Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


The incandescent metal embers of the spark used to light this bunsen burner emit light ranging in color from white to orange to red. This change corelates with their temperature as they cool in the air.

This image appears in the article Incandescence. I took the picture, and chose to nominate it for the following reasons. First the illumination for the image is provided in part by incandescence itself: the sparks are visible because of the incandescence of the metal embers composing them. Moreover, the exposure time is long enough to show some very dynamic behaviors such as 1) the sequential fragmentation of larger embers into smaller ones, 2) the cooling of the embers as manifest in their color shift from white to orange to red (see blackbody), 3) small embers being whisked upward by the flame's convection, while heavier ones fall, and 4) that neato little ember that bounces off the bunsen burner top.

  • Nominate and Support. - Debivort 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you sure the blue is carbon incandescence? AFAIK that is yellow, not blue, and it is seen when you lessen the air flow to the flame. Black-body radiation starts in the red region of the spectrum. So, the blue is something else. As the article Flame states: Complete combustion of gas has a dim blue color due to the emission of single wavelength radiations from various electron transitions in the excited molecules formed in the flame. If you agree, please correct the text in the incandescence article, too. --Janke | Talk 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction! Have revised the text both here and there. This actually reminds me that the photo would be a decent image for the Flame article too because the sparks portray the concept of an activation energy needed to initiate a flame. Debivort
Same picture, new caption: The sparks generated by striking steel against a flint provide the activation energy to initiate combustion in this bunsen burner. The blue flame will sustain itself after the sparks are extinguished because the continued combustion of the flame is now energetically favorable.
  • Oppose. Pretty pic, but I think the other image in the Incandescence article does a better job at illustrating the concept of glowing due to heat, which probably is the reason it is already featured. --Dschwen 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other is an excellent picture. What is the consensus regarding using the same image in multiple articles? It could be easily moved to flame, or even blackbody. Thoughts?Debivort 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using the same image in multiple articles is no problem whatsoever, infact it should be encouraged if the image can illustrate multiple articles. I'll leave it to others who know about this area to add it, but if you feel it illustrated the above mentioned articles by all means add it. Raven4x4x 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in contrast to the above reason, I think it is an excellent illustration of the concept. This photo was perfectly timed to receive this phenomena, an exceptional photograph. -- Natalinasmpf 16:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the incandescence can only be seen in the tiny overexposed sparklets. There is no perfect timing involved, just opening up the shutter and blowing some iron filings into the flame. The relation between temperature and color does not become clear in the picture and the flame having such a prominent role in the frame could lead to misunderstanding the whole concept. --Dschwen 11:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sympathetic to Dschwen's concerns, and think that one way to adress them is to also include the image in the Activation Energy article, which currently has no illustrations, and is more directly related, given that steel embers provide the activation energy for lighting the burner. Here is the caption I provided there (The sparks generated by striking steel against a flint provide the activation energy to initiate combustion in this bunsen burner. The blue flame will sustain after the sparks are extinguished because the continued combustion of the flame is now energetically favorable). I am open to the possibility of switching the article affiliation of this FPC to activation energy, assuming this doesn't violate any FPC taboos. Cheers Debivort 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Incandescence.jpg. I'm glad to see a suitable article could be found. Raven4x4x 04:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocket Man

