear of mine is the "taken by a fan" pictures, which can be spotted a mile off, and is beginning to be the "hallmark" of Wikipedia's "quality". I do admit my bias though, because I'm used to seeing good photos as part of my everyday business. Moving on from that, I would be more impressed if you were getting the really difficult photos, such as the ones that are in "inaccessible places", that photographers pay time and money to travel to and photograph - remote regions of the world, for example, rare animals, underwater photos, or the ones taken with special techniques, like scanning electron micrographs (see here for an example), and X-rays (the Commons category for X-rays is painfully threadbare), stuff like that. E-mail those sort of photographers, and medical/scientific people, and try and get some free shots like that. Celebrity shots are far less encyclopedic than pictures like the ones I've just suggested. Carcharoth16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the brutal honesty. I know I'm not as good as he is, it says so right at the top of that page. I'm not even saying that most of his pics should be nominated for FP, if I was, I'd nominate them. But I am saying that having a Wikipedia:Featured picture from a request to a professional is a wonderful inspiration, the same way that reading the Wikipedia: Featured articles is a wonderful inspiration for people to write other articles. And please don't go through my list of other article contributions now and comment how terrible they are. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Carcharoth, thanks for the critique on the photo quality. I guess it would be better in these cases to have no photo at all, if we can't a photo that's absolutely perfect. Anyway, I would love to hear some tips from you on how to get some better photos to replace the existing ones. I know a lot of the photos are of the "glamour" type; for some reason, people whose livelihood depends on their appearance are far more likely to provide a photo in response to a request. Videmus OmniaTalk16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I guess it would be better in these cases to have no photo at all, if we can't a photo that's absolutely perfect" - we don't need an absolutely perfect picture. I just have higher standards for photos than most people - and that's not likely to change anytime soon. "for some reason, people whose livelihood depends on their appearance are far more likely to provide a photo in response to a request" - now why would that be, I wonder? Does that not make you stop and think? Carcharoth16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point that you believe the release of the images is self-promotional. I realize that as well, I'm not stupid. But the motive for donating the photo is irrelevant, from my perspective - if these people are notable and have biographical encyclopedia articles, then photos of them are encyclopedic. Your position seems contradictory - you only want high-quality photos of the article subjects, but the only way we're likely to get such is with a direct request to the individual concerned. Videmus OmniaTalk16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was looking in the wrong place on Commons. This and this are far more promising. Plus this. But my point about focusing effort on encyclopedic pictures remains. At the end of the day, a picture of a celebrity, no matter how beautiful, is not educational in the best sense of that word. Carcharoth16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "not a part of the free content movement" or "not a member of the Wikipedia community". They joined the moment they GFDL'd their pictures. We should be welcoming professional photographers who dip their toe in to the free content world as new members of both communities, not criticizing them for being insufficiently "pure". -- The Anome15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree, and would see nothing wrong with the "release one or two pics under a free license, but keep a tight exclusive copyright leash on the other pics" strategy, but Guy's points have got me reconsidering. Carcharoth16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not reasonable to expect someone who derives a large part of her income from images to give them away willy-nilly, even setting aside that she wouldn't own the copyright to most of them. Had this image been offered spontaneously, instead of in response to a Wikipedian's request, I'd be much more skeptical. —Cryptic16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"All or nothing has never been what free content is about, and, frankly, is a terrible strategy in most fields." - I agree (I'm flip-flopping with my opinion). I should probably go and strike out some of my comments above, but it's got confusing, so I'll hope that people read all the way down here. I'll leave Guy's comments in, unless he objects to me quoting them. Carcharoth16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not believe that this is a composite image, although as with all fashion/glamour pics, I'm sure it has been retouched. The white background that JzG refers to is merely the strong sunlight in the background. If this is a composite image, then the most tricky part lighting wise is the gap between her breast and her arm, and the lighting there looks realistic. The photo is obviously posed, and there is a fan blowing to accentuate her hair. But this is a very good photo of a notable person, which illustrates as much about the subject as other FPs. - hahnchen16:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain: (1) the strong, solid shadows visible between her back and the "sky"; (2) the fall of the string; (3) the out of scale water. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm undecided as to whether this is a featured-quality picture, but this delisting is invalid because the reasons given are simply not true. This is very likely not a composite picture and it definitely wasn't taken at one orientation and then rotated. First, the bow: as with the fine hairs, this is backlit producing a bright fringe - it's not the result of shooting against a white background. The lighting is unnatural not because of compositing but because a strong fill-flash has been used - that's par for the course in glamour photography and essential to achieve proper exposure of the subject when shooting directly into the sun. Also, the bow isn't "falling to the side" - it's being blown up and backwards, probably by a fan positioned out of shot to the bottom right in order to blow the model's hair out behind her. The idea that the photo was shot lying down and then rotated is ludicrous - the model's body shows no signs at all of resting on a flat surface (e.g. compression of shoulder or buttocks). --YFB¿17:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know a bit about fill flash, keylights and other photographic effects, though only at the amateur level. I studied photography for a couple of years, something which uniformly fails to show in the images I upload, sadly. However: the fall of the string is also wrong, and the solid shadow in the curve of the back does not square with genuine sunlight behind. If it was shot as-is, it was shot against a photographic backdrop, but actually I don't think it was. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The near part of her back is shadowed from the direct sun by the further-away part of her back. It's edge-on to the fill light, so it does not either pick up much light, or bounce much of it back (cosine law, both times). Compare, for example, the edges of her legs, which are similarly dark for the same reason. Since the specular fill light and sunlight are much brighter than the scattered light from the sky and reflected light from the rest of the scene, and the picture exposure has been chosen not to burn out the near-angle scattered light around the sun, this area is quite dark compared to the highlights, and thus the rest of the picture. The nearby highlights from the fill light make it look even darker.
As for "out-of-scale water", it's clear from [18] that the arched water feature is nearby, rather than a distant viaduct. Again, to make convincing sparkling CG water with the correct lighting is difficult: why bother, when you can go to a location with a nice private swimming pool?
I can't believe we're having this much discussion regarding this. A number of posters here have made clear arguments as to why the balance of probability is that this image was shot for real, and then retouched, rather than created as a composite. Guy, you're pretty much alone here in insisting that the image must be a composite. -- The Anome17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Guy, we're going to have to agree to disagree about the lighting - I know a bit about photography too and I can't see any aspect of this shot that rings false w.r.t lighting, except that it was obviously lit from the front as well as from behind. I really don't know what you're getting at with the water - if it was shot against a backdrop then the image on the backdrop must have been taken for real at some point (see the other shots in the original nomination - there are several different angles and the scale of the water is realistic for a cascade off a sharp-edged 'sluice'). The same with the string - it's obviously a real part of the garment so why would a retoucher bother to fake it? There's nothing about the way it's fallen that can't be explained by flash-frozen motion of the real thing in the blast of a fan. I agree with The Anome re: Occam's Razor. --YFB¿17:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bow is probably glued against her hip to hold it in place, and stiffened with glue to get the shape it has. It's a common technique for photography to get clothing to fall exactly as the photographer wants it. --Carnildo00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced that this is faked, though it seems likely. Question though: will this go on the main page? Wikipedia's not censored, but America is, and there could be a lot of problems (if not legally than reputation-wise, especially with schools) if we put her on the front page and people see "PORNOGRAPHY! OBJECTIFYING A WOMAN'S BODY!" and not "encyclopedic depiction of photographic techniques and good composition" as it actually is --ffroth17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't want the photo delisted, but I was a little surprised when this picture was selected to be featured, as it was my least favorite of the batch of Merkin photos. I guess my tastes must be a little different, or one of the other three would have been the winner. --Groggy DiceT | C04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on three counts: first, there's no way such a recently promoted FP need come up for delisting. Note to delisters: read the original nomination, look at the date, at the very least ask, "was this a borderline pass?" (over 3:1 in this case) and then nominate for delisting. Second, as well-established in the FPC debate, this is by far the best image we have to illustrate modern Glamour photography, so enc value is not in question. I agree that there is a general question mark over the value to the encyclopedia of images like the majority of those at User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images, per arguments above, but usage for this one is pretty good. Finally, I've assisted glamour photographers and can tell you that this is, without question, a perfectly standard and straightforward set up (blacklit, gold reflector and wind machine operated by assistant/s) with the usual facial retouching to get rid of reflections. A cursory glance at the alternatives on the FPC page shows that the backdrop is a real place, not something comped in afterwards. As someone pointed out earlier, there's just no point in creating all that extra work and expense. These are commercial images, shot for profit. Think about it. --mikaultalk08:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've looked over the original discussion, and it is indeed about 3:1 in favor of support. There were 11 opposes though (is this quite rare?), and quite a lot of discussion where at least four oppose votes were retracted or switched to neutral or support (the support votes were not questioned in the same way), so this wasn't as clear-cut as some people are making it out to be. Some of the support comments, while possibly tongue-in-cheek, don't really give reasons for supporting ("Wikipedia needs more Sexist Self-Promotion"; "It's maybe the best modern image of a living person in Wikipedia"; "[support] the one where here breasts are most visible ;-)"; "very very good subject"; "Obviously, a great picture"). Some of the oppose reasons are not great either, but the impression I get is of a controversial discussion where consensus is difficult to judge. This discussion alone shows that there is still discontent over it, and the fear that Wikipedia editors have a systematic bias on this subject is a very real one. So what should be done? A better structured discussion would be better in my opinion, moving the discussion away from subjective criteria and focusing on objective ones. Carcharoth12:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There'll always be discontent over this image in particluar, because it's featured picture which arouses (shall we say) a lot of emotional and political sentiment. We have FPs of dead people, people being operated on, animals with their guts hanging out etc etc, ALL of which are subject to a regular barrage of POV slagging and whining (IMO) when they take their turn as PoD. The way I see it, these more controversial FPs have even more "right" to their status in the encyclopedia than other FPs, as they have been subject to a particularly rigorous grilling from the community. In the end, thankfully, good sense prevails: we still don't censor our content, and long may that continue. In short, objectivity has already been established here (over 25 positive opinions in the original nom, once you exclude the "phwoarrr" votes) and here once again in this delist (it seems) all subjectivity and blinkered points of view have been definitively elbowed out. --mikaultalk18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses, let's not overreact to moral-based censorship by featuring more disturbing pictures just to spite their stupid anti-encyclopedicness. The standard is the same for pictures of fluffy bunnies as it is for naked, napalm'd little girls- they don't have even more right to be FP. --ffroth19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. The fact that they're subject to the same criteria says nothing about their relative merits. The way those criteria are invoked varies according to the image and, crucially, depends on weight of opinion. If the standard truly was the same for all, each candidate would attract the same degree of scrutiny, which is never the case. Whatever: calls for (yet) more opinion regarding this particular FP are misplaced, IMO. --mikaultalk23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, though I suppose it will do no good. The picture isn't porn and it isn't corporate propaganda. It is, however, not very good. The lighting of the background is poor, the pose of the model is awkward, the backlighting of the subject adds nothing and is distracting and annoying. I have never understood the fuss over this image one way or the other. It's cliched and mediocre. Chick Bowen23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, consensus here at FPC is traditionally a 2:1 majority, not 3:1 as stated above. On a raw vote count (which isn't how this place works), we're already there.
