Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support. Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are votes of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page, and also vote tabulations. To see recent changes, purge the page cache	Shortcut: WP:FPC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured lists Featured portals Featured picture tools: Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Picture peer review Featured picture candidates On Wikimedia Commons Featured pictures thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day Picture of the day archive
[edit] Nomination procedure If you wish to add an image to this page please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure [edit] Supporting and opposing If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. To change your vote, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to voting, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution). Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. [edit] Is my monitor calibrated correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info. [edit] Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc) and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Contents 1 Nomination procedure 2 Supporting and opposing 3 Is my monitor calibrated correctly? 4 Editing candidates 5 Current nominations 5.1 Eutrophication 5.2 Manarola 5.3 Mexican Wolf 2 5.4 Ostrich 5.5 Image:Thermal_protection_system_inspections_from_ISS_-_Shuttle_nose.jpg 5.6 Dallas South Dakota 5.7 Endeavour Space Shuttle on 747 5.8 STS-116 Launch 5.9 Atlantis Shuttle in Transit 5.10 Kids_diversity 5.11 Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) clock 5.12 1896 $1 Silver Certificate 5.13 Image:PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg 5.14 Mývatn lava island 5.15 Gol Gumbaz 5.16 Power house mechanic working on steam pump 5.17 Bagger 288 5.18 Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber 5.19 Housefly closeup 5.20 Giraffe 5.21 South Dakota State Quarter 5.22 St. Isaac's Square 5.23 Full Moon by Galileo 5.24 Yellow-faced Honeyeater 5.25 Mandelbrot set 5.26 Science World 5.27 Wankel Cycle Animation 6 Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! 7 Older nominations requiring additional input from voters 8 Closing procedure 9 Nomination for delisting 9.1 Space Shuttle Columbia launching 9.2 European Parliament 9.3 Fort Jefferson 10 Suspended nominations 10.1 Notre Dame Basillica 10.2 Controlled Impact Demonstration 2

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.

[edit] Current nominations

[edit] Eutrophication

Very good diagram to illustrate Eutrophication, an excellent trace from Lycaon

• Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C | G} 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• weak support - Visually appealing, except for the big blodge of uniform brown sea floor - I'm also not sure to what I should be most paying attention - or what eutrophication is, as the word does not appear in the image. These things could be addressed and it would have my enthusiastic support. Debivort 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - As a benchmark re SVG format: On my G4 PowerBook (1.67GHz 2gB RAM), hardwired ethernet, Firefox 1.5.08, it took 21 seconds of browser paralyzed rendering for the full size version to appear. By comparison, less than 2 seconds for its image page to load, and 6 unparalyzed seconds to load the 3k x 2x full size Manarola nomination below Debivort 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manarola

Fascinating-to-examine photo of a civilized town crammed onto a big rock. The terraced heights above the town are staggering, the sheer heights are breathtaking, extremely varied shot with lots to look at. I wish I could vacation there!

• Nominate and support. - froth^{T C} 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lovely picture, but I think you missed the sky. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, the sky and the associated glare make it unappealing. It's also leaning (unless that's the way the build houses in italy). Otherwise the quality is ok, slightly soft but what do you expect at 6MP. --Dschwen 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I had assumed it was a cloudy day and the clouds were way out of DOF. You might be right about the glare though. As for the tilt, it would be impossible to tell --froth^{T C} 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As for the tilt, it would be impossible to tell - not true, simply look at the house windows and house edges, not every house would be built tilted! The tilts are particularly obvious on the 3000 pixel version (so long as your computer doesn't resize it to fit your screen). The clouds were way out of DOF - not true. You have the houses (which are effectively at infinity) in focus so any clouds would in focus. That means that either your choice of exposure could not cope with bright sky or there was fairly solid cloud. So, the tilt and the dead sky kill it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tilt would be fixable (it's certainly not "impossible to tell"!) but the blown sky is pretty distracting, especially along the horizon where it's bled into the rooftops. It'd make a superb evening shot, I'd have thought, I bet it would look stunning in the sunset (or early morning if it's not facing into the sunset!). This looks like it was taken towards the sun, which makes it near enough impossible to expose for the foreground without blowing out the sky. --YFB ¿ 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the reason I said that it would be impossible to tell the tilt is because it's entirely possible that none of the houses are perfectly vertical so there's no point of reference -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

And people who are standing are standing like that in real life? Gosh how awkward would that be... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Wolf 2

A nice high resolution action shot.

• Nominate and support. - Noclip 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Maybe a touch blurry, but I think it's sufficient quality. (a good quality FWS shot, there's something you don't see every day!) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, the edit drastically changed the coloration around the mouth. There's definitely something off there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support DOF could be better but nevertheless it's definately a striking photo --froth^{T C} 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edited version, Weak support original (see image history), would fully support a better edit to address grain without throwing off the colour balance. If I get around to it I'll do it myself this evening. Support either of my edits. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Throw it off? Original had an ugly yellow tint. Noclip 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The shadows in your version have a slight blue tint. In direct comparison the original looks more natural. Might be (please don't take this the wrong way) a whitebalance (color temperature) issue with your monitor. since I have my new GFX card, the Is my monitor calibrated correctly gamma correction fields match up perfectly... :-)--Dschwen 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well colour balance is semi-subjective and differs from person to person: some (like me) prefers things with a slight yellow tint while other like it purple. But I do agree the older version look more natural. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose All Not sharp, probably because of low shutter speed? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've added two edits, both with reduced noise and increased contrast; I've also adjusted the levels on the second so that it looks natural on my (properly calibrated) monitor. I'm not sure which people will prefer - the slightly redder tone of edit 1 is probably quite representative of the ambient light where the photo was taken. Sharpness isn't perfect but it's pretty good for an action shot and certainly good enough for FP at this resolution (IMO). --YFB ¿ 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose original and edit 2, oppose edit 1. It's just a bit too blurry for me. --Tewy 03:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ostrich

Another image from the Melbourne Zoo showing an ostrich in an interesting pose. I think this image doesn't suffer as much from the background as the Giraffe shot.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support In terms of encyclopedic value and quality, I don't see how an image could possibly be better than this one. No clearer picture of an ostrich head exists anywhere on the net. And since the ostrich head is fairly unique in the animal kingdom a picture like this adds significantly to wikipedia's value.--Tobyw87 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While it is a decent shot, it is a bit ambitious to declare it the clearest picture of an ostrich head anywhere on the net. What about this, or this or this? And that took me a total of 30 second to find. There are pages and pages of ostrich images on pbase and most of them don't have the issue of beak overexposure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It's nice, but there are too many blown highlights on the beak and around the edges of the bird's neck. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Almost all the top of the beak is blown to pure white - Adrian Pingstone 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per adrian --froth^{T C} 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support All I need to say Booksworm Talk to me! 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely a good picture. Ilikefood 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not too thrilled about the blown out parts. And the picture is slightly oversharpened, with dark halos around the blown-out hair. --Dschwen 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you cared so much about blown highlights: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber --Fir0002 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The key issue is: are important details lost through clipping (or DOF)? In the parliament picture I just didn't care whats outside those windows. It would have distracted from the inside of the room. With the ostrich I care about the texture and color of the beak, which is (imo) a quite essental part of the birds head. A big part of it is blown-out, lowering the enc considerably. Satisfying answer? --Dschwen 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, thanks for clarifying --Fir0002 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Composition is good but needed half a stop or so less exposure, the BHs are pretty glaring. --YFB ¿ 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Dschwen. --Tewy 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thermal_protection_system_inspections_from_ISS_-_Shuttle_nose.jpg

I am nominating this picture for Featured Status because I feel it manifests all of the characteristics of one of Wikipedia's finest images. As far as significance goes, the picture is important to the space domain of Wikipedia and asserts current significance as it has just embarked on a new space journey. In terms of photographic expertise, the picture is centered and perfectly clear and it meets the size requirements for Featured status. This picture is one of Wikipedia's best and definitely deserves to be featured. The picture appears in Wikipedia's article on the Space Shuttle Discovery and was created by NASA.