Nice photo of the well known Rocket Man from the Melb. Show

Yeah maybe that would be good, but this photo shows The Rocket Man a lot better than if he had his full suit on. I have an an alternative of the actual flight, but unfortunately I wasn't able to get in a good spot. --Fir0002 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the pic is not perfect. It is still a nice addition to wikipedia, but does it have to be featured? --Dschwen 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, and I raised this with Fir0002 once before. While I don't think anyone is downplaying his photograpic contributions, perhaps he should be more discerning with the images he chooses to submit for FPC, as the vast majority that have been submitted recently have been vehemently opposed as being relatively mediocre or flawed by the majority here. If that comes across as blunt, I apologise. :) I just think that the number of 'junk' images here need to be lowered. Difficult to judge, I know, but someone who has been participating here for a while has a pretty good idea of what is considered FPC material and what is flawed. Fir0002, this is a reasonably good photo in isolation but I personally don't believe it is of sufficiently high standard for me to support it. Just give us your exceptional shots, not everything you can possible contribute to an article, please! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well see to me this is a very nice photo. I'm not making a personal attack or comparison, but I think it is much better than say the already featured "posing starlet" photo. To have gotten a nice closeup of Dan Schlund (the rocket man) who if you read the article is the only one in the world actually flying the rocket belt, is pretty hard to do. So for these reasons I don't feel this is "mediocre" but of course you are free to disagree. And I would appreciate not being referred to in the third person if you don't mind. --Fir0002 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article. As I said, I do think its a good photo and contributes to the article since there was no previous photo, but that doesn't automatically qualify it for FPC. It still has to have good composition, exposure, etc. As for refering to you in the third person, I started off the comment responding to Dschwen and then added a comment to you by starting the sentence with "Fir002, ...". I don't see how refering to you by name in a comment not directed to you is inappropriate. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Floyd on September 14, 1999

This image is currently featured at Portal:Tropical Cyclones and has an interesting history of its own as it has often been cited as being from hurricanes other than Floyd as noted in Floyd's article. The image is from the NOAA.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon PowerShot A95

This photo adds significantly to its article and I think it's a good product shot. Alternatives can be found here

Yeah good edit, thanks --Fir0002 08:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think you'll find a more illustrative image of this camera. It makes a good photo out of a less than thrilling subject :) Raven4x4x 10:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That might be one reason, but I'm not sure everyone appreciates how hard it is to get a product shot like this. --Fir0002 22:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been said before: Choosing a FP doesn't depend on how hard it is to shoot/make. I've made lots of product shots, using studio flash lighting, umbrellas, reflectors etc., and semi-opaque acrylic with underneath lighting to get rid of shadows, etc - but I woudn't even think of submitting any of those for FP. There should be an element of "WOW!" in a FPC, if you ask me... like your 2nd "crepuscular rays", for instance - that one is a "Double-WOW!" --Janke | Talk 09:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree with comments above. -Vontafeijos 16:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Butterflies on a juniper tree in Texas during their winter migration.

I think the coloration is excellent and the subject is very clear and crisp. It appears in the Monarch Butterfly article, and Drumguy8800 created it.

Promoted Image: Xvisionxmonarch.jpg Raven4x4x 04:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caption: A shisa, or lion-headed dog. In Okinawan tradition these figures act in pairs to guard a home. This closed mouthed shisa is considered the more powerful of the two. It guards against mischievous spirits.

This shows the full body of a shisa against a contrasting background. Sidelighting reveals details of the musculature, mane, and tail. The shisa has a fierce and protective expression. The off center placement adds interest. Nothing in the background distracts from the photograph's primary subject. The supporting structure is made from concrete, the most popular building material in modern Okinawa, and shows an electric doorbell. This illustrates the figure's guardian role. The image uses a simple palette of red, white, and gray.

(Apologies for the broken heading link and no links on the caption - this is my first nomination).

This photo has not been published previously. Photographer: Durova

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Seal
Edit
Common Seal

I was asked to nominate this image by cele4. I also think it's a wonderful image; clear, certainly large enough and very illustrative. It appears in the Common Seal article and was taken by cele4.

Promoted . I'm slightly unconfortable promoting an image I nominated, but as I nominated it on request from cele4 I think it's alright. Raven4x4x 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crepuscular Rays
Crepusucluar Ray Sunset - Compare with Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower.jpg, this version has been rotated and converted from the original Adobe RGB colors to SRGB and therefore has more saturation

Really quite lucky to have such a great sunset on our visit to the Telstra Tower. It was phenomenally windy though, so the exposure bracket (which is the second photo) was really hard to get.