Concerns about the image being POV/sexist or with respect to the message it sends are effectively irrelevant, as images are generally only as POV as their captions and featured pictures are not politically correct (if someone can take a technically sound photo of a woman in a burqa, we'd entertain that as well). Concerns about enc value were adequately rebutted in the debate - the image is enc for Michele Merkin (as it depicts her doing her job) and as one of our better examples of glamour photography. There were no substantial technical issues raised. Despite the "cool, naked women" votes, I'd say it was a fairly routine promotion, taking into account the above reasoning which addresses or invalidates about half of the opposes.
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 or the closer's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
USS Iowa (BB-61) fires a full broadside of nine 16"/50 and six 5"/38 guns during a target exercise near Vieques Island, Puerto Rico ( 21° N 65° W). Note concussion effects on the water surface, and 16-inch gun barrels in varying degrees of recoil.
Reason
Image is moderately encyclopedic, but suffers numerous issues: entire picture is out of focus, burnt highlights throughout the explosions and waves, image has very strong contast (compare shadows to highlights on the deck), the edges of the explosions show strange artefacts (either film grain or compression artefacts), etc. This image, apparently taken on the same occasion, shows the boat in far more detail (although it does have its own issues, addressed its own FPC), and its not as if the image is unrepeatable (the US Navy carries out firing practice fairly often, so other images must exist). Laïka19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not the kind of subject you can set up in a portrait studio; the image has to be taken of a moving ship from a moving helicopter or plane, and have you seen how much a battleship recoils after firing its guns? As noted on another nom recently, any picture could in theory be better, but as it is, this image represents wikipedia's very best work, is highly encyclopedic, and is an awesome image visually. For me, the technical details are good enough. If a better image comes along, of course this can be replaced. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is a spectacular image. It fails on many technical fronts at full size, but the uniqueness of the angle and its thumbnail draw is great. Almost assured to raise interest in the article. An f8 and be there image, in my view. Cheers, Ryo14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep more than any other battleship photo of the 1980s this image captures the sheer power of the Iowa class. This is iconic: in every battleship book ever published this image has always been the flagship image for the reactivated Iowas. There is no reason to delist it; even my FPC nom didn't convey the information like this one does. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-22 20:17Z
keep Great image, wont get any more b/c of decommissioned iowas. i didn't even see the "grain" in the picture.
Kept MER-C04:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Doesn't it seem a bit too empty to the right now? I prefer the original to the current edit as the leaves help frame the arc - but maybe a crop would do the trick in removing the extra space. --Mad TinmanTC11:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably the edit is smoother without the leaves, but they really don't fuss me; would have supported either as the originally nominated version, but now that this one's featured it's fine. --jjron (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The map is divided in 3×3 sheets with the dimension 55x40 cm (height×width), each made from a separate woodcut block. The notes on the map in Latin were translated by Olaus himself into the Italian and German language. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus (Rome, 1555) is a much larger commentary on the map." - in other words, that's pretty much representative of the reality. Adam Cuerdentalk01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the bottom of the image, the border between the first and second blocks shows a blue background on the first block and none on the second block. This suggests that the lining up of images does not represent reality, and brings up concern that the blue background in the middle of the image also doesn't have to show. Enuja(talk)02:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. Though that a University would do such a bad job as this version implies if it was avoidable is frankly a little shocking. Could we contact them and ask about it? Adam Cuerdentalk16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the website, which has each panel separated, each of which has an extra margin, and tried a stitch of my own on the first two panels. The new stitch is completely consistent with the actual printed work but you can see there are no (non-original) alignment errors now (though probably could match the colors better). Doing the full image this way will require 12 such stitches, many of which will be more complicated than this simple AB stitch, and I don't think I will have the time to re-do the entire map. But it does show that the stitching really could be improved from the images of the individual panels given on the website. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If they were initially split apart then the stitch doesn't have to be perfect, or even good. This could be FP with a half inch gap between the pieces. --ffroth20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- top enc. This was unanimously supported just a year ago. Note that the coloring of the ice in panels 8 and 9 don't match - brown in 8, blue in 9. Could do wit some lightening/contrast boost, though. --Janke | Talk21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is to replace the numbered version with the named version, Image:BirdBeaks named.svg. On English wikipedia, images should use names rather than numbers; on commons the numbered version will remain for use in other languages.
Comment, as it stands we are using more than just the type of beak, but also the bird's name on beak. Just adding the name might not be the best idea--especially if we ever use a smaller thumbnail which will make the words too small. Although, I don't particularly care which is featured. grenグレン10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You make it sound like rotoscoping is trivial crap. The anim is used in several articles and illustrates something completely different from the original muybridge animation. --Dschwen05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought exactly the same thing. Not that I know much about rotoscoping, but to me that would indicate that it may not have been done all that well (maybe it would be nothing onerous to slow it down?). I actually prefer the other, newer version in the article, if we really wanted one for rotoscoping (see third image here). --jjron07:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that these sequences are very much slowed down from the actual speed of horse galloping; I just wanted to know if Janke used the version featured here at wikipedia to rotoscope, and if we could compare the rotoscoped animation with an animation at the same speed of the images used to make the animation. I haven't voted yet because the problem I have with the rotoscoped animation is that the horse's hooves appear to collide, and I wanted to compare and see if, at the same speed, the original that Janke used also make it look as if the hooves collide. If it is simply the speed, I will vote to keep this as a featured image, (with a suggestion to slow it down to better see what is going on) if it is that the hoof size has been increased, I will vote to delist it. If I can't tell, I will not vote. Enuja(talk)01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course hoof-size has been increase, just as hair-do-size, eye-size and snout-size. You might not have noticed that the Muybridge original is not having a smirky smile either. It's a cartoon for crying out loud. And there is a place for this in an encyclopedia too. Don't be ashamed of it! --Dschwen04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Enuja: It's not from the same series of Muybridge photos. I have three books by him, and this is rotoed from one of the dozens (maybe even hundreds) of horses in the books. The motion is accurately traced, but yes, as Dschwen says, there's a lot of exaggeration, in order to achieve the cartoony look. AFAIK, there are no other pure animated cartoons featured on Wikipedia - check Category:Wikipedia_featured_animations. The speed of my animation is in fact more natural than the other examples - just imagine the often heard clippety-clop gallop sound when watching, and you'll see! Furthermore, this cartoon illustrates the animation techniques of "looping", "shooting on twos", and persistence of vision, as explained in the relevant articles. (PS: "hooves colliding" is just a matter of the perspective/camera angle...) --Janke | Talk09:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & keep I made this to illustrate rotoscoping, animation and animated cartoon, not Muybridge per se. In fact, it isn't even in the Muybridge article! Animators have used Muybridges motion sequences as reference for a hundred years... Sure, the greyscale version is a bit smoother (except for an error in the hind legs), but it is not really a "cartoon". --Janke | Talk20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "It's just a rotoscoped version of the Edward Muybridge classic.. which is already featured" makes this seem like an attempt at copying Muybridge's animation, thus trivializing it. It isn't trivial and isn't used to illustrate Muybridge, per Janke. --Mad TinmanTC16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could someone point out the "Highly visible blurry stitchings"? In fact in the original promotion (less than a year ago) one voter even commented "This panorama is among the best stitching I have ever seen". --jjron (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note the nominator is an and/or. In other words the creator should be notified wherever possible, but for some images the creator may not be a Wikipedian (in which case you probably can't notify them), or they may have left the project, just as two possibilities - in these cases the nominator definitely should be notified. For some older images you may not reasonably be able to contact either, but that's not the case here. And as de Bivort says, it's really a matter of courtesy in the end anyway. --jjron (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit highlighting the stitching errors. I can see some, but not in all the areas you point out. As far as I can tell they only affect the greenery, with a little bit on the rocks in the 'major' area, but most are pretty insignificant. I wouldn't exactly call them highly visible, though a restitch may not hurt. I still lean towards keep. --jjron (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, for you who has trouble seeing the stitching errors, I've made one version highlighting some problem parts, the major one outlined even more.