• Nominate and support. - Wikipediarules2221 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wonderful, and unusual view of a space shuttle, are those ice crystals causing those specs, I heard the space station is gathering surrounding ice crystals do to various water leakages over the years. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I thought this was already featured. Oh well, guess I was wrong. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Incredible picture! Sharkface217 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great picture :) --Tobyw87 23:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, cramped composition, a lot is hidden in shadow and details are obscured, not very illustrative of any particular aspect of the shuttle. It failed as a commons FPC. [1] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What are those little speckles? Hot pixels? Dust (not likely)? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit1 Removed most hot pixels but cannot remove the banding noise, maybe someone else can have a try at that? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice picture. --Midnight Rider 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Night Gyr about the composition and the image quality is a bit average. I would have thought a properly-lit shot taken with a decent, stabilised terrestrial camera would be a more encyclopaedic representation - it's not that obvious that this is taken in orbit anyway. --YFB ¿ 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose- An imposing and powerful image, but at the expense of encyclopedicity. It's not great as an image of a space shuttle, but as in image of a big space thing about to crush the view. And it's not that great aesthetically (mainly because of composition), but also the lack of contrast.--ragesoss 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Night Gyr and Yummifruitbat. Just too much is missing from this to make it a FP worthy shot. Cat-five - talk 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The composition doesn't seem to great... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inklein (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
• Weak support AHHHHH...it's coming at me!!! Very impressive pic, but it's too cramped and a little disorientating. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, this picture should be upside down; someone should flip it, and edit it too (where's Fir when you need him). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because Fir is the only one who can flip a picture? And how does the concept of up or down matter in space and in a pic like this? Having it this way makes it easier to recoglize the shuttle at first glance. --Dschwen 12:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I can flip the picture too; I meant Fir should try to fix the lighting. Sorry I didn't make it clearer. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If there is anything to fix it's not the lighting (check the pic at full size, it uses the whole dynamic range), but the hundreds of hot pixels (probably cosmic rays). And I'll be happy to leave that tedious work to Fir ;-). --Dschwen 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The entire picture is drab and shadowed. There are much superior shuttle pics available - Adrian Pingstone 14:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wow this pic is imposing. What's with the random color dots all around? --froth^{T C} 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas South Dakota

When I saw this, it made me say "wow". It seems to be an excellent illustration of the Dust Bowl. It was created by the USDA and so is public domain. Their web site says that a higher resolution version is available on request. -- Beland 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Beland 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Even though historically significant, this is a bit too small at 640x480. Find a larger version, and I'll reconsider. --Janke | Talk 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for res, request the higher res, upload that, and then I'll support (if the high res is quality). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I will switch to Support if you get a higher-res image. Sharkface217 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Night Gyr - will support if they'll let us use the high-res version. --YFB ¿ 01:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I sent an email requesting the higher resolution version. -- kenb215 talk 14:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - Definately support with higher res --froth^{T C} 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endeavour Space Shuttle on 747

Great Picture that I found on the web. The previous one had some quality issues. Hopefully this one is better. This picture is on the page for Space Shuttle. It was taken by NASA and is in the public domain. It was found at this website:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/alligators/kscovrespve.html

• Nominate and support. --Tobyw87 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)-
• Oppose Tilted horizon, wing tip cut off at left. No real "wow", either. --Janke | Talk 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, grainy, low res, general quality problems all around. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support a wonderful picture. Sharkface217 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - resolution, image quality, apparent over-use of shadow/highlight (e.g. edge of tail), tilt. --YFB ¿ 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. --Bridgecross 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Tilted - Adrian Pingstone 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, shuttle-FPC-wearyness ;-) --Dschwen 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STS-116 Launch

I have nominated this picture because I find it to be a nice shot. I realize it has some problems with quality, but I hope somebody can clean it up. This picture is currently not in any articles; however, a version that is used as a thumbnail is found on the main page. That version is not as high-quality as this picture. It can be found here. This image was taken by NASA and is public domain. Photo credit: NASA/Sandra Joseph, Robert Murray, Chris Lynch

• Nominate and support. - Sharkface217 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too dark. The upper part of the rocket is barely visible. Redquark 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• support - slight blur reduces its effective resolution, but the darkness adds to the encyclopedicity as night launches are rare, the last apparently happening more than 4 years ago. I also found surprising detail in the launch structure and the illumination of the steam clouds quite interesting to look at. Debivort 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• support- I agree the value of the picture is very high and should be a FP. --Tobyw87 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. I lightened the shadows with the curve tool. --Janke | Talk 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, grainy, not used in article. Use in article is evidence of encyclopedic value and this doesn't have that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though it's in an article, it's grainy and doesn't show detail very well. Pretty, but not informative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now It is not in an article. Weak support original Good depiction of an unusual event. My support is weak because of the graininess, and alot of the frame is without details. Lightening it only makes this worse so the original is prefered. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I added it to the Space Shuttle Discovery article as well as the STS-116 article and as you can see from the articles it is clearly encyclopedic. The image has a very good quality. Yes it is not of the absolute best but I think the fact that it is a night image needs to be taken into account. If wikipedia adopts such strict guidelines for FPs then there will be very few night images of this type. --Tobyw87 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose original, oppose edit - It's encyclopaedic but the composition is a bit lacking (could have used a taller tripod to get over that fence in the FG, there's a lot of black space) and the image quality is pretty poor. A day shot would be better for encyclopaedic representation of the launchpad structures, and we already have a pretty cool featured pic of an evening launch. Oh, and oppose alternate angle because it's JPEGged to buggery. --YFB ¿ 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose! I Support Image:Sts116-launch.png's update to a FP. The other one, Image:STS-116 Launch (KSC-06PD-2750).jpg is an oppose'
• Oppose. Compared with our existing FP of a Shuttle launching , this is lacking. howcheng {chat} 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Taking a close look at it, I'm not impressed with the existing FP either. I just nominated it for delisting. Redquark 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis Shuttle in Transit

Well, Toby needed help with this process, so I'll fill in the proper info. Toby nominated this because he believes this to be an encyclopedic and well-taken picture. I admit that it has some quality issues, but nothing that can't be touched up. This image can be found in the following articles:

• Space Shuttle
• Space Shuttle Atlantis
• Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
• Captive carry

This image was taken by Carla Thomas for NASA and is public domain.

Hope this helps, Toby! Sharkface217 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I had issues setting this image up. I am slowly learning the process. Anyways thank you to everyone for your help and yes I find this picture worthy of FP because it is an informative/interesting picture and anyone who sees it does a definite double take. --Tobyw87 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Tobyw87 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not at all up to the quality of a featured picture. Although it is quite cool and quite encyclopedic, it's not FA quality. Sharkface217 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very blurry and grainy in full size. --Janke | Talk 20:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Composition and enc are there in spadefuls, but image quality appears to have been left on the runway. --YFB ¿ 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - If this could be downsampled to a size where it can illustrate both aircraft clearly, I'll support. typhoonchaser 09:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone with more photo editing skills should downsize this pic. The picture that you get when you just open it and not click on full screen is a higher resolution than many FPs. This is a very interesting picture and if someone would be willing to do the work it would be a great FP. It really captures the eye and would look great on the front page. --Tobyw87 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I realize the edit may be too small but I did what I could. It would be cool if someone with more skills took a crack at it.--Tobyw87 10:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor quality, cannot be salvaged to FP quality and artificial looking black lines around the rear of the aircrafts. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kids_diversity

Just a note, the image that was the subject of this FPC was deleted, at the request of the uploader following some concerns raised by another user. Because of the doubt around this type of image, and the fact that there is currently no appropriate place for the image, the uploader thought that it would be best if the image were deleted. This FPC should probably be delisted shortly but I'll let the FPC regulars handle that. --bainer (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) clock

Clean and crisp.

• Nominate and support. - drumguy8800 C T 08:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too shallow DOF, considerably lowers enc. --Janke | Talk 09:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Totally agree with Janke - Adrian Pingstone 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Beautiful, but too small DOF. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yep, the low DOF hurts this pictures enc. --Dschwen 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The DOF concerns are just too much. Sharkface217 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - DOF, but a lovely shot nonetheless. Try a reshoot with a higher f-number (you might need to use a tripod as you'll need a longer exposure). --YFB ¿ 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have no problem with this shot if only the dandelion was in focus, but not even the entire dandelion is.. --froth^{T C} 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support-All that has to be said! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. It's a bit blurry around the edges. Ilikefood 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1896 $1 Silver Certificate

The obverse of an 1896 $1 Silver Certificate from the Educational Series. The Goddess History instructing a youth, pointing to a panoramic vista view of the Potomac River and Washington D.C. The Washington Monument and the US Capitol Building is visible in the background. The United States Constitution is displayed to the right. Circling around the motif are the last names of famous Americans.