Well see I couldn't decide, nor my team of experts :). I thought I'd see the reaction of others. My preference is for the second one --Fir0002 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. --vaeiou 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is what I'll do --Fir0002 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but the first one clearly has the caption "crepuscular ray sunset". And adding it to the article by removing on of the less spectacular non FP quality photos would take approx 10 seconds. --Fir0002 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to respond, yes I know the voting is over, I feel I ought to defend myself. By "no caption" I mean no useful caption. It adds no information. It's not a full sentence and introduces no more information about the subject. Wikipedia:Caption isn't as clear as it should be. Also, since it is so small it can't really draw in the reader. I didn't want to slap the other picture in to the article without a caption. Pictures without captions belong at commons (there is a link to commons at the bottom). Pictures on wiki should provide extra information not just be pritty. Note: It is already an FP at commons, so voting submit to commons isn't possible. People aren't paying enough attention to the captions here at FPC. Broken S 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg. I added the image to the crepuscular rays article in the lead section (with a caption), replacing an image which I moved to the gallery. Raven4x4x 04:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Sisters, a famous rock formation in the Blue Mountains, 2 hours west of Sydney, Australia

I took this panorama of the Three Sisters in June 2005 on a cold, wintery, overcast afternoon shortly before sunset. It is a 2x6 segment panorama so the detail is much higher than could ordinarily be achieved with a single image. It is 3200x1780 resolution which is resampled and cropped from an original resolution of around 8000x4000. While I can understand that it is perhaps not an exceptionally spectacular photo, it is a significant tourist attraction and part of the fantastic scenery of the Blue Mountains National Park.


Promoted Image: Blue_mountains_-_three_sisters.jpg Raven4x4x 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Smith, Human Cannonball
Stephanie Smith, Human Cannonball (rotated/cropped)

Pretty good image of a not too easy subject - a person being shot out of a cannon!

  • Comment I rotated the image myself (4.7 degrees clockwise), but the amount of cropping that needs to be done really throws off the composition of the image. You lose everything below the white ad board, and it looks funny, so I didn't upload it. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The reason its at a bit of a funny angle is because I was quite startled at the noise of the explosion and must have lost my balance a little. Good thing I still pressed the shutter! --Fir0002 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, lack of a better picture ist no reason for FP promotion. --Dschwen 10:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hence Oppose --Dschwen 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Maybe someone can get it where the background of the stadium is moved AND the cannon adn person so they line up better. I think that may make it look better.schyler 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remebrance Poppy

A lovely photo of a red remembrance poppy at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra.

  • Oppose - doesn't really contribute to the article. In fact, it's not really an article - it's a dicdef with a quote. I'm going to AfD that article; perhaps another suitable article could be found for this good picture? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - --Deglr6328 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this image has at least some value in showing the poppy in the context of the wall. Furthermore, I believe the image has captured a suitable essence of tranquility well. enochlau (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - It bothers me slightly that the poppy is fake.. not sure it would so much if it were a little more obvious that it was fake, though. (Not sure how you'd acomplish that, so, maybe not.) Also there appears to be part of a dandelion hanging off of one of the flowers.. and the in-focus poppy at the top is chopped off. Also, the depth of field appears to be tampered with.. it cuts off pretty quickly? (More like part of the image was blurred with a computer.) Because you have such excellent photos, I hesitate opposing, it is still a nice, crisp, clear image that does feel serene.. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No that's natural bokeh, f/3.5 at 75mm can make some pleasing effects. Interesting comment though on it bothering you that it's fake but only because it isn't obvious! Thanks for your opinion though --Fir0002 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Very striking photo. Dramatic, high quality and shows the remembrance poppy in context. - Cuivienen 17:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC

sorry unregistered users can't vote. --Deglr6328 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought I was logged in at the time. - Cuivienen 20:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Remebrance poppy ww2 section of Aust war memorial.jpg Raven4x4x 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Banjo Frog or Pobblebonk
Cut out version

I like the sharpness and colors of this photo and although in the cut out his top RHS leg looks a little funny, the cut out is pretty good.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air pollution over LA
Air pollution over LA

This image is another panorama - a 2 x 10 segment panorama that originally extended far further to the right, showing much more of the urban sprawl all the way to Hollywood. However, I've cropped this one to include just the Los Angeles downtown area and Griffith Observatory on the top of the hill for contrast. This image demonstrates the effect of air pollution as you can clearly see the thicker smog blanket that extends horizontally across the city at approximately the height of the skyscrapers. This is contrasted by the Hollywood Hills in the foreground which are relatively untained by pollution compared to the background, showing the cumulative effect that air pollution has on visibility.