Gosh, after looking at your highlighted version, I realized that I must not even know what a stitching error is. I guess I thought it was where images were joined to create a panoramic photograph, but now do you mean places where foliage is slightly blurry? It is windy in the bay. Anyway I voted below to keep until something better is found.Saudade711:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're so much stitching errors, as that some frames in the stitch are slightly more blurry than others. Although it's most visible in the foliage, it's also visible on the rocks too (so it's not just the wind). I had to view 200% to see it. (I haven't voted either way). —Pengo20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even with the version highlighting the 'highly visible stitching errors' I'm having a hard time seeing them - this is with it at full resolution where I'm only seeing 1/3 of the picture at at time on a 21" monitor. NYTheaterHistorian (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am having trouble seeing any kind of stitching errors even on the 200 inch projector that I was looking at when I saw the delist notice. In fact I cannot see them at all. This picture was also picture of the day a few months ago. It gotten a lot of praise from a lot of people. Miskatonic (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until Replacement is Found What's the point of delisting if nothing will take it's place? I'm sure there's some Bay Area Wikipedian who would be so kind as to take a higher resolution photo for us. --Sharkface21705:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stitching problems are very small, I couldn't find them until they were highlighted, and still had a hard time seeing them after they were. this is a very good picture. Clegs (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist On account of massive compression errors and low resolution. It is should not be possible for an image this size to be less than a MB. Compression Errors shown in white - jpeg block errors are colored linesTeque5 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a formality, really. I realise this is a recent promotion, but shorthly aftewards the photographer raised some issues with the colour balance of this, the promoted edit, leading to a lengthy discussion on the FPC talk page. The upshot is a pending re-submission with a compromise edit, so the current version needs to be delisted. For ref purposes, the image desciption talk page has all current uploaded versions.
Wait until next nom No need to jump the gun, wait until the improved nom and put the new nom as a replacement, it's been done before that way and it works better than delisting first. Cat-five - talk07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either preference to edit 1. I ran some minor noise reduction to clean up the image, I would support keeping the original even then. This is a great bird portrait. -Fcb981(talk:contribs)01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Shall we contact the creater/uploaders of the picture to tell them to make them bigger? How did these even get on the list when they did not fit the requirements in the first place? --¿Why1991ESP. | Sign Here04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking east along the Champs-Élysées from the top of the Arc de Triomphe, by MykReeve
Came across this while looking through the featured pictures and thought, even as a thumbnail, it didn't stand out as anything special. But the main problem has to be the resolution; surely a better quality picture can be taken of such a popular location.
No this isn't a joke delist, although at first glance it may seem so. This image is obviously technically and aesthetically extremely good. But I'm a little unsure as to the validity of the licensing, as Diliff apparently signed a waiver saying it wasn't going to be used for any commercial purpose (see here). Now my understanding of the licenses it is released under, is that commercial use is allowed - a bit of a delimma. I brought it up on Diliff's talk page a little while ago (here - response is here) however not that much as you can see came out of it so I thought I'd better bring it for general discussion. It'd be nice, as Dschwen suggested, to just let sleeping dogs lie but I don't think we can do that on Wikipedia for a Featured Picture. Anyway I hope I don't offend anyway, I just thought it needed to be brought up.
From: xxx@xxx
05/12/2006 11:23
To: info@basiliquenddm.org
Subject: Restrictions on photography inside the Basillica
To whom it may concern,
I am an amateur photographer who visited the Basillica in January 2006. I asked to take
photos with a tripod and was requested to sign a document that I believe prohibited me
from commercial use of the resulting photos. I had and have no intentions of selling the
photo, however, I was very pleased with the result of the photo and uploaded it to
Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. I uploaded it under a licence that states it is
my own personal work but it, or derivatives of it, can be used for any purpose. Therefore,
it has been pointed out that I may have broken the terms of the document that I signed.
Could you please confirm exactly what restrictions there are on my photograph and whether
you believe it should be removed from Wikipedia?
For the record, the article on the Basillica is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Montr%C3%A9al_Basilica
The photograph in question is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Notre-Dame_de_Montr%C3%A9al_Basilica_Jan_2006.jpg
Wikipedia is commited to ensuring that no laws and will be forced to remove the image if
it is determined that its use is in breach of the document I signed. That would be a
shame, but I understand your need to control commercial photography inside the Basillica.
Regards,
David
We'll see what their response is, if anything. The official site is a little amateur. The english link doesn't work at all so I stumbled my way to the contact page with my limited knowledge of French. Contactez-nous apparently! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that.. :-) Anyone can make it appear lighter than it actually was. Exposure is an easy thing to manipulate, but that doesn't make it more accurate. Lets face it, its probably ordinary photography to accompany an ordinary site. Hard to tell from the low resolution snippets though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until we get an answer back regarding the copyright status, I think it would be best to suspend this delisting. I'm worried this might take a while. Raven4x4x05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-sent the request for information in French as per Booksworm's translation. I did not hear back from them at all in response to my English email. I suspect that I will not hear back in French either, but I will wait and see. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave them a call. In a nutshell, you are free to take any photos with no licensing restrictions, UNLESS you use a tripod. In that case, you must sign a waiver declaring that the photo will not be used for commercial purposes. So, as much as it pains me, this photo has to be taken off Wikipedia. However, please try your luck at convincing them to allow this one photo to get an unrestricted license. This is too good a photo to delete. 67.71.77.16 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Oops, wasn't logged in. That was me. ♠ SG→Talk20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would, except that the photographer signed a waiver that essentially prevents them from doing so. Unless specific permission is granted for the release of the image under a free license, it's only usable for non-commercial purposes. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right but that sounds like a logical contradiction: "Public domain would be non-commercial and therefore OK, but they can't release it as public domain because they must make non-commercial use only" —Dgiestc00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update SG. Did you ask them why they aren't checking their email? ;-) I assumed that would be the party line. Its rather difficult to get them to allow this photo an unrestricted licence by phone. It would really have to be verifiable in some way. If they won't respond to my email, I don't know how else to get it. I suppose I could just claim I mistakenly admitted using a tripod and really it was shot hand-held. ;-) No wait, I was under duress! I'm kidding by the way. They have my signature on the waiver under lock and key in a vault somewhere no doubt. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how accessible the subject is to you...could you create another picture of this quality without a tripod? (I guess they figured that really good photographs like this require tripods).--HereToHelp14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you sponsor Diliff to go to France Canada again I think he will happily shoot another one. :-p But if you have read the image description page, it said This image was taken with a Canon 5D and 85mm f/1.8 lens @ f/13 for depth of field. Each exposure was 15 seconds.. Now I doubt anyone can hand held a camera 15 seconds without motion, so it will be quite impossible to recreate this image without tripod. --antilivedT | C | G22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time that we removed this image from wikipedia. We've certainly established that it's in copyright violation and it seems that we're waiting on approval to use it. Remove now, possibly approve and restore later, that's the way copyright works --frothTC06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get it straight, it is absolutely not a copyright violation! The copyright for the image is with the uploader. It is just(?) a licensing problem. Commons does not permit non-commercial licenses. The picture could be uploaded directly to en.WP, but still would have to be delisted from FP. --Dschwen13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed it from most of the pages it's on. The rest are just old archives where a redlink won't really hurt. Anyone who's a commons admin can now delete the image itself. Raven4x4x11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question they have just the restriction for tripods? then can't you create something list a quatropod, and use it instead? :) →AzaToth23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure that if this image were nominated today, it'd make it through the FPC process and gain the star. Its resolution is substandard and its depth of field seems a bit too shallow (the right and top edges of the collar itself are blurry, to say nothing of the rest of the image). It might just be an error introduced by the scan. It works OK as an illustration of the subject, but I'm not sure it's of feature quality. Given the wide availability of the object depicted, it just seems to me that we could do better. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. It may be worthwhile extending the deadline slightly on this image to give time for feedback on a new scan, if one is forthcoming. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I don't suppose you happen to have a higher-resolution version available for upload? That'd at least rectify one of the problems. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was scanned from a print; I think I may still have the print around, but I'd need to dig it up. I'm on vacation until January 2 or so; if I can find it, it'll be on the last day of voting. I suppose I can always resubmit it. grendel|khan14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delist, tight focus is artsy but not clearly illustrative of the subject. I've had qualms about this one for a while but never got around to listing it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until better picture suitable replacement is found <---- That really says it all. Although I agree that this picture is technically flawed, the picture does have a good encyclopedic value. I propose that we keep it until a suitable replacement can be found (which shouldn't be too hard, actually). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not deleting it. The picture will go on contributing whatever encyclopedic value it can just as it always has. We're just recognizing as you have that it's flawed and shouldn't be presented as our best work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because the author was not informed, the only reason is the size, otherwise a very good photo. I though we were over this, as there was another nomination, based only on size that failed. Until we don't get a response from the creator, we don't have to remove this image from FP statue. --Arad04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that as a matter of courtesy it would be nice if the nominator/creator were warned however most nominations go through delisting without notifying the person so it's not really needed though it would be nice. Cat-five - talk11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To nominator: Please inform the author of the nomination and ask him, if possible, to provide a higher resolution.