This particular note demonstrates the neoclassical allegorical motif that makes this series unique in US Currency. Very few US notes match the beauty in the 3 note set. The rest of the notes can be seen in the article Educational Series. Plus, I have yet to see Paper Money appear as a FP. Already a few coins have made the list and attempted to get on.

While taken from a commercial site, because it is an image of a product of currency produced by the United States Goverment, the image automaticlly falls under public domain and is not subjected to copyright.

• Nominate and support. - 293.xx.xxx.xx 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I believe this is too small to be a FP and it also does not show the fine lines clearly - artifacts. sorry. Witty lama 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, it is too small. Please see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? --Tewy 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Historical exemption, per the rules. Unless someone can clean it up.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but since it's a scan, I'd like to see a larger version. (And I'm also opposing per Witty lama) --Tewy 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Witty lama. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, seriously lacking in fine detail. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this may be a rare, historic bill, I imagine there is someone out there that owns this and can produce a better scan. --Andrew c 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - resolution and artifacts; historical considerations are moot for items like this where a re-scan is perfectly feasible. --YFB ¿ 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too small, not HIDef enough. Sharkface217 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg

What struck me about this photo is the telling poses, expressions, and even stature and dress of these three men that seem to perfectly illustrate their relationship to each other and to the war itself. Even the way the spy (Pinkerton) is separated by the tent rope from the official, public face of the Civil War seems fitting. The major flaw of the photo is the blurring of Lincoln's face, but to me that's forgivable for an 1862 photo of historical significance -- the overall quality is otherwise high and I believe, along with the content, more than compensates for the blurr.

The photo is used to illustrate the Allan Pinkerton and American Civil War spies articles.

The photographer is unknown Alexander Gardner; the image was taken from [2]

• Nominate and support. - Bobanny 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It just barely scraps by the size requirement. But the stuff on the edges bothers me. But if we cropped that out it would be too small. Hbdragon88 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hbdragon88. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Support. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as uploader. The image is lacking in detail, so you really can't make out much of each face, and the interpretation that Bobanny is giving seems to read a little more into it than is shown. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The photograph was originally taken by Alexander Gardner, and it's from the library of congress, under [3]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pinkerton was a under rated as a historical figure, also I've never seen a picture of Lincoln standing before, that man was skinny!--Niro5 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I tried cropping out the deteriorated edges, and it seemed to lose something more than just size, made the shape too square or something. In response to the other comments: I still believe it to be featured material. It's an 1862 photograph, and I think the image quality is fine for a non-studio, outdoor shot from that long ago in comparison to others I've seen. For comparison, see how much quality was forgiven in the Golden Spike featured picture from 1869. As for my interpretation, perhaps it is subjective, as interpretations tend to be, but the photo nevertheless is an excellent illustration of subject, however others wish to interpret it. A scan at a higher resolution would be nice, but as with the last spike photo, wouldn't do a lot to compensate for the technical flaws that are more to do with its age. Bobanny

Thanks for that link, Night Gyr, and for the photographer's name. I went there and found a high rez version and replaced it for the nomination. I cropped out the edges (more narrowly than my first attempt, looks fine now). I think that was the biggest problem with the original nominee.Bobanny 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you upload the original with the generic name, and add the crop as an edit? That way if someone needs to work off of the original, then it will be available to them. Thanks. --Tewy 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support/Comment. As the creator of the Alexander Gardner article (heh), I thought this looked familiar, yet the picture started out here unattributed. Turns out there's another version. This seems to have much less blurring. I request, if it's supported, that someone make a high-res, cropped upload of it to Commons from the source TIF (context link), for I don't have the software right now. –Outriggr § 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. So now there are three versions: 1) cropped 2)uncropped, and 3) alternative view. Bobanny 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it's blurrier than I thought. (I don't investigate too deeply on this particular monitor and web connection...) –Outriggr § 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support It's good quality for such an old picture, and it has historical significance. Sharkface217 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good old Abe at his best. This is a fantastic picture that deserves FP status. I don't think wikipedia should have the policy of banning all images on the basis of them not having a high enough quality regardless of historical significance just because the technology didn't exist to create such images. The picture is very well done and adds to the history of one of our greatest presidents. I support the original edit. --Tobyw87 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WTF... we're not banning it, just saying that it's not the best we have to offer, since the quality obviously isn't all it could be. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Too historical to ignore. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I agree with Sharkface217. --RandomOrca2 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support - Quality isn't bad for a photo taken outside in 1869. Pity about the blur of Lincoln's face though. I wonder if Fir fancies doing one of his famous retouch jobs to get rid of the worst of the dust? --YFB ¿ 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As much as I like Lincoln I really don't find this that spectacular a picture, and I'm not as convinced of the historical significance of this as many others seem to be - maybe if it had McClellan rather than McClernand in it the significance would be a bit higher. --jjron 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Jjron here. This just a picture of three guys standing around, and the blurriness on one face really kills it. What are they doing? Having a chat? Planning a secret operation? Coincidentally all just standing in the same location? In other words, this image really tells me nothing except that the three men know each other. Now, I might support this if Lincoln publicly denied knowing Pinkerton or something and this served as proof that he did, but otherwise, it does't seem particularly noteworthy. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mývatn lava island

A lava island in Lake Mývatn, Iceland. I think that it might have what it takes to become featured. It's currently the selected picture on Portal:Iceland.

• Nominate and support. - Húsönd 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This doesn't currently seem to be included in any article, which is a requirement. It probably could be added to an article though. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Would be nice if it stood up to the scrutiny in an article. As seen with the Housefly nomination, people on FPC cannot be experts on all of the subjects depicted in the candidate pics. Yet encyclopedic usefulness is one criterion to get featured. --Dschwen 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Picture added to Mývatn.--Húsönd 21:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• CommentI'm not sure if it's enc enough, but perhaps better captions could explain. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It has nice colours, but it's definitely too blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Pharaoh Hound, it is very soft. Could be significantly downsampled without any loss of detail. Also, if it is illustrating a particular lake, I feel as though it should have more context. If it were illustrating the concept of a lava island, then with a good caption it might be suitable. But in isolation, I don't think it contributes enough to the article. Nice image though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - blur is pretty severe, and the composition seems slightly off to me - I'd like some more neutral space in the foreground or a slightly less 'flat' angle of view (purely subjective I know). --YFB ¿ 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The quality isn't high enough. Sharkface217 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice picture... Booksworm Talk to me! 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gol Gumbaz

This is a picture of the Gol Gumbaz, a historical monument in Bijapur, Karnataka, India. I took the picture during a family trip and have released it to the public domain. I am nominating it here because I think it is an excellent, high-resolution picture, and it is historically important for its famous whispering and multiple-echo galleries.

• Nominate and support. - --ashwatha 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very blurry, has less actual information than a sharp photo from my Canon A40. Maybe a focus error? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sharp enough for FP, leans could easily have been corrected in a graphics editor, and lack of contrast on the shaded face. But I like it! - Adrian Pingstone 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to image blur. It looks either like a focus error, or it was taken using digital zoom. -Advanced 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Agree with Advanced. Pic was probably taken with digital zoom. It's a very nice and imposing pic, so can someone with photo editing skills please sharpen it? Will give full support if sharpened. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for blur, not cenetered, angled. It is really cool though... just some technical problems. If you go back, take another shot :) gren グレン 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Advanced. Noclip 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Here's my attempt at altering the image. I rotated it a bit, and sharpened it. It's not too much better; I'll abstain from voting. → JARED ^(t)  19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - image quality is irretrievably poor, there's just not enough detail present for sharpening to have any effect. Edit is marginally better but still not up to FP standard for an architectural subject. --YFB ¿ 23:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Ok, it looks like I need to learn a lot more about photography; thanks to everyone for their feedback. I don't have the photo-editing skills to sharpen this, so I will leave the nom here for a couple of days to see if someone can work a miracle. Otherwise, I will withdraw my nom. Thanks again to everyone for the valuable feedback. --ashwatha 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Re: comment. It is a great image, just not so great a picture! I like to take a bunch of digital pics at once of the same thing on different settings, and weed out the bad ones later. That may be a good idea if you're looking for FP-quality pictures. → JARED ^(t)  20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power house mechanic working on steam pump

This is an iconic Lewis Hine photograph from 1920, created for the Works Progress Administration. It appears in the articles Lewis Hine, Masculinity, Survey Graphic, and Mechanic. I added the following caption:

Lewis Hine's 1920 Power house mechanic working on steam pump, one of his "work portraits", shows a working class American in an industrial setting. The carefully posed subject, a young man with wrench in hand, is hunched over, surrounded by the machinery that defines his job. But while constrained by the machinery (almost a metal womb), the man is straining against it—muscles taut, with a determined look—in an iconic representation of masculinity.