Answer, actually Houston would be better, since it surpassed LA in air pollution a few years ago. But maybe I'm just saying that because I used to live in LA... ;-). But some insane datail in this image, just like the three sisters. While the crops make sense for the FPCs, can you make the full versions available too? --Dschwen 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I edited the caption of the fullsize pic and here on this page. The image extends only to Hollywood. Santa Monica is much further to the right. That is not even West Hollywood at the right of the frame. --Dschwen 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg. I hope my home city of Perth never gets like this... Raven4x4x 02:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 03:48, 17 December 2005

The Lillee Marsh Stand at the WACA during Australia vs South Africa
A panorama of the Lillee Marsh stand where I had no idea. I took this today trying to show that the stands are supposed to be dark so people don't get hot and sun burnt. Hamedog 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit

Stunning photo showing the high of the light tower, the cricket in action, Perth's weather and the attendance at the ground. Currently appears in the WACA article and taken by hamedog

The stands are supposed to be dark - the members don't want to sit in the sun from as early as 8 am to 6pm. The only reason the sky is there is because I wanted to get the light in. I have another version with only the stand which I will link. Hamedog 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
different photo
.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former crewmembers of the battleship Missouri pose for photos shortly after the Anniversary of the End of World War II ceremony, held aboard the famous ship.

Last time I had a picture of a single vetern, this time I have a picture of a bunch of veterans! These are the former crewmebers of the USS Missouri (BB-63), who served on the battleship from World War II all the way down to the 1991 Gulf War. The photo is a US Navy picture, and can be found on the USS Missouri page and on the Veteran page. (It can be found on my user page too, but I get a felling that that does not count:-).

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity arcs between the power rail and pickup shoe of a London Underground train. Sparks like this are quite normal and occurs when the electric power collection "shoes" of a train that is motoring (ie: drawing power) reach the end of a section of electric power rail.

This photograph by SPSmiler is a striking image of the power of electricity, and of the dangers of third rail electrification. It is used to illustrate the Third Rail and Electrical arc articles.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:SSM10260.JPG
Our rose
  • Comment, it is a fine image, but it is not linked in any article. It is a criteria that it adds significantly to the article. It is not a criteria that it is a beutiful image. --Vidarlo 12:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, I think this is wrong attitude. One should find a article the image adds to before proposing it as a FP. Second, I can't really think of any articles that'd be significantly improved by this image, at least until we get the species of the plant, and so. There is images of roses out there, better than this. Look in the Rose article. See no need for more images. And those who are there, are better than this So no, don't link it. I'd say delete it. --Vidarlo 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annapolis graduation
Annapolis graduation edited by Fir0002

Annapolis, Maryland. (May 27, 2005) - Newly commissioned officers celebrate their new positions by throwing their Midshipmen covers into the air as part of the U.S. Naval Academy class of 2005 graduation and commissioning ceremony. The “hat toss,” now a traditional ending to the ceremony, originated at the Naval Academy in 1912. The “hat toss” has since become a symbolic and visual end to the four-year program. Nine hundred-seventy six Midshipmen graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and became commissioned officers in the U.S. Military. President George W. Bush delivered the commencement address and personally greeted each graduate during the ceremony. The men and women of the graduating class were sworn into the Navy as Ensigns or into the Marine Corps as Second Lieutenants. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Daniel J. McLain (RELEASED)

Promoted Image:AnnapolisGraduation.jpg. Kilo-Lima is correct; without anyone specifying their preference I promote the original version. Raven4x4x 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Butter

Saw this image when looking up peanut butter, thought that the lighting and composition was very nice. High resolution version retains sharpness and clarity. Image created by PiccoloNamek

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two feathers

Two beautiful, delicate feathers. Nominate and support. Neutralitytalk 06:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast

An American breakfast: blueberry pancakes (complete with blueberries and butter on top) bacon, scrambled eggs, maple syrup, and slices of pineapple, grapefruit, and orange. Striking.

—DO'Neil 06:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Pancakes look a bit dark, Butters melting, Scrambled eggs look a bit funky, and the syrup is sorta big, and one of the fruits looks like its rotting. Agree with Fir0002. Cobra 09:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cola de Caballo

I'm pretty proud of this image, so I thought I'd self-nominate it. It illustrates Cola de Caballo.