Delist on size and quality grounds, the size is way too low and the blown out lighting are an issue though I can live with the cutoff of part of the building. Cat-five - talk11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted - I asked the photographer, ChrisO, for a higher res version on the 4th of December but he hasn't replied yet. If he can provide a larger image it can always be nominated again. Raven4x4x06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the asymmetry in promoting vs delisting images - not meeting all current criteria is not sufficient for a delist. At least that's how I've interpreted the delist discussions for a while now. Debivort19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the penny that's January 2nd's POTD2005 uncirculated edition (from the same source) for comparison. detail, blue indicates areas that are absolute black - clear evidence of filling with the paint bucket tool in Photoshop (not to mention some tolerable JPG compression squares). The same effect is visible on the other side with the copper color area
Reason
There was wide opposition to another coin because it featured the same cameo effect. I just wanted to revisit the issue to try to get more discussion on this.
Emphatic delist - the photoshopping of this example is particularly blatant, and the "light side" of the background is almost white - even the shiniest pennies don't really look like that. Debivort06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modern U.S. proof coins are often treated with chemicals to make certain parts of the design take on a frosted appearance, and the fields taking on a mirror finish. Several other methods have been used in the past to achieve this effect, including sand blasting the dies, and matte proofs. Also see cameo. You're simply stating that it was photoshopped as if that's without question a bad thing, however the whole purpose of this nom was to establish whether in fact it is a bad thing. --frothTC07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the first part of your comment has to do with mine. I am not objecting to the "frosted" parts - I'm objecting to the background that has been simply filled using the bucket tool in photoshop. Blatant photoshopping of an image like this is bad because it makes the coin look shinier than it is in real life. Debivort09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not very familiar with coins, are you? Search google images for words like deep OR ultra cameo proof. Simply stating that something is photoshopped doesn't make it true. It may be a drawing, though, but the effect that is shown is very real. Of course pennies in circulation will not exhibit this effect very well, because they are not the best of the best and/or have not had special chemical treatment. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-02 13:58Z
I may not be "very familiar with coins" but I am utterly familiar with the conversations we've had about these cameo images on the FPC pages before. Go ahead and look at your google image hits from deep cameo or whatever - in none of them will you see the even half light/half dark field with the cute little gradient separating the halves. This is fake - it is done habitually by the US Mint for their publicity shots. Look at the inset. The blue parts are absolute black - this pattern only results from filling with the paint bucket in Photoshop, and therefore reflects (har har) a decrease in the encyclopedicity of the image because it makes it look much shinier than if it had simply been photographed and left unmanipulated. Debivort09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an added note to the above two comments, proof coins frequently look like this, in real life and in coinage publications. The appearance of this particular penny is not rare and many coins issued proof look like this when photographed. Proof coins are struck multiple times to create deep relief between the features and the field of the coin, after they're struck they're thoroughly polished to create the shine exhibited. It doesn't really matter to me if the coin is delisted as a featured image, but opposers should consider the overall quality of the image rather than support delisting just because it "looks fake" Stratosphere(UT)23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the google image hits now, and in previous nominations. Please, if there are undoctored photos that have this half light/half dark field, show me a link! Debivort09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've changed my lackadaisical "delist" to a comment for the objections offered above, but I stand by my call for the following reasons: 1. I am under the impression that this image was heavily photoshopped, which alone is a reason for delisting. Even unphotoshopped images that "look photoshopped" should not be featured. 2. In particular, the blurriness of the black-white transitions smack of manual blurring. 3. Not trusting my first instincts I went to the source of the image and downloaded both proof and uncirculated of the 2006 Benjamin Franklin "Founding Father" Silver Dollar and superimposed them in Photoshop (set the top image to 50% opacity and invert it). The rims of the coins are digitally identical and with some shifting and rotating I can find other elements that are digitally identical. So I conclude that both versions are digitally created from elements of the same original photgraph. 4. While it is possible that the coin was prepared mechanically and chemically to create the photo, it's questionable that this is still done today when a similar effect can be created in 30 minutes on a computer. And finally 5. Images of this type are – literally – a dime a dozen and a penny to the pound, so I don't think that even if it is an unphotoshopped original it can be considered among the best. ~ trialsanderrors04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep There's no reason a new penny in the right light couldn't look as good as this. A photographer with talent will USE lighting to make something look better. The whole industry of product photography is based on making some toy or product look wonderful so that you will buy it. Most models and movie stars have the same done with publicity shots. -- Mactographer19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Two Cents:--P.S. Photoshop is here to stay. It's gonna be used. It's a reality we all have to live with every day. We ain't going back to using buggy whips and horses. Same for the old photo methods.Mactographer06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Fir; delisting these simply because of the cameo effect doesn't seem necessary. I will agree that an identical image without the cameo effect is more realistic, and therefore better, but I don't see why all these otherwise good images have to be delisted. --Tewy03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot promote an image to featured status if it doesn't meet size requirements. But failing to meet current size requirements is not necessarily a reason to delist every featured picture that's below the limit. As I said below, if a nearly identical or better image of the coin without the cameo is promoted, I will vote delist on the current featured cameo coin. The current nomination for the non-cameo penny does not have a chance at becoming featured, so it will not replace this image, and I therefore see no reason to delist this otherwise exceptional image at this time. --Tewy21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My policy on these is that I support keeping the current FPs, unless a non-cameo version is promoted as a replacement. --Tewy05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the proof coin shows the motive best due to its clarity. It is free of any individual coin features, it is an archetype. That actually helps enc. If you want to show a real coin, use one from circulation, that has its merits too. --Dschwen21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin image are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal per the issue raised here?--293.xx.xxx.xx22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different cases. As for the lincon cent, I had the discussion with User:trialsanderrorshere, and I think (as he didn't object anymore (maybe I just wore him down :-) )) that this particulat coin is in the PD. --Dschwen23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see anything special in this picture. Just look at the graininess. This completely destroys the image for me. And these sort of clouds aren't that rare either.
Delist - The original delist nomination was largely for failing size standards, at which time the image was updated with this larger version. While I think this image has decent encyclopedic value in articles on cloud formations, the overall poor focus ruins it. Mackerel clouds are supposed to show sharper boundaries so they need to be in focus. —Dgiestc16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The focus should be on the city and not on the clouds. Even if the focus was on the clouds they don't seem very attractive. Why1991 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A very beautiful image but in no way meets the size requirements, which is a very vital requirement when promoting images. And the detail that can be seen isn't very good. Looks grainy. — Arjun03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I did the cropping and rotating of the tiff version but it needs some serious manual clean-up, so I would like to hear whether size is the only problem here or whether it might be delisted on other grounds. ~ trialsanderrors19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the condition that it be made bigger otherwise Delist. Why1991 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delist due to size, also seems somewhat blurry and out-of-focus. If a larger version will be uploaded I suggest creating a new nomination, but I doubt it will pass. Michaelas10(Talk)10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Size is not a feature of the original image, but of the edited copy here. There is a much larger copy available at the LoC website (see link above) that requires editing. ~ trialsanderrors19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the image should then be replaced with a higher resolution version. But there is no reason to delist this one while we are waiting. Spebudmak19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is an historical photograph, so why do any manual editing to the archival, source version, other than the rotation? The edges of the version at the link above are interesting to see, given the color process that was used. We promoted the new scan of in the same way.Spebudmak20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delistkeep - made in 1915. Debivort 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) since it seems to illustrate Sochi rather than the photographic technique, the fact that it was taken in 1915 doesn't matter. Debivort19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because of size. I doubt it can be made much better from the originals. Also there is not much historical value since the place looks probably the same now as it looked back in 1915, and we have better images from Prokudin-Gorskii. --Bernard11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to say I'm pretty disappointed at how poor the quality of voting on FPC has become. I do hope the delisters have taken the time to find out that this is one of the earliest colour photographs ever taken (alternatively, this picture is really bad quality and ought to be delisted too). I should also point out that some blurring/colour registration problems are a necessary side effect of Prokudin-Gorskii's technique. As trialsanderrors points out, a larger size scan is available - I looked at tackling it myself a couple of years ago (after all I did find and clean up the featured pictures for Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange and Lewis Hine). In this case I doubt that you would end up with anything much better than we have got at the moment. It would probably be wiser to spend the time cleaning up one of Prokudin-Gorskii's other photographs (check the Commons link - there are plenty), or properly determining which of his images is actually the earliest available. -- Solipsist18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prokudin-Gorskii, while certainly a pioneer, was hardly among the first to take color photographs. There is also a good handful of images that were professionally restored by the Library of Congress, so if we want to depict P-G images in an "idealized" state we should take those. This picture here I would describe as "approximated