• Nominate and support. - ragesoss 04:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Abstain Quite a bit of dust on the scan. Clean up can be done but a better scan would be the real fix to it. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 06:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. --froth^{T C} 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Suport. It would appear that the majority of the imperfections on the scan are scratches on the original, this would not get any better in the event of a re-scan. Otherwise, this is a beautiful picture, clear, engaging, and very encycolpaedic. Witty lama 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Iconic image, all the important details are coming out clear. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't like the caption, though. The "metal womb" reference is misleading and probably not the original intent of the photographer. Also, the WPA was founded in 1935, yet this picture was taken in 1920? Either the attribution or the date is wrong. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I had realized the WPA association was wrong (it's just in the WPA archives); that's no longer in the Commons caption. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out where it was published. Not in the Survey Graphic, which started in 1921; probably The Survey, but I have found no evidence.--ragesoss 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Ah, Hine worked for the WPA, but the work portraits were a separate, earlier project. Caption needs to be changed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the caption should take out a lot of its poetic language, especially since we don't have the photographer's intent on record. Let the image speak for itself, instead of violating NPOV and potentially the photographer's intent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I don't have any good arguments for keeping the caption except that I find analytical captions very helpful, and the photographer's original intent is not the final word on how images are read by viewers. If someone wants to change the caption, be my guest.--ragesoss 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support if for the "metal womb" aspect only.Niro5 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support meets all the FP requirements, all around great photo. I agree that the "dust" appears to be from the original, and I don't think it detracts much from the value of the image.Bobanny 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Hmm... Several imperfections, but an interesting image; I think it should pass. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support The dust marks are barely visible. Very clean for a historical photo. And that's a huge wrench the man is holding! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, from the days when men were men. gren グレン 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support-Work on my man, Booksworm Talk to me! 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. One of the most famous Lewis Hine's photographs and a iconic monument to proletariat. - Darwinek 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like. Khoikhoi 23:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - great-quality and iconic image, but the caption does seem a little bit like OR. --YFB ¿ 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Gawd that's cute! Bearly541 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Incredible picture, should be featured. It also has great image quality (technical attributes). Sharkface217 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely not a girlie man. NauticaShades 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I have a framed postcard of this photograph somewhere around the house. Remarkable image.Spikebrennan 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bagger 288

This is a great photograph of the largest tracked vehicle on earth. It's 1) high resolution, 2) I see no artifacts, 3) it's an action shot, showing the behemoth gathering more material on the right, and 4) It's not cut off in any direction. I can think of nothing that would improve this image, except perhaps a crop on the sides, and I think it definitely qualifies for a featured image. It doesn't even need a person to supply perspective - the tiny stairways all over the superstructure do a good job. I guess I can see one other issue - it appears to be panoramic, so the bars are slightly bent - unless they're so long, they really look like that. Based on other, smaller images found online, they're supposed to be straight.

• Nominate and support. The first one's always free. - Golbez 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Golbez. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all below. Now I see them as well. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown highlights, stitching errors, and heavy distortion caused by the photographer being too close to the subject. --Tewy 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, yeah, now I see them, and a particularly egregious one just right of the superstructure. Damn. --Golbez 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Massive distortion - Adrian Pingstone 08:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, next time try going further from the subject. =) Way too distorted. -Advanced 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Large stitching error on third tower. --Bridgecross 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Such a great and impressive pic! But, major stitching errors. =( Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support because, it's really not bad... and it's such a cool picture. gren グレン 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for stitching errors all over the place. Re-stitch an I will support. Noclip 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose-fascinating picture, but resolution is revolting! Booksworm Talk to me! 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - perhaps best to take a panoramic shot when it's not moving :-) --YFB ¿ 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Although a cool picture, it's streched and blurry. Sharkface217 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry, and wtih stitching errors. NauticaShades 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber

From the Scottish Parliament Building article I'm working on. Taken by User:Klaus with K. An excellent photo, nice contrast and colours. A high resolution (9098x1858, 3566kB).

• Nominate and support. - Globaltraveller 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It is shot at an awkward angle and cuts off the subject, lack of vertical view angle and quite severe blown highlights (although I know you can't do much about it other than HDR) --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Solid quality pano. I don't see any stitching faults, it's sharp, and captures the subject nicely. Screw the blown out highlights. I ask myself, am I missing info or detail because of the BOH? No, I don't. Detail in the windows would distract rather than add. And HDR is not the solution to all problems. Face it, the dynamic range of a cam and a monitor is very limited, use it for the interesting parts of ypur picture. --Dschwen 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can the windows at least be taken back a notch so they aren't so bright? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support per Dschwen - I'd have liked half a stop less exposure, though. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Magic! - Adrian Pingstone 08:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Focus issues throughout picture. --Bridgecross 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. There are indeed vertical bands of slight unsharpness. I wonder if that comes from the stitching process (in that case a restitch would help), or from real focus issues on the edge of th econstituent pictures (bad lens). --Dschwen 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Could be; when you look at the 3rd security camera from the left, and the velvet rope below that, there is a severe blur. --Bridgecross 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think we need a shot with no people and a better camera to make it sharper, less blowout. I think it's a reasonable request since it's not too difficult to get into that room without many people (I was in there with just my class) and they run tours through it. Good idea, jut needs slightly better execution. gren グレン 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not worried about the people - architecture isn't a sterile art - it's supposed to be occupied. My concern is the element that impresses in this space is the roof which is cropped off and plays little part of the image. Encyclopaedicly the roof element need to be included, not least because they had to evacuate the chamber this year because a beam became detached.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcginnly (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 December 2006.
• Oppose - I half-agree with Dschwen about the highlights, but these are a bit too blown - I think the whole image is half a stop or so over-exposed. There are also some annoying stitching/focus issues, which a restitch might or might not fix. I'd probably weak oppose even a fixed version because of the glare. I'd also like to see more roof, as that is one of the iconic features of the building. --YFB ¿ 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support A good picture! Sharkface217 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housefly closeup

Behold that loathsome and disgusting pest, the common housefly Lesser Brown Blowfly, in high detail! Not the most pretty subject, but technically I think it is very good. Specimen was a live adult, and about 15mm long.