So as not to prolong the misery and waste everyone's time, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks for the feedback!

Nomination withdrawn --Spangineeres (háblame) 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon, California

Good composition and colors. Taken by Aaron Logan and appearing in the article on Avalon, California.

I withdraw this nomination in order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the rejection. However, I continue to stand by the picture as being one of my favorites on Wiki. Alr 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as per Alr's request. Raven4x4x 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Female Superb Fairy-Wren

I took this recently, and it was instantly one of my favourite photos; appears in Maluridae and Superb Fairy-Wren. --liquidGhoul 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its natural habitat is incredibly dense weeds, which is impossible to get close enough to photograph. The barb wire illustrates the birds' ability to live near civilisation. --liquidGhoul 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Superb_fairy_wren2_LiquidGhoul.jpg Raven4x4x 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete graphic version of the Psychoactive drug article chart
Actual background image used in the artcle (wiki-links are overlaid on top)

This image appears in the Psychoactive Drug article and was created by user Thoric I nomintate because it beautifully illustrates the relationships between the confusing myriad of psychoactive drugs. Please see the main article for the wikified version.

You must be logged in to vote. --Dschwen 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One does not need to be logged in to vote. EOM.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but do note that: "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)"
That is absurd. There is no original research here. TimL 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image relects original research which is prohibited. there is no source attached to the image and the creator regularly changes the groupings. Please compare original to current. Check out the psychoactive talk page.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note: the nomination was for the image with the overlying wiki-links. The actual image is meant to be a clean and light diagram. It is also not subjective as the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications. (As for the "meaningless" comment, according to the top of this article -- "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons.") --Thoric 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Meaningless without text. Denni 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Charts are meaningless without an appropriate caption. Glaurung 07:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is too small, it is impossible to read the names. Make it as big as it appears in the article and I won't oppose anymore Glaurung 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I gave it a try: the full-size picture was perfect, but when resized (for example on this page) the text was ugly so I reverted to the original version. I now understand why such a low resolution was chosen, but if there is no way to read the text, it is not more informative than the version without text... Glaurung 07:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The low-res version is only for the purposes of a thumbnail view. I've now replaced it with a full size version that looks fine as a thumbnail (at the expense of file size). --Thoric 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support OK, now this is perfect. This is a very informative diagram. Congratulation for turning the dynamic diagram which is in the article in a readable (therfore also useful) static image. On a side note I'd add that diagrams and charts are so different from pictures in the criteria that make them remarkable that the process of featured diagrams and charts should be created in parallel from the process which already exists for the pictures. But this is another story. Glaurung 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree, the image alone is nothing spectacular, it is the organization it give the overlying wiki that makes it beautiful. If I could I would nominate the "whole shebang", but I can't. TimL 08:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the "whole shebang" (why can't we). If it needs the caption/text give it the caption. Broken S 13:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added an image to hopefully solve this problem. Please base your votes on the image containing the text labels. --Thoric 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still against it. Yes, it adds to the article, but I can't see that this is really special in any way. It is not terribly creative, such things have been made before I'm sure. It's nor too striking, so I'm still holding my oppose stance. --Vidarlo 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I really liked the diagram 'cause it just puts all kind of psychoactive drugs on only one diagram. And I can't figure out what is incomprehensible about this? --Quinlan Vos 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This adds significantly to the article and is a pretty original contribution (please correct me if it is just a rip-off ;-) ). --Dschwen 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a great diagram, very informative, and is perfect in the context of the article. But I can't imagine it as a FP (in thumb size, without working links) on the Main Page of Wikipedia... --Janke | Talk 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My thinking is that this does appear to be a very good illustration to help explain the topic. I'm not comfortable with any of the compromises so far for featuring this on POTD, but that is a different problem. We could for example make an exception and not show it on POTD, we might be able to find a trick for redirecting HTML if you clicked on the image, or I could just spend half the POTD caption explaining that you go and read the article to see how it works. Either way, I would hope that featuring it, would encourage its translation over to several of the other language Wikis (the Spanish are already halfway there) and get other editors to think "how can I make a diagram like this to illustrate my favourite article" — and that's what Featured Pictures should be about. -- Solipsist 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • eek, the spanish page is using my tables-based chart which I created before I figured out how to use divs to overlay wikilinks on top of a graphic ;) --Thoric 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You created that table based chart, Oh Lord! ;) TimL 13:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I created the original black and white graphic first (image:Drug_Chart_version_1.0.png), and from that created the table-based version, using color mixing to make it make a little more sense. Once I figured out I could overlay wiki-links over a graphic using divs, I then made some adjustments to the original graphic to reflect the gradual changes to the table-based chart, added in the color, and so the current chart is the offspring of the two ;) --Thoric 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think it would go well on the Main Page, given the size issues, but it is a superb image which greatly improves its article. I awarded Thoric a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for his efforts :) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support: Great work on graphic that quickly and concisely conveys substantive info. Ombudsman 05:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mainly Thoric's original research. JFW | T@lk 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The chart is based on the underlying (linked to) articles. You claim of WP:NOR is dubious. TimL 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thoric suggests his diagram is a synthesis of books he has read. That's original research. His unique compilation cannot be found in any specific source.