Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Counter-Strike weapons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] USP .45
- Reason
- Very sharp and clear- basically IMO this is the best possible picture we could reasonably expect of this weapon, and it's under a free license! Ergo the FPC nom. It's a nice big shot of a deadly weapon, obviously machined to perfection with its sleek, modern composite materials and rubbery texturing.. pretty scary! (oh and if one of our masters could play with the white balance I think it could look a little better)
- Proposed caption
- H&K USP .45 Full Size with a Surefire X200A light attached via a Picatinny rail adaptor. The gun also has a Hogue rubber grip. The gun is equipped with Trijicon night sites and is surrounded by .45 caliber Hornady TAP (+P) jacketed hollow point rounds.
- Articles this image appears in
- Firearm, Heckler & Koch USP
- Creator
- User:Bobbfwed
- Support as nominator ffroth 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, sharp and encylopaedic. --Aqwis 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support de Bivort 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Just curious-- is the safety on or off? It's hard to tell from this angle. Spikebrennan 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The background is pretty unappealing. Do you know if it is in any way encyclopaedic to do with the guns? --jjron 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. As there is apparently no reason for using this background (I've waited almost a week for a reply), I feel the bg seriously detracts from the image; something staged like this will tend to struggle for 'wow' anyway, so IMO needs to have things like the background perfect. Also seems too tightly cropped, especially at the top - again little excuse for this in a staged shot. The actual gun, etc, seem OK. --jjron (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good picture, but I have to agree with jjron. The background is not very attracive.H92110 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It doesn't illustrate the subject in a compelling way with the awkward background. Also, it could be argued that a picture of a gun will fail neutrality due to the issues surrounding gun ownership and the deaths caused by guns. There are some images that by themselves will provoke a reaction - a gun is one of them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, you think we should censor pictures of guns just because someone may be offended by it? I thought we had a guideline against doing that... --Aqwis 12:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the censoring? I'm saying we shouldn't promote - which is a different thing. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is exactly the same thing - Wikipedia isn't censored in (well, almost) any way, which includes not censoring FAs, FPs, and so on (and censoring FP is what not promoting this image (given it meets the quality requirements) is). Do you also think we should not promote the Holocaust article, or the Gun article, as FAs? --Aqwis 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the censoring? I'm saying we shouldn't promote - which is a different thing. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- _LOL_ what? --ffroth 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly - I also laughed at the notion that my comment could be seen as censorship! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think froth's comment was a reply to that, as far as I recall it was posted after Aqwis first reply. Also, I do agree - not promoting an image because it might offend some due to gun-related deaths is not valid. We have plenty of holocaust pictures, and that had plenty of death involved in it. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly - I also laughed at the notion that my comment could be seen as censorship! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, you think we should censor pictures of guns just because someone may be offended by it? I thought we had a guideline against doing that... --Aqwis 12:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- It really can offend someone? Doublesupport!--Svetovid 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support- It's a good pic, and I don't find the background bad at all. As for whether people will like a picture of a gun.. who cares? We're in the encyclopedia business. Value judgements be damned. Friday (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- But these pictures are being selected for promotional purposes for the landing platform. This "featured picture" process itself is not encyclopedic! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- _LOL_ again, featured content isn't meant to be promotional.. the main page thing is meant to showcase featured content, featured content's not identified to put something on the main page. --ffroth 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- But these pictures are being selected for promotional purposes for the landing platform. This "featured picture" process itself is not encyclopedic! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrible background + unappealing placement of cartridges. --Janke | Talk 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor lighting and choice of composition. It's fairly noisy in any case. -- Chris.B | talk 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No consensus MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] five-seven
- Reason
- Very sharp and clear- basically IMO this is the best possible picture we could reasonably expect of this weapon, and it's under a free license! Ergo the FPC nom. (same reason)
- Proposed caption
- Photo of a Five-seveN USG model. It also has attached a Surefire X200a light, and is surrounded by 5.7x28mm cartridges.
- Articles this image appears in
- FN Five-seven
- Creator
- User:Bobbfwed
- Support as nominator ffroth 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, sharp and encylopaedic. --Aqwis 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose jpeg artifacty. de Bivort 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Prominent jpeg artefacts. -- Chris.B • talk 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as above. It doesn't illustrate the subject in a compelling way with the awkward background. Also, it could be argued that a picture of a gun will fail neutrality due to the issues surrounding gun ownership and the deaths caused by guns. There are some images that by themselves will provoke a reaction - a gun is one of them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Will provoke a reaction" is an argument for featuring a picture, not against. A good picture should provoke a reaction. This is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia which means the subjects of some articles will bother some people. These articles should have FP-quality images whenever possible. The image is neutral if it accurately and fairly depicts its subject which this image does. --D. Monack | talk 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I indicate above - this process of selecting images to feature on the landing page is not part of creating an encyclopedia, it's part of the process of promoting Wikipedia. Arguments which relate to creating the contents of a comprehensive encyclopedia won't always relate to the Landing page of an online encyclopedia which is intended to promote certain aspects of that encyclopedia. It's a different thing. You are not creating an encylopedia by !voting for images to appear on the landing page, you are creating a marketing tool to promote certain favoured aspects of the encyclopedia. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have it totally wrong. Featured content is identified to certify wikipedia content as our best work, and to reward the contributors who make it happen. The main page thing is tacked on to the process. (though it wouldn't surprise me if content "featured" on the front page predates actual Featured Content) --ffroth 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- ffroth is right. This isn't a discussion about what should go on the front page but a decision about what is Wikipedia's best work. "Provokes a reaction" is a factor that should count in the image's favor. As an aside, if we were deciding what goes on the front page, I see no problem with this image. Is a picture of a gun lying on a table more disturbing than much of what goes in the "current events" section which right now, for example, includes a headline and photo of Cyclone Sidr which has killed at least 1,100 people. Anyone shocked by this image of a gun is probably too emotionally fragile to be perusing the Internet at all. --D. Monack | talk 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have it totally wrong. Featured content is identified to certify wikipedia content as our best work, and to reward the contributors who make it happen. The main page thing is tacked on to the process. (though it wouldn't surprise me if content "featured" on the front page predates actual Featured Content) --ffroth 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I indicate above - this process of selecting images to feature on the landing page is not part of creating an encyclopedia, it's part of the process of promoting Wikipedia. Arguments which relate to creating the contents of a comprehensive encyclopedia won't always relate to the Landing page of an online encyclopedia which is intended to promote certain aspects of that encyclopedia. It's a different thing. You are not creating an encylopedia by !voting for images to appear on the landing page, you are creating a marketing tool to promote certain favoured aspects of the encyclopedia. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Will provoke a reaction" is an argument for featuring a picture, not against. A good picture should provoke a reaction. This is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia which means the subjects of some articles will bother some people. These articles should have FP-quality images whenever possible. The image is neutral if it accurately and fairly depicts its subject which this image does. --D. Monack | talk 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