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nice, but are you sure about the species? It looks a bit odd to me. --Dschwen 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And what does not dead, just stunned mean? Did you use a phaser to bring it down? ;-) --Dschwen 10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Nah this one was a live one! The one that was not dead just stunned was one I swatted mid air with a fly swat but was still kicking. I used it for the focuse bracket: Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg --Fir0002 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice capture. Depth of field cannot realy be expected to be any better in a single exposure. Good focus on the details that matter. As you said, this fly was live, but did you try putting it in the fridge for a while to 'settle its nerves'?  ;-) If you have more time to work with it, perhaps try taking a few photos with varying focus points so you can create a composite with more of it in focus. I've never tried it myself, but I've seen a few good implementations. Eg here. Question: What aperture and light arrangement did you use? Is the surface edited out (not really a problem since it evidently wasn't an au naturale shot anyway, and doesn't necessarily have to be). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did try it: Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg but it's more of a technical exercise as the fly is clearly collapsing under its weight! Also I didn't take enough gradation and there are some bits missing (out of focus). No I didn't put it in the fridge (don't think mum would have let me!) but I did keep it in a jar for a few minutes and after flying around and hitting the sides a few times he was pretty quiet. I took the image at f/16, the fly was on a white piece of paper (so no the surface wasn't edited out) and used a halogen desklamp (not very good) for a diffuse light and a flash for the main grunt. --Fir0002 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral until species resolved Support, high enc. (Despite the fact that more than half the image is a blown highlight... ;-) PS: If you can get another shot like this with a deeper DOF, please nominate it as a replacement. --Janke | Talk 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Fir0002. --s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Ǒ
• Weak support. Unfortunately the proboscis and the right wing are extremely blurred. Is it a matter of focus? --Brand спойт 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find thats its front-right hand leg, which appears to be the proboscis. At least, I'm assuming thats what you're seeing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, apparently it's a front right leg :) --Brand спойт 12:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It's definitely the front right leg. The end of the proboscis is visible as a small black wedge beneath the antennae (pair of blackish lozenges at the front). Debivort 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Good Job! If only all the pictures on Wikipedia could be this good. I like how the background is plain and simple and doesn't distract the viewer from the actual image. Ilikefood 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom. GeeklerA Segway Geek 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment May that's only me, but for some reason it looks dead, or somehow unnatural to me. Any idea why? Otherwise, it's a good photo. (Focus is not perfect) --Arad 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A nice overall macro shot, despite the (difficult) DOF problems. --Tewy 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot to take species identification into account. I can't support until the fly correctly identified. --Tewy 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like it's been identified. --Tewy 23:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry Fir0002, can you check this out. For mine this is not a 'common housefly' at all, it's a blowfly. Houseflies are the smaller darker ones with red eyes. Also the size you state (15mm) seems the size for a blowfly, even on the housefly page it says they're only 5-8mm. May as well get it right. --jjron 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was about to say the same thing. Do you have an in focus photo of the wings and mouth parts to help identification (though I'm not great at it, I can try)? I don't think it is a blowfly, as they have metalic bodies, I am going towards the Stable fly, though I am sure there are hundreds of possibilities. --liquidGhoul 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a stable fly (based on this), but here's another angle of the fly: Image:Housefly white background02.jpg --Fir0002 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it might be an anthomyiid, based on the appearance of the bottoms of the calypters as roughly equal in size. See Question 6 on this page, but that's the only character for that ID. We really need to see an in focus shot of a whole wing. Debivort 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Grrr, check out the very first comment on this nomination. It got completely ignored. For the whole time a potentially wrong picture was and still is in the taxobox of the Housefly article. I'm no biologist, and neither is Fir. That's actually a quite a problem. Being a good Photographer doesn't qualify you for decissions like replacing such an image. Maybe a better way would be putting the image on the talk page and ask for feedback first. Apparently it takes a few days for anyone to notice. On the german wikipedia there is a nice service where you can post pictures and have the species determined by some pretty competent experts--Dschwen 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks to me like Calliphora stygia, common brown blowfly or eastern goldenhaired blowfly.[4][5][6] My only claim to expertise is that I have one hovering in the room right now! Mine, and I assume the subject, are both in Victoria, Australia. I'll drop a line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to ask the experts as it looks like Fir0002 has much more pressing things to deal with right now.--Melburnian 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Holy Crap! Best of luck to Fir! Well, maybe something good (spectacular pictures) will come out of this... ---Dschwen 11:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm 99% sure Melburnian is correct, it's a Calliphora stygia, common brown blowfly (or eastern goldenhaired blowfly). The Wikipedia blowfly page is a bit misleading as it suggests in one place that blowflies always have metallic bodies (this is not the case, at least not in Australia, as Melburnian's links demonstrate). It doesn't appear to be anything like any of the other suggestions. These things are common as muck in country Victoria where this was taken, and are a regular pest in houses, far more common than the 'common' housefly. --jjron 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, fully agree with jjron, and thanks to all the people that helped out on the ID. And thanks Dschwen - but personally I'd rather forgo the interesting pix and not have the bushfires here! --Fir0002 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Until this is cleared up I commented out the pic on both pages it was used. It is a pretty good picture, but with a potentially wrong caption it does more harm than good in an encyclopedia. I can only urge contributors to have species double checked before replacing images in articles. Anyway, this shouldn't affect the nomination too much (we might want to suspend it though). After this matter is cleared up we can insert the pic into the appropriate article.--Dschwen 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • de:User:Doc Taxon identified it as a female Blowfly (Calliphora augur to be exact). this one is a Calliphora stygia. A filename change would be appropriate.--Dschwen 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support-Fascinating Picture of the most irritating creature on the face of this Wonderful World Booksworm Talk to me! 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice photographic work and the usual excellent service from Wikipedia's resident taxonomists. --YFB ¿ 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have re-uploaded the image under a new file name, placed it in a new article and changed the caption and image description information based on de:User:Doc Taxon's identification obtained by Dschwen.--Melburnian 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Nice clear encylopaedic image that has now been identified. A second view from above showing the dark blue patch on the abdomen would be useful in the future.--Melburnian 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Now I can wholeheartedly Support. --Dschwen 13:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Incredible picture, technically flawless, and great encyclopedic value. Sharkface217 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support now it's apparently correctly identified, although I wouldn't mind if Fir0002 could confirm that it had the 'dark blue patch' of Calliphora augur (perhaps he took some other photos that show this) and that the nominated pic and this one were in fact different flies as has been identified. --jjron 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree jjron, for us fly non-experts it would be good to have a visually distinct cross-reference. If Fir happens to have more pictures from above like this this it would be good to see them even if they're not FP material. The "blue" patch of Calliphora augur seems to be quite subtle - I'm yet to find a photograph that shows the colour distinctly. For the record, here's the discussion regarding ID at the german-language wikipedia. It does appear to me that Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg has a bit more "golden fuzz" along its underparts than the fly in the other two photos--Melburnian 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I didn't think to take any top down shots - all of them are side on or face on. However I can confirm that this fly and Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg were two different flies so they could have been different species (althogh they looked pretty similar to me). I can't gaurentee they had a dark blue patch from memory but it is possible --Fir0002 10:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Anecdotal comment. I live in the same part of Victoria as Fir0002, and did a bit of check when I went home from work today. I found eight of these flies (I told you they were common), as best I could identify five of them were C. stygia, three of them C. augur. Although they were dead specimens (some of them long dead which could have affected the colouring), even with the specimens right in front of me it wasn't that easy to identify them in all cases, although it does indicate that C. augur is more common around here than I thought, and I'm a bit more comfortable with the identifications. (BTW Melburnian, I think the CSIRO site shows the difference pretty well, C. augur and C. stygia - remember on an insect the abdomen is simply the back section of the body, it doesn't specifically refer to the underneath.) --jjron 12:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • My focus on the underparts ("golden fuzz") was to differentiate the individuals in Fir0002's set of 3 photos rather than the species (although it may be a species differentiation as well), but Fir0002 has confirmed image:Fly_focus_bracket.jpg is a different individual now anyway. I came across the CSIRO illustration when I put together the little article as a home for the candidate picture, the illustration shows the “blue patch” on top clearly, but it doesn’t seem to come across so strongly in photographs of the real thing and, going on jjron's observations, the “blue” colouration isn’t even really that obvious when you look at the actual beast. I certainly have learnt a lot about blowflies in the last few days!--Melburnian 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You're totally right, as is so often the case the obvious differences in type specimens or descriptions are not always so obvious in reality. The real problem was that the dark blue on C. augur can be so dark as to be heading towards black, and the brown on C. stygia can do the same, at least on my dead and dusty specimens. On some the colouring was pretty obvious, but not on others. Before this I always thought they were all the same species, so I have learnt something. BTW, given that the CSIRO pics are copyright free, do you think they're worth putting into the wikipedia article(s)? --jjron 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very good quality, and now identified. We need one like that of the housefly. NauticaShades 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Major depth of field problems. --Dgies 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giraffe

I thought I might try another shot from the Melbourne Zoo. This one shows a detailed head view of a Rothschild Giraffe. Although taken in the zoo, there is not indication that the giraffe is in captivity.
Alteranative: Image:Giraffe07 - melbourne zoo.jpg (shows horns behind ears)