--24.55.228.56 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources for the information in the chart is cited in the psychoactive drug article, and the actual graphic cannot be found published elsewhere since I drew the chart, which is allowed by Wikipedia's view on original images which states, "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them". --Thoric 19:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thoric is ignoring the key parts of the NOR policy: "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." and "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." The features in Thoric's diagram cannot be found in any source. I have repeatedly asked him to cite one source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics as depicted in his chart. He has been unable to do so. According to the talk page, Thoric believes "the anti-psychotic part is controversial, mainly because there are a large number of doctors (esp. psychologists) who believe that anti-psychotics are poor medicine attempting to pharmacologically control disorders which have little to do with physical brain function, and all to do with psychological issues that can be fixed through therapy.e" The chart reflects this fringe POV.--24.55.228.56 20:01, 26 Decsember 2005 (UTC)
            • 24.55.228.56 is purposely selectively ignoring my responses. I already explained that the intersections in the chart can (and mostly do) represent areas that do not fall under the parent groupings as compared to items that are completely within the parent groupings. For example, many of the psychedelics are in the intersection between the stimulants and the hallucinogens, but those psychedelis are not classified as stimulants, and by many accounts not even classified as hallucinogens either. --Thoric 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tim, the sources were inserted today, and I urge you not to refer to other users' opinions as "bogus". JFW | T@lk 23:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: too simplified view. --WS 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, way too boring for FP. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Thoric posted a message on my talk page, so I am clarifying here. I think that images that are to be featured should be inviting (aka good looking). Diagrams and maps just don't do that (most of the time). That's why I am opposed. I have no problem with all these diagrams and I congratulate whoever put all the work into making it, but that doesn't mean that it deserves to be featured. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. perhaps the best lay-out of psychoactive drugs based on scientific classification that i've ever seen. it is not original research, but simply a very coherent chart outlining the actions/accepted classifications/relations of various drugs, fully supported by the literature. He made the chart from easily available and accepted classifications. --Heah talk 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Illustration is cluttered and difficult to read. A higher resolution version would help, but an SVG version would be even better. ~MDD4696 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for help. I've been trying to decide what to do with this picture, and I really can't. It seems that the version with text has consensus, but the article version isn't this one. It does appear in the article, in a manner of speaking, so I'm not sure if it's valid or not. And what do I make of the original research allegations? My feeling is promote it, but I'm not quite that bold. Please could someone help me decide what to do with it? Raven4x4x 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who can help? What happens now? TimL 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original research allegations have been addressed in the article and talk page. The version with text is for the purpose of FP such that it can be seen as a thumbnail. The image page has a link to the proper article. --Thoric 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Copied from User talk:Raven4x4x) My personal opinion is still oppose (and I'll clarify that on the nomination page). Regarding the nomination, here are the two choices: either fail it now (there are nearly as many oppose as supports, and not all opposes are to the version without links), or extend it for one or two more days. If you choose the latter, I would recommend contacting everyone who has voted or made a comment on the page and then just informing them that the debate has been extended for 24 or 48 hours, and that they may wish to check out the page again (I would abstain from any mention of the problems, as that may bias the notice.) If the vote outcome still stays approximately the same, the image should not be promoted - there's a considerable amount of opposition (10/9). Alternatively, as I said above, you could just close it as a not promoted because of the significant amount of opposition - a large influx of "support" votes would be required to make this image pass. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, one of the trickiest nominations we've had for a while. Well on the one hand it is quite straight forward — there is quite a mix of supports and opposes (10:9) and comment, but there isn't clear concensus to support — so it fails. However, when determining concensus, one ideally takes into account the nature of supports and objections and it is quite clear that some of the oppose votes are misguided or haven't been retracted even when some of the issues appear to have been addressed. If all votes were carefully weighed and revised or discounted it might be possible to seive out a consensus for support, but that would be quite hard and somewhat controversial. I don't think extending the vote is going to help much in this case. So my suggestion would be to let it fail for the moment, regroup, then renominate it in a month's time — preferably with a more clear introduction explaining that it is an untypical illustration and that although it is being represented by thumbnail the nomination is actually about the diagram as used in the article. -- Solipsist 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After speaking with a few people, I've decided that Solipsist's suggestion is the best for now. Thanks to all those who helped in this decision. Raven4x4x 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lorenz attractor
SVG alternative