original" state, in that it probably comes close to showing how the image was seen by contemporaries. The version I created would be a representation in the "current" state, including all damages that occurred over time. There are good reasons to feature one of each type, and I'm inclined to say that this would be a good representation for current state. The restoration, while pretty well done, doesn't match the efforts of the LoC. ~ trialsanderrors21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he wasn't the first, but he was pretty much the first to do colour photography to a standard that you would say "that's a realistic picture". With respect to the professionally restored versions, it is interesting that they concentrate on the Alim Khan photo. This would be my first choice to represent P-G, its long been a featured picture on Commons and largely the image that made me decide it wasn't worth devoting much effort to trying to improve the quality of this one. Mind you, it look like there is an effort underway on Commons to delete all P-G photos for copyright reasons - which is a good example of why it would be foolish to devote much effort to improving or changing any of these photos. -- Solipsist21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a pioneering effort, but I doubt that his first image is more encyclopedically notable than his best image. Thanks for the notifier about the P-G deletion discussion. I posted my comment there. ~ trialsanderrors23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for now, without prejudice against renomination. Size is a problem, restoration quality is a minor problem (meaning it's a careful but not featured quality restoration), subject matter is a problem. All of those problems can be overcome with some effort, and I believe the image can be FP quality encyclopedic for the nuanced color gradation. Also, the image should be put into context so that readers who click through recognize its historic value. The discussion above is indicative that in its current state the message doesn't come across, and it seems like nobody is willing to put the effort into bringing this image up to speed. Maybe if I get a chance I'll do it later. ~ trialsanderrors23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The size is ok but this picture doesn't really tell me very much about the city of Sochi, only that it is located close to some large body of water. I would vote to keep this as a featured picture if it were used in an article related to the history of photography. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full height photograph of women dressed as maiko (geisha apprentices), Kyoto, Japan. They are wearing traditional kimono and geta. They are tourists and wearing cheap, fake kimono
Delist I personally dislike this image as first of it is too small and secondly they aren't real geisha, which take encyclopedic value away from the image. — Arjun15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Fails WP:WIAFP criteria 2, 3 (in my opinion), and 5 (considering the many other images on each page, it is not particularly important to either Kimono nor Geisha in a way the other included images are not). -- Kicking22201:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per all above. Why1991 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delist. I think it's still encyclopedic, showing what maiko (apprentice geisha) look like, but this is too much of a snapshot. howcheng {chat}20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I actually replaced this photo in every article it appeared in, with the new one. But then I felt it was not seemly to nominate it for removal myself. There is nothing wrong with having 2 FPs of the same subject (like hovery-flies or whatever they are) but the old one just doesn't meet our current standards. --Bridgecross14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the quality of the other picture is far better, IMO this one has a better composition, specially the sky. --Arad22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can perfectly put this back into, say, the Illinois article. No reason to have the same panorama in every Chicago-related article. The other one might win on technical merit, but this one wins on artistic impression. ~ trialsanderrors05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we can use different skyline photos for various articles, and this is a nice photo. But if this were newly nominated today, folks would jump all over the out-of-focus buildings and dark lighting and other problems. --Bridgecross16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm certainly exhibiting status quo bias here. Also see the Long Beach image above. This one is leaps and bounds better than that one. ~ trialsanderrors21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that's not a jpg converted into a png. But you seem to consider compression artifacts a positive feature, judging from your responses. ~ trialsanderrors16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the case at all, but I think too much focus has been placed on JPG artifacts when they only noticeable at full size and then only at the edges of structures. howcheng {chat}17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I think using alternate images on various pages is a great idea. Having several available shots for users to access on different pages adds meaningful content. However, this is a list for Featured Pictures and if images are grainy or if there are other better images available they should be used (e.g. several different pictures of the Lincoln penny)Buphoff03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting to delist this image as a featured pictures mostly due to size and depth of field issues. It also seems somewhat grainy and blurred. Michaelas10(Talk)11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this is much worse than that one, but compare this image with this or some other images of the same subject at Flickr (example search). I think featured pictures should be exceptional in some way. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact, this is very close to democracy......and the "consensus" is executed a bit arbitrarily too (but that's just my opinion). -Wutschwlllm20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: The other one was kept because it "fits size requirements", which seems a bit arbitrary to me, especially since it looks like a panorama. -Wutschwlllm13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one wasn't about size. The oldest voters on FPC voted to keep it because it had a superior composition and atmosphere and the best of it's subject we have. --Arad22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PNG version for delistingSVG version for replacement
Reason
Replacement nomination for SVG version: Image:Euro Construction.svg. I'd just swap it out myself, but it isn't exactly the same, so I thought it better to bring it to the community.
Replace - easier to read in the thumb. Only, can I suggest a few changes? Could the commas be changed to fullstops, could you reinstate the small embedded explainations, and could you please show the angle of the lines J, H and E? Jack · talk · 19:46, Tuesday, 6 February 2007
I didn't make it myself. Apparently, the commas are being used because it's the international system used in Europe (according to the creator, Commons:User:F l a n k e r). The text that was removed is now in the image description page. howcheng {chat}19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll stick with my vote, suggestion-free - Jack · talk · 04:42, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Oppose replace unless it is changed back to American/UK/AU decimals (this is an English encyclopedia). I also think some of the explanations were nice in the PNG and the proportions of letter size to the symbol... grenグレン00:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The file is from Wikimedia Commons, meaning it is used across all language versions. The image has no distinguishing features that make it specific to the English language, only those that use the Latin alphabet, as most European countries do - Jack · talk · 04:42, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
This photograph shows both sides of the printed circuit board inside a typical USB flash drive (circa 2004), in this case an inexpensive 64 Mbyte USB2.0 device.Edit 1 - image cropped, border colour changed, bigger labels
Reason
I feel this is an informative image, but unattractive, and possibly outdated. Since everyone has at least one USB flash drive nowadays, I'm sure the image would be of no trouble to take again with much better conditions. With the border removed, the images are each - and combined - way less than 1000px. My main reasons for delisting are the ugly border and low resolution, and the possiblity that a (now obsolete) 64 Mbyte drive has slightly different internals to the modern standards.
Delist — Jack · talk · 19:39, Wednesday, 7 February 2007
keep pending replacement, the resolution is sufficient, I can make out all the traces and the components. Resolution is a detail issue, but I'm not missing any details on this. The border should be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created edit 1, which I believe is superior, but still far short of what I wanted. We need to photo to be retaken. The edit now takes it under the size requirements, as I said it would - Jack · talk · 16:55, Thursday, 8 February 2007
Woah, just realised mine has serious artifacts. Not sure why, but this means the original is actually way better than mine Jack · talk · 16:59, Thursday, 8 February 2007
Delist All The background fusing of the edit looks bad and there are the artifacts. Mainly, for a subject such as this we really need the picture to be outstanding to make FP. This one is simpily unprofesional, tilted, and has a ugly (off pinkish white) background -Fcb98107:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - froth, that's actually not true - I have two (different) 3-month-old 1GB flash drives which are essentially identical internally to the one illustrated. --YFB¿00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak neutral Your points: 1) background/border: agree 2) resolution: mostly disagree (could be better but on a simple image like this you don't lose too much...) 3) Obsolete?: disagree, technologically it may be less useful but it is still just as representative as a newer one. grenグレン01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delist - It's encylopaedic and doesn't strike me as horribly bad, but it wouldn't be difficult to get a much better shot. I might take one myself if I can dig out my defunct 128MB version. --YFB¿00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice photo, but I feel this picture doesn't meet the standards of today's featured pictures. It was promoted to FP in 2004, but probably would not make FP if nominated today.
comment - It's not terrible technically. It was shot at the South Pole, which earns it points for rarity of the shot, but the phenomenon it illustrates, light halos, seems to be fairly ubiquitous. I wish it illustrated something having to do with the south pole. Debivort08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all the comments? This is supposed to close tomorrow, and we're not going to be able to make a decision unless we have some more input. Raven4x4x04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the decision would be to keep, right? The current state is preserved unless a consensus is reached to change it, just as a FPC isn't promoted unless it gets at least 4 votes. Debivort19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with edited version. I agree with Debivort in that it's too bad it doesn't illustrate something South Pole-related, but it does show a halo pretty well and artistically, the angle works well for this shot. howcheng {chat}06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, for now. See the original nom again - Fir's comment at the time indicates that there might have been a larger image previously, but I can't find any history... tiZom(2¢)01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very encyclopedic, no technical flaws, really. Just because it doesn't meet our current size guideline doesn't mean it should be delisted. The FP Criteria says "Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported...", it doesn't say they must be 1000 pixels in either dimension. Joe D06:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist If the image is not reproducable then the 1000pixels minimum can be ignored, but in this is no such case. We've been very strict on the 1000 pixel minimum for more important subjects, why relax the requirement for this.