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Some dust on two images, and how can the giraffes not in captivity when they are in a ZOO? Giraffe on their natural habitat (clichéd giraffe on African plane photo?) would be more enc. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I said "Although taken in the zoo, there is not indication that the giraffe is in captivity." I meant the photo gives the viewer no indication that the image was taken in a zoo. Not that I couldn't find any indication that the giraffe was captive! --Fir0002 10:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Needs a bit of work. Ilikefood 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. As above, plus the bokeh is pretty ugly. That said, the image is sharp and exposed and framed well (though the background is a bit distracting).--Andrew c 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugly bokeh!? This is beautiful L class bokeh here! Maybe you meant the background noise? --Fir0002 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I meant the bokeh, especially in the top right section with all the little circles. But hey, I know ugliness is a subjective quality.--Andrew c 06:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as they stand - they're both good shots, although the first looks somehow a little fuzzy around the nose - was it chewing or something? I disagree with antilived, there's not a great deal to suggest to the casual viewer that these are zoo shots, although there is something incongruous about the giraffe/eucalyptus(?) combo in the alternative image :-). I'd like to see some serious noise reduction on the background before I'd support, though - the graininess isn't very pleasant on the eye and should be easily fixable. --YFB ¿ 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support edited version or as-yet non-existent similar edit to alternate. Thanks for the edit, Fir - hope the fires are keeping away. --YFB ¿ 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Uploaded an edit which I think addresses your concerns. --Fir0002 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The distracting background kills it for me, seriously lowering the enc. Also, I don't think the background looks like natural habitat... --Janke | Talk 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What particular part of the background do you find distracting? --Fir0002 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, the blobs of sky behind the head. I'd prefer a more even BG, maybe only sky. (A natural habitat BG would be much better, like [7] - but I do realize that we can't ask you to got to Kenya just for a shot... ;-) Seriously, a sky BG would take care of that, right? --Janke | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, unrelated to Fir's photo: that image, [8], has a GFDL license, but it appears to be scanned from a printed source - see the moirees! A possible case of copyvio and false licensing? Anybody cares to investigate? --Janke | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asked the uploader about it --antilived ^{T | C | G} 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think it's a good picture. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support A good picture, no major problems. Sharkface217 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The quality and encyclopedic value of the picture are good; I just wish it was a bit higher resolution, so I could see more detail. NauticaShades 14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Dakota State Quarter

I was looking through the Mount Rushmore article (which is AOFD), and I saw this picture, which I thought very eye-catching. It is a high-res photo, at 2000x2000, and doesn't have any quality problems that I can spot. It's similar to the penny FP, but much more interesting because there are more things to look at then just Lincoln. It was taken by the US Mint. There is also a png version here, in case that would be better.

• Nominate and Support | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the penny I mentioned, and here the American Buffalo coin. Comparisons might be useful. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment ...and here is the failed quater FPC nom that he forgot to include. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, actually, that was nominated just two days after my first edit; I didn't know it had been nominated. Also, it's not the same coin. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Impressive, I agree, but I am not so sure it adds signifigantly to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What about to 50 State Quarters? (This is the only one of those images to be so large.) —Cuiviénen 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like these images that are aggressively modified photos - the black and white "shiny field" background is a total photoshop fabrication, and sloppily masked in some places. Given this decrement to the encyclopedicity, I would like to see something else redeem the image, such as an array of all such state quarters. Debivort 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although it's a great image, you cannot just expect one of the quarters to get FP status while the other ones do not. They are a group of images, and shouldn't get featured status separately. → JARED ^(t)  20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose If this becomes featured then all other 49 state quarters have to be featured is well. Sure, this may be larger, but others are sharper and overall the amount of information in the photos are similar. A collection of all those individual coins would be better. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a nice image, but not really special. Also, the enc value doesn't seem extraordinary. Alvesgaspar 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. But you may wish to consider bringing 50 State Quarters for featured article status, though. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it might be good, but they won't all be minted until 2008 (look at the article, some pictures are missing); we might be able to take them by the year they came out though. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not unique to the other state quarters. --Tewy 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments and previous discussion of these modified images. Also, I think a third US coin would start to make our collection of monetary FPs appear a little biased, no? --YFB ¿ 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Sharkface217 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Isaac's Square

St Isaac's Square in St. Petersburg, Russia is a major city square sprawling between Marie Palace and St. Isaac's Cathedral, which separates it from Decembrists Square. The square is dominated by the equestrian Monument to Nicholas I.

This photochrom from the 1890s displays a view of the square from the dome of St. Isaac's Cathedral towards Marie Palace. Behind the palace, the capital of the Russian Empire is seen all they way to the Trinity Cathedral.

Photochrome is a colorizing process combining photography and color lithography. It was especially popular in the 1890s, when the technique was used to create a color print from a black and white photo negative, using between four and fourteen lithograph stones, made from rocklike substances, to colorize the print with several different inks.

I believe the image significantly improves our article about St. Isaac's Square. It is downloaded from the website of the Library of Congress. As my previous nomination was criticized for small resolution (150 K), I downloaded 27 M image, but Commons would not allow me to upload the image that big :( All reasonable edits to the picture are welcome.

• Nominate and support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support if the size (and possibly detail) can be improved. Anyone want to download the original image and do a better job at scaling it? (and compress it with jpeg to help the file size) --froth^{T C} 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is also part of a whole batch of images at the LoC. I'll try post a link to a quick survey later. (Here is a nice one from Versailles). Although I think this one is pretty solid and representative of the collection. I also think size is ok. The original is twice as big but also has a lot of grain we don't need. ~ trialsanderrors 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Set of clickable thumbnails here. This might be partial though, there doesn't seem to be a portal to this set. ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It was me who uploaded most of these images to Wikimedia in 2004 and 2005. At the time, it appeared to me that the nominated image was the most impressive. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Those are the direct links to the Library of Congress originals. I was looking for a description of the set at the LoC website but couldn't find one. Do you know the provenance? ~ trialsanderrors 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Only from the "notes" section of the image description on the LoC website: "Title from the Detroit Publishing Co., catalogue J--foreign section, Detroit, Mich. : Detroit Publishing Company, 1905." --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • They have some information in the overview of the Detroit Publishing Company Collection, which contains all these coloured photochrom pictures. "The company obtained the exclusive rights to use the Swiss "Photochrom" process, later known as Aäc, for converting black-and-white photographs to color prints. Photochroms were made by a photomechanical process using multiple lithographic stones. A separate lithographic stone was required for each color in the final print. A minimum of four stones were used for each print, and occasionally as many as fourteen stones were used. This process permitted the mass production of color postcards, prints, and albums for sale to the American market." I couldn't find anything more specific than that. On Commons they should be in the photochrom pictures category, where most need a lot more colour adjustment than this one. --Para 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. (User • Talk) 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's nice, but if it is meant to illustrate photochrom, there are a number of others on Commons where I like the composition much better (like this one). As an example of photochrom, I also think the larger sizes (with grain intact) are better; being lithograph-based, it's a different kind of grain than in old photographs (at least, it seems that way to me) and it brings out the character of the medium. As an image of St. Isaac's Square, it's not outstanding and probably wouldn't pass muster without the exotic photochrom aspect.--ragesoss 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support-That's all I have to say. Booksworm Talk to me! 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a good picture. The nomination really sums it up. Sharkface217 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, over 100 years old, and a wonderful image. Depicts subject well, has historical value. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Seems like a pretty good example of photochrom, and not a bad illustration either. --YFB ¿ 02:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Encyclopedic, historical, interesting, and relatively good quality. NauticaShades 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full Moon by Galileo

I was helping a couple of friends with thier finals studies at the library when we passed by a young lady's computer and I spotted this spectacular image. That was at five this afternoon, now that I have finally have a free moment from studying it occurs to me that this may be an excellent candidate for FP, so here it is. This was taken by the Galileo spacecraft on December 7, 1992 on its way to explore the Jupiter system in 1995-97. The distinct bright ray crater at the bottom of the image is the Tycho impact basin. The dark areas are lava rock filled impact basins: Oceanus Procellarum (on the left), Mare Imbrium (center left), Mare Serenitatis and Mare Tranquillitatis (center), and Mare Crisium (near the right edge). This picture contains images through the Violet, 756 nm, 968 nm filters. The color is 'enhanced' in the sense that the CCD camera is sensitive to near infrared wavelengths of light beyond human vision. It is a PD image from the commons, from NASA (ok, that was a gimme :-), and appears in the article Full moon.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is something unnatural about the color of this picture. What about the purple stripe that comes down from the upper left side? Alvesgaspar 12:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)~
  • What about this and this ? It's either computer artifacts or ... alien artifacts... Alvesgaspar 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Overall it's pretty good, but it seems somewhat blurry, and the cropping is too tight for my liking. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A picture like this should be perfect, unfortunately, this one isn't. --Janke | Talk 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a nice photo and we should have a moon photo, but there are jagged bits around the ege, and like PH said the cropping is too tight. ps; I noticed we had a full moon last night, coincidence? --Bridgecross 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support There are definetly artifacts, but it does not appear to be something that could be easily retaken. The runner-up shots I found were Image:Moon-Mdf-2005.jpg and Image:Moon-Mdf-2005.jpg, and the clarity on this one is superior to those. Perhaps someone more familiar with astronomy could confirm or deny whether this is in fact the best image there is?
• Oppose. This was cropped by a sharp circular mask sending enc down the drain. (A shot like this can even be taken [from earth http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Full_Moon_Luc_Viatour.jpg], apart from the angle) --Dschwen 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Massive what appears to be stitching errors. Color is weird. I searched the CC section of flickr, and couldn't find any suitable images. Searching google, I found these which are all most likely not free [9], [10], and [11]. These images illustrate that it is possible to get a better image, though you need some special equipment. Here is a remarkable NASA image, but it isn't a full moon (and there are jaggies on the edge of the moon) [12]. Finally, I came across an image of the far side of the moon [13], which I think is quite fascinating. Now that is something that we simply cannot retake.--Andrew c 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are definitely better ones out there. --Tewy 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the odd colors may have to do with the filters set used to make the image, but the circular mask noticed by Dschwen ruins its credibility. Debivort 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Well done, Dschwen, for noticing the circular clipping. For those who don't know what Dschwen meant, have a look at the bottom of the image. There should be a non-smooth edge because of craters, but it's perfectly smooth - Adrian Pingstone 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A lot of aliasing, plus the "real" shot is very ugly- shots from earth are much more beautiful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by froth (talk • contribs).
  • All the more reason the image would be encyclopedic, don't you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tomstar that the "ugliness" may actually be interesting scientific data not attainable form earth ... but stupid edge cropping. I wonder why they did that. Debivort 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Possibly because these pictures weren't all taken directly like this, but in fact from a variety of angles, and were mapped onto a sphere later? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You can find much better pictures of the moon here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Sharkface217 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow-faced Honeyeater