Lorenz attractor. Given the canonical parameters of the system (kind of reference case, used in majority of articles about the system) and minimalistic projection, there aren't many degrees of freedom left to play with. I think here they are used well.

Appears in Chaos theory and Lorenz attractor, created by me.

  • Nominate and support. - Wikimol 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC) - (both alternatives) --Wikimol 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the different hues represent? Debivort 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it possible to get the program that you used to draw the lines antialiased? enochlau (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, would you be able to draw it much bigger (4x maybe?) and downsample. Either way, it might look better if it weren't so pixelised. enochlau (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      1. By writing the antialiasing code - don't know if it counts is as yes or no :-)
      2. That would be easier, but has its own problems. Now the original is 2048x2048 and looks reasonable when downscaled to anything between ~300 - ~1300. In smaller versions individual lines are hard to distinguish. If the original was 8kx8k, the lines will look nice and will be distinguishable at 4kx4k. When downscaled to 1kx1k, lightness of individual line would decrease 10 times, it will be hardly observable ang whole picture would be very dim. The way how to get around this would be to make the program draw thicker lines or play with the source image.
      I'm not going to do either now. The question can be transformed to "what resolution is enough". If the original was 8kx8k, the pixelation would be at 8kx8k. IMO the picture is ok at 1k x 1k, and 1k x 1k is enough for current WP usage. I could have uploaded the version downscaled to 1k x 1k as the final product (or I can save it as alternative) - but I like it better to make availiable the "source" as well.
      If improvement, I would go for conceptual one - exporting the trajectory to some vector format (the longer internal float represenation, the better :-). Pieces of trajectory between points can be saved as polynomial curves (derivates are ready availiable). Bitmap image would be than generated e.g. by some postscript renderer... with resolutions up to ~ precision of computation, e.g. 1 mega x 1 mega pixel :-) If lacking things to play with, I'll eventually try to create such "ultimate Lorenz picture" -but - sorry - not now. --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't decide what to make of this nomination. I am unable to support because I haven't got a clue whether this diagram or whatever it is makes a significant contribution to an article or not. The words Lorenz attractor certainly occur in both articles linked above, but does this picture help explain the concept? Not to me it doesn't. The article Lorenz attractor restricts itself to technical definitions apparently for those who are already familiar with all these concepts and doesn't communicate anything to the intelligent lay reader (not this one, anyway) — and that is the level an encyclopaedic article should aim at, in my opinion. What exactly is this illustrating? Having read Chaos theory a couple of times I now understand what a phase diagram is and how it can be a fascinating way to spot a pattern in otherwise apparently uncoordinated patterns of behaviour / development but the bit about strange attractors still left me scratching the head. I wouldn't like to oppose a nomination just because I don't understand it, but even so if why this image is a significant contribution can't be explained in terms I find intelligible then I suspect the subject itself may be too esoteric ever to have a meaningful FP. ~ VeledanTalk 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Regardless of the quality of the associated article, this image is very illustrative of the concept. As I understand it from my math undergrad days, this is the Lorenz attractor. Debivort 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Veledan, read the attractor article first. If you understand the concept of attractor, it shouldn't be hard to understand main surprise of Lorenz attractor, and meaning of the picture. It's not esotheric at all, its simply kind of trajectory. Or more exactly "picture of the trajectory" - like if you would have a barrel of colour in your car and paint a line all the way you go. Now, this is line in phase space - you don't have to understand that concept to appreciate the picture. What you should understand is the trajectory is in fact in 3 dimmensional space, and the picture is projection to 2-dimmensional plane. Now, i you compare with trajectories of things like you, planes, pendulum... you should see the trajectory of Lorenz system is somehow very complex, yet simple ...strage.