Strong delist, I really like this photo, but it's something that is completely replicable so I don't think we can really justify keeping such a low resolution version (unlike with the buffaloes). grenグレン09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - composition, sharpness and noise aren't great; there's not much in the way of context (where does this fit into the wasp? how big is it? what sort of wasp? etc.) and the size is too low compared to the best of our insect photos. --YFB¿03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delist is it actually easy to replicate this? I don't know how hard it is to catch a wasp and get it to drip out venom. that said, the image quality is probably too low for FP. Debivort00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did not know about these previous failed attempts to delist! I'm very surprised to see it has managed to stay for this long, but nevertheless, there is obviously support for the pic. We had best make sure then that this nom is given its full run so as to not appear to have "rushed it through". Wittylama19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is the third time this image has been nominated for delist. Looks like people opinion had changed at last. --Arad15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails resolution "guideline", out of focus or blurry in places (motion?), flash reflection off eyes. Sorry, Fir, but you've had better pics (I still love the focus bracket one). --HereToHelp01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say I cant tell if this is a hole in the ground a notch in a vertical clif or the roof of a cave. -Fcb98121:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hole in the ground because of the position of the egg sac (I don't think mommy is holding it up with a her rear against gravity). And technical flaws are only trivial if the subject is irreplaceable; there are more wolf spiders out there.--HereToHelp23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bagginz still has a good point. Not every image is going to be used at high resolution so why delist images solely on that ground? It's still encyclopedic, interesting and composed. - Mgm|(talk)12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eeeeeeeeyup, and don't feel you have to whisper it. I suppose as a long time reader of this page, I jump in to vote Keep because I get mildly annoyed with technical nitpicking on worthy and deservedly recognized contributions.
Still, since we're in the mood to check up on what people have been up to, I have a question for HereToHelp. Given that the creator of the photo in question, Fir0002, is easily one the most respected and honored contributors to this forum, don't you think that he deserves the courtesy, and you the obligation, of your mention on his talk page that you've nominated his picture for delisting? --Bagginz06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the the talk page note (no, I don't dispute the quality of Fir's contributions), I suspected that he would browse the page enough to find this (or does he browse this section as often?). If you like, seeing as he has not commented here, and I can still post a note.--HereToHelp23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured nearly 2 years ago and more than likely wouldn't pass now. It's not compelling, poor image quality, not particluarly large and odd composition (given that the fountain is not part of the monument).
Keepmore on principle than anything else that by that logic pretty much every nomination over x days months or years old should be delisted. Cat-five - talk 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Because nobody has given a satisfactory reason why this should be delisted and thus it should stay. Cat-five - talk19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing on principle because you disagree with Witty lama's multiple delist nominations is WP:POINT - please consider the image against today's WP:FP? criteria. --YFB¿03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did Not list it here because it was featured a long time ago. I listed it here, along with the others, becasue it would not, IMHO, stand up to the FPnomination process as it currently stands. All the FPs that I've listed here have achieved "consensus delist" so far, I'm not "out to get" old FPs. WittyLama11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it still sounds like WP:POINT except you're using a more plausible reason as a front for your previously expressed beliefs. I think Witty lama did provide a perfectly reasonable reason for delisting though. Not that it should be reason alone to delist but the image is also poorly named and is saved with an inappropriate format for a photo. It just compounds the already mentioned issues to me. Nothing about it shouts FP so why should it remain FP? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist - Strange composition, tilt, lack of detail, noise, poor lighting, easily replaceable with a better image. --YFB¿03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, I hope this reason will be good enough for Cat-five. It's an object still standing so this image doesn't represent any scarcity. The quality is decent but if you look at current nominations you will see that this is very blurred, showing little detail compared to what better cameras can do. grenグレン04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image meets all FP criteria and adds considerably to article. As per Yummi's concerns, see discussion from when picture was originally selected. The tilt is right on at 90 degrees the lighting was perfect, and you can't get much more detail of this monument. --ScottyBoy900Q03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the illusion of tilt is caused by the slightly off-centre composition combined with the upward viewing angle; the base of the monument is clearly tilted and I think the column just happens to line up due to the perspective effect of having the camera slightly off-centre. The apparent tilt was only one of the many reasons why this picture is nowhere near the best of Wikipedia's images. The lighting is dull (the original image was underexposed on an apparently dull day), there's severe over-use of post-processing which has brought out 'haloed' edges, there's motion blur on the trees, there's loads of colour noise (exacerbated by the processing) and, seen alongside many of our other architectural FPs (particularly those by Diliff) the assertion that you "can't get much more detail of this monument" is... well, I'll be polite and say "highly dubious". You can't even see the inscription on the base. --YFB¿04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't give a sense of scale. That's not the point of a closeup. I'm not going to respond to the "too small" comment in detail so I can force myself to remain civil. Let's just it's really ticking me off. - Mgm|(talk)09:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, can you elaborate? This is a good faith nomination and an uncontroversial one IMO. I'm surprised to see that someone would be "ticked off" by this. If you believe this should remain an FP please say so. WittyLama10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the more unusual and weirdly compelling FPs. This time, size doesn't matter, but I do wish those things would stop looking at me. --Bagginz04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Bagginz: why does size really matter that much? This is simply an interesting image. I think that unless you want to volunteer to go and take a better, higher resolution copy you should keep this one. --Vaelta17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason size is important is that Wikipedia isn't intended only for online use. Our images should be of a high enough resolution to make decent copies in a printed version of the encyclopaedia - even assuming a print resolution of 200dpi, which is a bit on the low side (usually the standard is 300dpi), you'd be lucky to turn this into a 3"x3" print. Since it's an easily-replaceable image, it is fair to expect high resolution (at least the minimum 1000px). Also, I should point out that past discussions have led to a consensus that go take a better one is not a valid reason for a Support or Keep vote. --YFB¿18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's always good to ask the original uploader if they have a larger version, rather than [21]. Question: Has any effort been made to replace this image with a Free one from flickr et al.? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been heavily doctored by Photoshopping. Not only does it not feature the player it's supposed to feature, it's flipped left-right from its correct orientation. The pitcher shown is a left-handed pitcher, not a right-handed one. The jersey numbers have been Photoshopped to complete the deception. These are not the qualities I expect from a featured photo.
I don't much care since I have a few newer, higher res photos I've been meaning to stitch together of the same scene. However, I do have a higher res version of this image that I could upload if wanted. --mav16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why a good (though small) picture such as this receiving no complaints for its nom of "too small" whereas comments on recent nominations and this debate seem to show that people want to give the benifit of the doubt to smaller existing FPs. I just don't understand what rules we're playing by are anymore.... WittyLama22:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing exactly which other noms you have in mind, it could just reflect who has voted and who hasn't yet... Some people care a lot about size as a sufficient reason to delist, some don't? Debivort17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not gonna be a larger version if no one informs the photographer of the nomination. I've contacted the photographer. No one bothered with that yet and not doing so violates delisting procedure. - Mgm|(talk)08:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It fulfilled the criteria when it was promoted We shouldn't delist an image just because the criteria changed. - Mgm|(talk)08:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, hold on there... what's that!? I know that we have different approaches to delisting when it comes to older FPs, but ignoring changes to FP stringency all toghether? That's going too far surely! Doesn't the first line of the instructions say: "Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standard"? Wouldn't your comment imply that the only way to delist an FP was if it was errantly promoted in the first place? WittyLama09:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Identical location under different weather conditions - Fog reduces visibility
Reason
No longer appears at any article, small image size, uninspiring composition and location, other pictures of fog describe the phenomenon better (e.g. here).
Weak something - i.e. comment - I don't know about this one yet. Actually seems better than all the other fog pictures in that article because the varying depths of the trees convey well the density of the fog. A side by side is very useful in this case, but the size is pretty pathetic. Debivort22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, C'mon people, express yourselves! I genuinely do not understand how this one is even given the time of day! It fails so many of the criteria - namely No. 1, 2, 3, 5 (because it's no longer in an article) and 7. If this one gets to stay an FP simply because it already is one, then I give up. WittyLama11:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor image quality (noise, fringing, artifacts), uninspiring composition. Looks like any number of other point-and-shoot zoo snapshots. Not terrible by any means, and reasonably enc, but not featured-quality any more.
Note - this image is scheduled to be POTD on May 26th (5 days' time). I'm going to ask Howcheng if it can be rescheduled to a later date pending the outcome of this delist nomination. --YFB¿15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has JPEG artefacts (around cross and just above the wall), subject is partially cut off, blown highlights on statue on the right and doesn't add much value to the two articles it's used in (the first article uses it in a gallery, and the second uses it next to a better photo).
Delist - resolution, artifacts, subject washed out. !Vote notwithstanding, I really must reiterate that informing the original uploader of the image about the delist nomination is not optional. Punctured Bicycle (and everyone else), please ensure that you have fully complied with the delist procedure instructions. --YFB¿16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't yelling - yelling would have been CAPS. I just wanted to make sure it didn't get missed - it's been pointed out several times in the nominations below and people are still not doing it. No offence intended. --YFB¿17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JPEG is a lossy compression technique. Yes, it creates artifacts. The basic idea is that -whith moderate compression- they are unoticeable at normal enlargement ratio. What are you trying to prove by enlarging over 100% ? 62.212.105.21611:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What am I trying to proove? Hmmm let's see ... that this particular photo has jpeg artifacts that are too obvious? I only posted the blow up when Mgm couldn't see them at 100%. To me, they were obvious from the start. Debivort15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obi Wan, er, JediMaster, make sure that you don't apply much jpeg compression in the uploaded version, as that was another problem. (Save at like 90% - 100%.) Beautiful shot, aside from this. I hope the high-res version is also detailed. Althepal17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until we see a better rose image appear on FPC I think this one is still pretty good. <sigh> Looks like this will happen with all my Kodak pix... --Fir000210:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still do not see a better rose image than the one you want to keep? Because, if you do not I could go to the garden tommorow and take many pictures in the hope you will like one of mine better than yours.--Mbz102:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Delist Well below the current FP quality, irrespective of whether we have a better rose yet. Don't take it too hard if this gets delisted Fir: you bear most of the responsibility for having raised the standard so high :-) ~ Veledan • Talk20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not even because of quality, but because the picture is not special in any way and in my opinion has very low encyclopedic value, if at all. I took these and many more like these pictures today:
, , Do I like any one of them to become FP? No, I do not because in my opinion they have no encyclopedic value.--Mbz100:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Delist - The first rose picture Mbz1 posted is at least as good, and probably better. But not relevant. A high enc value of a rose should include more than a close up of the flower. This may be a very artistic shot of a rose, but it's not a very enc one at all.