Pictured here is a Yellow-faced Honeyeater feeding it's chicks, the verticle branch that obscures the bird is unfortunate, however I feel that it's encyclopediac value outweighs this (Only my second nom so I would appreciate feedback)and the image is clear and informative.

• self-nom and Support --Benjamint444 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support (Original) I'd have some minor quibbles with the foliage, but the subject of the image is in sharp focus, which is what matters. ~ trialsanderrors
• Weak Oppose Original, Oppose Edit 2, Neutral Edit 1 Don't really have the "wow" factor, the leave on the lower right and the branch(?) that is blocking the bird are quite distracting, bad colour balance (fixed in edit1 (a bit over yellow i admit), edit2 turned the bird to purple...), and resolution on the low side of the scale once cropped useless area. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Good enough for my weak support - the foliage is the natural habitat of the bird, so it's OK. (Support is for original edit 2 - edit 1 is too yellow.) --Janke | Talk 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 2. Oppose Edit 1. The color balance is off on the original, but Edit 1 is even worse. True the rose (?) branch is distracting but overall a good image illustrating the bird in an interesting scene. However does not add much to the article - perhaps you can expand it or add it to another page as well? If so I would probably change to full support --Fir0002 10:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I just can't ignore that thorny stalk. It's crossing right in front of the subject and is OOF as well. Even if the rest of the photo is vibrant and informative, composition matters. --Bridgecross 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The branch very distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The green stalk in the in the foreground is unfocused and extremely distracting. Very unfortunate for a pic what would have otherwise been stunning. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Sharkface217 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandelbrot set

I would like to nominate an improved version of an image refused in novemver 2006: This image was nominated with a resolution of 1280x960. The majority voted for an alternative image with 2500x2000 proposed by BernardH due to its higher resolution even though some people preferred the colors of the original image. Now I have calculated the original image again with improved resolution of 2560x1920. Furthermore I think most people did not know that it is not an isolated image but an entrance point to a zoom sequence into the Mandelbrot set:

Start	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Step 4	Step 5	Step 6	Step 7
Step 8	Step 9	Step 10	Step 11
Step 12	Step 13	Step 14

This series is accompanied by a second series with frames indicating each image position in its precursor. The description of each image contains a corresponding thumb (except the first one of course) and links to the other images. This affiliation to an image set, selected for demonstrating several basic features of the Mandelbrot set and its infinite richness of different structures, enhances its encyclopaedic value. The cyclic color palette is assigned according to a well adjusted logarithmic function in order to get pleasing results over the whole zoom factor of 1:60,000,000,000. Therefore I would like to nominate it again with improved resolution and BernardH's version for delisting (I don't know if an image series can be nominated as a whole ;-)). --Wolfgangbeyer 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this whole series is feature-worthy, but not as separate images. May I suggest you add the step 1 - 14 gallery onto the start image page as thumbnails, not just numbers. Then they would all be easily accessible by clicking the first image. I'll gladly support after that addition. --Janke | Talk 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --Wolfgangbeyer 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, now you get one big, and 14 small supports from me. (Remember, Walt Disney got one big, and seven small Oscars for "Snow White"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the single image as not interesting enough. I would support several of the other images. I like the set as a whole the best, and it would receive my strong support. I suggest withdrawing this nomination, and create and nominate a composite image of the entire sequence. It's an excellent set! Royalbroil ^T : C 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you, but a composite image wouldn't work like this one does. Click on the big image, and you'll see all 14 zooms in a gallery, and can continue from there. --Janke | Talk 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Support as a set. No problem, and no insult taken. Has a set ever been featured? Royalbroil ^T : C 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support all images, as a set. This time I'm quite confident this is the proper way to introduce the Mandelbrot set. Alvesgaspar 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• That's a pretty awesome idea. I like how you can click through the images and have their positions shown on the thumbnail on the image page. I also preferred the color scheme of your original version. I fully support the big image. But I'm not sure FP is the right place for the series, it seems beyond FP for me (in a good way). Anyway, great job! --Dschwen 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I don't want a composite image, the set is great. I'd say put the initial image in the FP gallery with a little comment about the series. The similarity between this and the recently promote pic would make this a case where we might think about a replacemnet nomination. --Dschwen 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support but just the first image. To promote the entire set seems a bit too much. Has someone created an article pertaining to that particular fractal where they can load all the individual steps? Riguy 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just inserted the gallery with explanations for each image to the corresponding article Mandelbrot set. --Wolfgangbeyer 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, looks really nice. Riguy 03:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as a set They're just brilliant. Terri G 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose start image. Support as sequence, and if this becomes PSotD let's use 4, 5 or 14 instead. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support set, per above. Figure out some way to feature sets. What would really be cool would be to have a zooming gif incorporating them all, and the intermediate frames. --HereToHelp 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a corresponding 1024x768 high resolution animation with 37MB, which I offer by a link in Mandelbrot set#External links to my private homepage because it is to large for uploading in WP ;-). But there is also a smaller 4MB version with 400x300.--Wolfgangbeyer 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Although I'm not voting, I wanted to really appreciate the hard work the author had put in this, specially the image page. good job. --Arad 04:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The zooms are what really dazzle me. Would a composite image of the zooms (ending up around 2580x1920) be any good? There is even one square left for text. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Like I wrote in the last nom, the sequence is particulary good. If it can be nominated as a set, it's fine. Perhaps it could still benefit from one or more steps to zoom on the minibrot in the center of the last frame. Probably delisting of either my Mandelbrot FP or Evercat's one could be in order (but it should be done separately). Btw, I cannot view my 2500px Mandelbrot image at full res anymore, and I've been told I'm not the only one. The other sizes still work: 5000px, 10000px. --Bernard 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, even more zooms would make it even better.--HereToHelp 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Any real zoom must have an end sooner or later. I chose the path and its end point not only from an aesthetic viewpoint but also to pass typical structures which I described in the figure captions. The primary aim of an encyclopaedia is to offer knowledge. So I think It's perhaps not a good idea to zoom deeper, because I don't know anything new to tell about the corresponding structures. --Wolfgangbeyer 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • My request was really to illustrate a precise point: that we find minibrots in the center of those "pseudo-julia sets". The first minibrot frame didn't show that. --Bernard 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support all pics Incredible set. All could be featured. Sharkface217 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support As Set. An amazing set of pictures. NauticaShades 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science World

1. This is a very calming image. The reflection makes it easy and its framed beautifully. Vancouver Portal.
2. The image appears on the articles Science World at TELUS World of Science, World's Fair Expo 86, and Main Street-Science World Station.
3. MITACS - GFDL presumed.

• Nominate and support. - Mkdw^talk 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, way to small. Please read the requirements before nominating, thanks! --Janke | Talk 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The requirements are "the picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated". This picture is 300 by 459 pixels - Adrian Pingstone 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, too small. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose is there a larger version?--Bridgecross 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Also licensing is highly suspect (now listed at WP:PUI). howcheng {chat} 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - tiny, therefore doesn't comply with FP requirements. Please read them before posting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose size and licensing issues, per above.-Andrew c 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The picture is much too small, and there seems to be a licensing problem.Advanced 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. (User • Talk)
• Comment I think it would be great to have a high-res photo of this, especially at twilight. Such a photo would ideally include the entire footprint of the building that juts out into False Creek, which is currently cropped off on the right. Also, the photographer should think about whether they want to crop all of BC Place, or none of it. Currently it's only half shown, at the left of the image. Spebudmak 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. To small, see WP:WIAFP. NauticaShades 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wankel Cycle Animation

1. This animation does an excellent job in explaining how the Wankel engine works. I would not have been able to understand the engine without the aid of this animation. It is labeled and highlights each step of the cycle.
2. It appears on the Wankel engine article.
3. It was created by Wikimedia Commons user Y_tambe.

• Nominate and support. - Riguy 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support- Very descriptive and well done animation. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. A lot of static (?) along the black lines and the text. If this could be fixed, then I'd support. tiZom_(2¢) 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the way it is now. A lot of dithering all over the place. Also aren't all the stages happening simultaneously? Why does each stage name light up like that? --froth^{T C} 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, I think it makes it simpler to show the rotation one step at a time. Besides, the sparks show up on each rotation, so you know it's constant. But still the dithering (yeah, dithering, that's the word...not static!) is a problem. Oh and also, if someone's going to fix this up, be sure to close the lines on the left side - the way it is now, it looks like some exhaust could seep into the intake!  :o) tiZom_(2¢) 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is the source for the file if someone knows how to modify it: [14]
• Support per above points nom. Sharkface217 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It is not really dithering, it is caused by the jitter option of povray, which is sometimes useful to improve antialiasing and is enabled by default, but introduces random variations from one frame to the other. Considering the lines on the left side, I don't know if it is possible to close them; I'm inclined to think it is a feature of the engine: if there is space on the right side there must be space on the left side. --Bernard 09:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question In the article it is explained that there is a single ignition per rotation. Then, why are the plugs sparking when there is no ignition? Alvesgaspar 11:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is one ignition per rotation of the eccentric shaft (B), and three ignitions per rotation of the rotor (A). --Bernard 12:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Does an excelent job of illustrating a difficult concept. revised version is clean and attractive. I agree only highlighting one of the ignitions helps clarity, but perhaps the caption could elaborate? -Spyforthemoon 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm inclined to support, but there are two things that befuddle me: 1. From the looks of it, the excentric shaft (B) rotates, but the gear remains static. So is the gear disconnected from the shaft? And 2. I'm also befuddled by the fact that in one case the spark plugs ignite the chamber and in two cases nothing happenes. I wonder if the colors could be applied to all chambers, the A, B and text labels be removed, and the explanation be provided in the caption: "Intake (light blue), Compression (dark blue), ignition (dark red), Exhaust (light red)". ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, center shaft rotation isn't obvious, and that causes confusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

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

[edit] Older nominations requiring additional input from voters

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

[edit] Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

   • {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}

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

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}

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

   Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG

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

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

   NOTE: Because animated GIFs usually cannot be resized properly, do not add them to this page.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

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

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

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

[edit] Nomination for delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. Please leave a note on the original uploader and/or nominator's talk page to let him know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.

• If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
• If consensus is to remove status then replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|discussion page}} (replace "discussion page" with the name of the discussion page), also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Don't forget to decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures too.
• Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).

Archived removal requests

[edit] Space Shuttle Columbia launching

Promoted back in 2004. Grainy, and looks like it went through some kind of dithering filter. Redquark 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and delist. - Redquark 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Parliament

Composition isn't bad but the image quality is pretty poor - oversaturated, oversharpened and heavily shadow/highlighted, with significant artifacts particularly in the trees and around the sculler. The building isn't going anywhere, so there's not really any excuse for featuring a picture of this quality.

• Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, the oversharpening is horrific. If you look at the original you can see why -- it was blurry to start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well, it has mostly good quality. And it is significant. Sharkface217 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it more significant than any other picture someone could go and take any day of the week? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist artificial sharpening reduces effective resolution and damages appearance, you cannot get information that is not there, this is not CSI. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Way oversharpened, low quality, etc... Inklein 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All I need to say.... Booksworm Talk to me! 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Jefferson

Who on Earth does the PotD thing? It's getting sort of lame.

The picture isn't as awful as a lot we try to delist.. but it would never make it today on account of the resolution and because of how "unspectacular" it is

• Nominate: Delist per above drumguy8800 C T 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, it's a great picture, but it's a bit oversharpened. I'd love a higher-res version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I schedule the PsOTD. This was promoted unanimously (see discussion) and I didn't find any faults with it that would make me think there was any reason to overturn the original consensus. The resolution is fine (1200x796), BTW. If you don't like the old FPs, I suggest you nominate them for delisting before they get scheduled as reruns (I'm currently pulling them from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 03). howcheng {chat} 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Howcheng, keep up the good work, you are right, there isn't anything worth pulling the picture over. Drumguy, if you think its lame, help out. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this is unique enough that it needs a replacement before it deserves delisting. gren グレン 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, resolution is high enough for the subject, unique perspective. Noclip 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep-Resolution is a bit poor, but beautiful picture. Booksworm Talk to me! 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per incredible picture. Sharkface217 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It may not pass if it was listed today, but it does not fail the current criteria. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It does meet the criteria. By the way, please don't add biased captions to delist noms. NauticaShades 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspended nominations

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

[edit] Notre Dame Basillica

Temporarily suspended until copyright status is clarified Raven4x4x 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

• Nominate I don't think I'll vote until more input on the legal aspect is given from other voters. --Fir0002 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have emailed them the following:

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)

Good work Dillif. Agree that the site is pretty ordinary, but look how nice and light the interior photos are! ;-) --Fir0002 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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. Raven4x4x 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controlled Impact Demonstration 2

Image:Controlled Impact Demonstration 2.ogg

The video add significant value to the article (since it is the the only one to show shots from inside the plane) It is pleasing to the eye in that is is a plane crashing and catching fire (don't worry no one got hurt) as part of an experiment. It is historically-important because I don't think it is going to happen again. it appears in Controlled Impact Demonstration Created by NASA

• Nominate and support. - Geni 14:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is featured picture candidates, not featured video. Not sure about its appropriateness here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If gif animations can be featured picture I don't see why not videos is well (although there should be a seperate Featured Video/Animation Candidates page for that. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per above, and it's not the greatest, IMO. → JARED ^(t)  20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Furthermore, I can't even see it. "ogg"? My video viewers don't recognize that format. Sure, I know you can download plug-ins, but I won't - tried once, didn't work, too much bother. I'd rather edit or revert vandals... --Janke | Talk 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Ogg is the standard format for videos on Wikipedia. Meniscus 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but wonder why not a "standard" standard is used - such as mpg or avi or wmw, accessible with almost all players... --Janke | Talk 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the case if you use Windows. On Linux (well the distributions that don't include proprietary codecs anyways) the only thing you can play out of the box are oggs and flacs. WMV, AVI and others have patent issues and are not open and patent free like ogg and flac. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Also, it could be accessible on almost all windows players if they so chose, that's the point. Leon 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't see it either but you're right, it's a full fledged video not a gif so I don't think it should count as a picture. The gifs I've seen are generally moving or rotating representations of things that can be viewed as static, like car engines or a molecule rotating. This is clearly different.Simondrake 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree on that but the file format should not be used as the sole arguement for opposing something. Compare this and this, they basically show the same thing (zooming in on fractals), where does the line that seperate video and animation go? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but neither of them are Featured Pictures. I'm not sure that either version would pass. Besides, FPs need to be viewable on the main page as POTD (or at least, thats the idea). An OGG file requires an external player and does not integrate into the pages themselves. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very Very Strongly Oppose. This is a bad quality video and not even a picture. How can a video be a featured picture? Especially a bad-quality one like this one. Ilikefood 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• We feature animations frequently and looks like a "series" of images will become featured. No harm in some flexibility. That said, there should be a parallel Featured Animation/Movie process. Debivort 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to temporarily suspend discussion pending "featured media" proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Second the motion Ravedave has set up a good frame work for exploring other featured media. Let's get to it. Debivort 05:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• thirded.Geni 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)