I completly agree. Even, if somebody would have nominated a rose picture that I took, I would have opposed it. There's no value in these pictures. Roses are way too common. I do not think any should be FP. --Mbz118:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
This is an older nomination (previous discussion) that doesn't meet current resolution and quality standards. It's low resolution, the focus is a little wonky, and there is some minor artifacting visible.
Regretful Delist I love the composition and the guy's expression (so gentlemanly!), but the nom is absolutely correct as far as quality goes.--HereToHelp21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I stumbled across it I was really hoping to find a high res version myself. It would be great if one could be found... -- mattb02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist not because it meets current standards (I still disagree strongly with delistings based only on changes in listing rules) but because it doesn't seem to even meet the criteria back when it was listed and probably shouldn't have been put up originally. Cat-five - talk06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the photo, and I notice in the original nomination the author provided comment on his love of the photo as well. Has the author been contacted to confirm if a higher res version is available? I'd hate to see this one go. Beeawwb07:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the photographer - he, however is a user on the Polish Wikipedia and I do not know how well he speaks English - if he does at all... (If you do speak Polish, please assist with this issue) BookswormTalk to me!20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the JPEG artifacting everywhere. Anyway, feel free to point out such low-res images so we can discuss their FP status as well. This image wouldn't be promoted today, and I don't believe in grandfathering featured pictures (or articles) in to old standards. -- mattb20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – This just isn't FP standard. Makes a mockery of the whole process if this is kept. (No one would support this picture if it were nominated now would they?) Centy – reply• contribs – 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist Color contrast is WAY to high, crushed blacks and blown whites are everywhere. It is too small. The Crop is to tight. There is visable motion blur only subtle because of extreem downsampleing. Colors are oversaturated because of the astronomicaly enhanced contrast. -Fcb98116:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - cool, but too small and too edited to meet current criteria by a long shot. I haven't been around long enough to know what criteria it was nominated under, but I don't mind changing the featured pictures list to keep up with the current standards. Zakolantern22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost three months with no higher-quality version uploaded and a consensus to delist. If a higher quality image is uploaded, it can go through the FPC process for a week as the other FPC's, as several votes agree that simply larger res wouldn't make it a "slam dunk." --Peter21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cutout white background is a big reason, you lose perspective that a "natural" white BG shot has. In fact, the photoshopped shadows can be misleading. Size is pretty far below requirements. Sharpness isn't good either.
Delist - per Fcb. It also appears to only have 7 legs. The size is way too small for a FP, espcially consider the lack of shapness. I would strongly encourage Fir to give it another go, he should have no trouble greatly improving this. Cacophony22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - This is a pretty yucky photograph. Especially since it is not in its natural environment and the fake shadow. The spider's face can't even be made out. -Henry W. Schmitt15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delistat least until a decent downsampled version is provided. It looks a whole lot better at 2000x1465, for example, and is still almost 3MP. However it's overexposed, and not the best "moon" we have from a Martian scientist point of view; full is better. mikaultalk 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Oops, I'm confusing this with another moon. How confusing to have four. This one is clearly too small, blurred and incomplete. Subject cut off ;) – mikaultalk10:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the commons versions were the only ones being actively used then I would agree however as long as there are versions here being used (and remember the criteria is the best image on Wikipedia which doesn't include commons by most standards (plus all wikipedia servers = wikimedia but no wikimedia = wikipedia htough that's nitpicking) but nitpicking aside just because there may be better images in commons is not a good reason to delist. Cat-five - talk00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist A better image at Commons is a good reason to remove/replace an image in its articles (which doesn't need a vote here even if it's an FP). And if it isn't needed in articles, it should be removed from FP. ~ Veledan • Talk21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace We do need a moon FP. I would recommend unless somebody finds something better. It's the sharpest, fullest moon of decent rez I could find. Please, look and make sure there isn't a better one out there. (If you're going to delist something because there's a superior image, you need to tell us what that image is!)--HereToHelp13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and oppose the suggested alternatives. Come on, we have multimillion dollar telescopes and hundreds of billions in space research and we can't get a good picture of our own moon? I've seen pictures of the moon (probably on wikipedia somewhere) in positively blistering detail, 1000x1000's not going to cut it with the number of small moon landmarks visible + a lack of blurring atmosphere. --frotht04:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would respectfully ask you (and everyone else) to try and locate such an image. The only reason this image is being delisted is because of the existence of better images, but nobody has bothered actually finding a superior image to be featured in its place. A good (but by no means exhaustive) look through nasa.gov for full or nearly full moons turns up only [22] and [23] (which are available from the commons as [24] and [25], respectively). The former is dark, unsharp, and has longitude-like lines all over it; the latter has sharp, pixelated edges and weird coloring. I have not searched the websites of other space agencies, so we might have better luck there. Until then, I still stand by my suggested replacement candidate in my above comment.--HereToHelp18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you weren't around when this nomination came up. It wasn't promoted, but only because there were better images available, like this one, which although miles better than the one up for delisting here (and, I have to say, your suggested alternative) still isn't necessarily a stand-out FP candidate. As I'll never tire of pointing out, we don't need a Featured Picture of anything. If, as and when an outstanding shot of the moon is nominated, it will most likely be promoted; there's no need to replace an FP if it's delisted. mikaultalk19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Without even considering the technical shortcomings, of which there are several, the fact that it's not in English is reason enough for me. Cacophony05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist fails on tech issues (small, low res, almost no printing is legible) and Enc issues (English readers cannot understand the German), etc. Matt Deres17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I like the fact that it is not English. Even though this is the English Wikipedia, there are other languages out there and I think some people would be intrigued with this Monopoly set. The resolution does not bother me. -Henry W. Schmitt15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, I didn't think this needed to be of great quality... but, it'd be nice to be able to make out each letter, at least. And, no problem with the language for it being an FP, but I think the version in the top of the article should be classic Atlantic City English--not because this is the English language encyclopedia, but because that is the original and still most widely used Monopoly. grenグレン03:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It should be kept, images express the same doen't matter the "language they talk"
This is not featured quality. There is too much color reduction over the clouds. Here is what the untouched version looks like [26] The full-sized version is available on request.
Also, the top image is the one selected as FP at Commons. An older version is the one selected as FP here at English Wikipedia. The old version also does not meet current FP criteria. Good kitty18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor chose to save it as a medium-low quality jpeg, which is the biggest issue with the image. Also, if you look at the original, you will see that the colors aren't natural at all. It should not be categorized as 'Natural phenomena.' I understand that an image of a penny was also delisted for blatant photoshopping. Also, there are thousands of hurricane/cyclone pictures at Wikipedia and Commons, and this does not represent the best of them all. Good kitty02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable resolution for a computer-generated fractal. These images can be produced to arbitrary detail, there's no reason one this blurry and lo-res should be featured.
I tried to regenerate it, but it's not as simple as changing the height and width in the code, since there's some kind of balance between the number of samples, the color curve, and the resolution that I couldn't understand. (Also, at high resolutions it takes hours to run, so it is difficult to do this by trial and error.) I agree, though, that someone who understands the code and the settings used to produce this image could produce a high-resolution version easily. — brighterorange (talk)13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very strong random element in what the final outcome looks like. THat one worked out particularly well. Plus I barely remember how the code works and what good settings would be. :-) Evercat23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. If a better version is provided, let it pass through the usual nomination procedure. In the meantime, this shoud be delisted per Froth. ~ Veledan • T00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
KeepReplace 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! --ffroth04:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 --Fir000221:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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. --jjron08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
Delist: I remember the original nomination as well. This always has been a disaster, per the reasons stated above. --Hetar23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. deBivort03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, replace with nothing-tan. This is actually better than wikipe-tan IMO since the no-self-reference thing was kind of touchy --ffroth20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --jjron10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?). ----jjron13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --84.90.46.11617:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. --84.90.46.11610:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Not that resizing would be the desired option of fixing the aliasing, but just pointing out how it is an easy fix. -- Ned Scott23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Carter23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. _dk08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
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. --84.90.46.11613:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree that the link provided by Fir does not really constitute canvasing - even though it did stir up a hornet's nest. deBivort18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. KyuuA420:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --84.90.46.11620:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. deBivort21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-C04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. deBivort22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepKyuuA4 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) (Duane54304:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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 - talk10:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Kurihaya16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- Catchi? 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. -- Catchi? 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. -- Catchi? 22:01, 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 --124.176.241.10110:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Catchi? 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. Pstuart84Talk23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... What are you talking about? It encyclopedically illustrates animefan 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"? deBivort23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't encyclopedic, please delete all the content in category:anime and category:manga as they are not encyclopedic either then. -- Catchi? 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)[reply]
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-C01:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Snidely Whiplash, an example of a stereotypical villain. A villain is a bad person, especially in fiction. Villains are the fictional characters, or perhaps fictionalized characters, in drama and melodrama who work to thwart the plans of the hero. There are many villain stereotypes. In the era before sound in motion pictures villains had to appear very "visually" sinister, and thus many villain stereotypes were born.
Reason
suggested by Mad Tinman in the "mad scientist" delisting for many of the same reasons, and I agree. Uninformative, and overall unimpressive by today's FP standards. It has the added problem of being a dubious free picture (Snidely Whiplash is directly mentioned in the caption from POTD 5-30-2004). It seems to have already been put up for deletion, so this delisting nom might be a moot point anyway.
Delist For the same reasons given in the mad scientist nom below, and because of the image's problematic free status (given that it's obviously based upon Snidely Whiplash). CillaИ ♦ XC01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't vote because I'm new to this, but this is an absolutely classic, iconic cartoon character that had a pretty significant influence, a near-perfect illustration of its subject. Is this simply a bias against cartoon images? If there's a concern over copyright status that should not make it any more or less eligible as a featured picture. Either it's free or it's not. That's a yes/no question, not one of degree. If by some minor miracle a cartoon character created after 1923 is in the public domain, great. If not, it will be deleted or reclassified as a non-free image, not just delisted. The mad scientist is an utterly different image - not nearly as well done, not recognizable not iconic. Basically, not a good image.Wikidemo04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same tired reasons, mainly that there's no reason to go through and remove every FP from the past just because they don't retroactively meet today's standard and this reeks of someone's anal-retentive agenda... though why someone would have an agenda like this is still beyond me. Cat-five - talk17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please spare us the soapbox, Cat-five. How is wanting to delist this slap-dash, possibly copyright violating, image part of some agenda? It's an SVG file, so you can't even whine about people delisting it because it's too small for FP status. The thing is up for deletion on Commons, fercryinoutloud. Matt Deres22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try and keep it civil, Matt - no need to loose your temper over his opinion ;) This image deserves to be delisted, it just doesn't stand on todays standards, and they are global - we strive to feature only the best content, and if we assume that our old standards, which aren't upto date with good content today, are still good, we fail - and a personal feeling that there is an agenda to delist old pictures just because they don't cut it anymore isn't a good motive. Think about pro athletes - if the bar of quality goes higher, they have to keep up or loose their status. Simples. Cheers. --Mad TinmanTC23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't cease to revere our old time sports heroes just because on a direct comparison they wouldn't be up with the current stars of today. I disagree with Cat-five re this image, but his point is valid (if a bit bluntly stated). --jjron06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed maybe that wasn't the best analogy of all - but I always figured that to oppose we had to base ourselves upon some criterion that the image holds quality or not (IE. size, and so on) - didn't know you could oppose based on the idea of an anti old-pic agenda. Well, know I do. Cheers. --Mad TinmanTC12:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is probably the best representation of villain we will get. It is clean and SVG, it fits the criteria. I mean, would a better representation of a villain be a real photograph? No, because that would be villianizing a really person. -Fcb981(talk:contribs)16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Illustrates the subject, excellent archetypal representation, free license, svg, all good here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-05 21:44Z
Caucasian, male, aging, crooked teeth, messy hair, lab coat, spectacles/goggles, dramatic posing — one popular stereotype of mad scientist.
Reason
SVG clip art is not FP material. It's helpful to demonstrate visually what a mad scientist looks like but it's just a cartoon caricature- there's no real juicy content that makes a FP.
Strong Delist. Thanks for putting this up again, only I think you were too soft in the delist nom. This is probably my most detested FP - get rid of it! --jjron13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is not Wikipedia's best work. There is nothing "impressive" or "highly informative" about it (as per WP:WIAFP). Like froth said, it's just a caricature, which makes its enc value a bit questionable. CillaИ ♦ XC15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DelistI agree with the above comments about the lack of encyclopedic comment, this thing s a caricature derivate from a stereotype, a photo of the creator of that same stereotype would be far better. PS: Shouldn't we consider Image:Villianc.svg aswell? --Mad Tinman22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same tired reasons, mainly that there's no reason to go through and remove every FP from the past just because they don't retroactively meet today's standard and this reeks of someone's anal-retentive agenda... though why someone would have an agenda like this is still beyond me. Cat-five - talk17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's unnecessarily blunt, ffroth - you can make your point get across without comments that can potentially hurt the person who made the image (saying that it "sucks" and thats it's "embarassing" to have it listed is quite offensive). So try to keep more civil, no need to go down that road. Cheers. --Mad TinmanTC12:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good image that clearly illustrates the topic, but I don't think it has the WOW factor needed for a FP. Also, it should be an SVG instead a JPG.
Delist. Nice for the article but far from FP material, even if it was SVG. Someone should trace it though, just as a matter of encyclopedia-betterment. --ffroth03:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if there's still a sofixit template and I don't have the time to look but if it's mainly the image format a new one should be made and put through FPC with a note saying it's a replacement for htis not delist this right away then wait for someone to create a replacement. Cat-five - talk17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that we ought not delist it untill proper replacement was made? It doesn't really make a difference if you run through FPC anyways, so might as well delist this now and make a request for the image, then run it through FPC. Doesn't make a difference to the new image and the process on this one goes without impediment. Cheers. --Mad TinmanTC00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was originally identified as featured during an August 2004 discussion. Since then, the criteria for featured status seems to have changed a bit. At just 640 × 413 pixels, Image:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg is relatively small and far below the 1000px minimum. Additionally, while the subject itself is attractive, this image is far from "stunning" and is of quite poor quality. The image is not of high technical standard, high resolution, or among Wikipedia's best work.
View west over the city of Paris from the Galerie des Chimères of Notre-Dame de Paris. One of the famous gargoyles (chimères) of the cathedral can be seen at the left of the photograph. The River Seine is visible at the bottom of the photograph. The nearer bridge is the Petit Pont, and the further is the Pont St Michel. In the distance can be seen the distinctive shape of the Eiffel Tower, to the left of which can be seen the golden dome of the Dôme church, within the Hôtel des Invalides.
Reason
Too small, distracting object in foreground, no detail in the view of the city itself.
Keep Even though it's small it's a good shot and I refuse to give into the notion that we have to be anal-retentive about retroactively purging all the old fpc's since very few fall under today's more strict guidelines. Cat-five - talk16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cat5. There's a limit to how small an FP can be of course, but for me this image falls into a grey area since all the important details are there at current resolution. SingCal16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It's tiny, and a quick look at flickr shows taht this angle is a common one for a shot--easily reproducible. There is also artifacting around the edge of the gargoyle, and the picture isn't as sharp as it could be. Calliopejen120:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, with today's 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and higher resolutions, this image covers only a few percent of the monitor, making it pretty useless. It's also very reproducable. --Aqwis23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Calliopejen1 and others: if a shot is really outstanding in other areas, size issues might be mitigated. I'd add poor lighting to the growing list of reasons why this one isn't an example of our very best work. --mikaultalk01:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cat-five -- it's unfortunate to delist things just because of ever-changing size standards. If this image is easily reproducible as several people have mentioned, let someone go up the cathedral and re-take the photo with a fancy high-res digital SLR and nominate that one as a replacement. (I myself have taken this very photo too but my camera was a cheap one.) Spebudmak01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It doesn't need to be a high resolution SLR and the price of the camera is definitely not an issue. The lighting is not great, the composition is sloppy. -Fcb981(talk:contribs)01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until suitable replacement is found I'd go up there and take the picture myself, but I currently can't shell out the money for a trip to Paris. --Sharkface21722:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Can't tell what's in focus, but doesn't really look like anything, and size is really very small. Boy these pics have come a long way. --jjron (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought something similar may have been the case (hard to say for sure at such small size), but if that's the case, it really is a shallow DOF. --jjron (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although I certainly think its encyclopedic, it is too small by current standards, it isn't very sharp, and I don't particularly like the composition. Enuja(talk)06:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image was deleted on Commons because of incompatible licensing as it came from sxc.hu. Just noting this here, so that the Signpost and anyone else watching WP:FPC can pick it up. I've already delisted it. MER-C12:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in the same way.Spebudmak 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
.png)
, 
, 
Do I like any one of them to become FP? No, I do not because in my opinion they have no encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Delist – This just isn't FP standard. Makes a mockery of the whole process if this is kept. (No one would support this picture if it were nominated now would they?) Centy – – 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment How can you determine that the community wouldn't support this as an FPC? Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
unless somebody finds something better. It's the sharpest, fullest moon of decent rez I could find. Please, look and make sure there isn't a better one out there. (If you're going to delist something because there's a superior image, you need to tell us what that image is!)--HereToHelp 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Root_Canal_Illustration_Molar.svg&diff=prev&oldid=99902243){kind=link}
![[7]](http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow/checkershadow_illusion4full.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.schwen.de/gallery/index.php?album=Tag_der_offenen_Tuer_2007%2F&pic=img_9057.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://www.schwen.de/gallery/index.php?album=Tag_der_offenen_Tuer_2007%2F&pic=img_9201.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michele_Merkin_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3ACarta_Marina.jpeg&diff=175100890&oldid=118069949){kind=link}
![[22]](https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA00302.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA00405.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Lunar_nearside.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Full_moon.png){kind=link}