    I agree the article is not in the best possible shape - its not that hard topic after all - but I cannot agree every article has to communicate it's main points to every intelligent lay reader and be self-contained in this aspect. Articles can assume the reader understands (or is able to found using wikilinks) some basic concepts needed for the explanantion. For example, in article telemark skiing it is reasonable to assume its reader has some idea what a ski or a ski binding is. In article about Gauge theory it is reasonable to assume understanding of e.g. Lagrangian. IMO in case of Lorenz attractor one such reasonable assumptions is understanding of attractor --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, where is that 1x1k image? The thumbnail gets me to a approx 600x600, and clicking that goes to the 2x2k. They all look badly pixelated in Firefox. --Janke | Talk 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Chaos never looked so good. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-30 04:26
  • Oppose, looks only good as a thumbnail. Did anyone besides Janke check out the fullsize? A pic like this should be done in SVG anyway, you'd get the antialiased lines for free. --Dschwen 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it can be done as SVG. New version.
  • Comment, I'm working on an SVG version of a lorenz attractor which will not look pixelated. This is a work in progress, colors can and will be changed (changing hue with time as well). --Dschwen 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I already commented on your talk page, I cannot let this FUD stand here uncommented. MediaWiki converts it to png for viewing. Higher res and zoom in will be available for people with high res displays and modern browsers in the future. --Dschwen 09:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why its fud at all. I can't easily open the full resolution image in either IE or Firefox, therefore I won't support it. --Deglr6328 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox 1.5 natively supports SVG. And a vectorbased format is just a little more farsighted. Anyway my FUD comment was a bit snappy, please excuse me. Peace, out. --Dschwen 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while SVG is superior format for the image (wow, I discovered its so simple :-) its 2kx2k rendering by Wikimedia servers doesn't IMO look any better than the PNG image criticized for pixellation. Higher resoltuion SVG renderings look good only for those who are able to do it themselves. Images are interlinked so those who would use in some resolution-critical application can now easily find the SVG.
I believe both alternatives are illustrative and eye-catching as bitmap in resolutions commonly used on Wikipedia pages, so it won't hurt if both are featured. On the other hand IMO it would be a bit sad if both are rejected, one because of pixellation and not beeing SVG and the other for beeing SVG :-( According to WP:FP there are only 2 feautered pictures in matemathics and 4 in physics, so I would like to recommned those voting oppose to reconsider if their technical criteria aren't too strict. --Wikimol 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you are right. Apparently MediaWiki only renders it for the size given in the SVG source (500x500 in this case) and calculates other size by scaling the bitmap. I guess thats a matter of computing power. --Dschwen 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lorenz attractor yb.svg Raven4x4x 03:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wolf howling on glacial erratic
Version 2, Sharpened the image a bit.

I uploaded this picture a few months ago when I was helping the Gray Wolf during a peer review/fac nomination. I was looking through the pictures I've uploaded today, and figured that this has potential to be an Featured Picture. So I decided to nominate it here for the approval of the voters. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler Talk 04:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, this photo is not very sharp. --Janke | Talk 09:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, this has no chance at all, it's too blurred - Adrian Pingstone
  • Oppose Photo is unrecoverably blurry. Edit has noticeable artifacts. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 17:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This photo *could* actually be recovered fairly well in photoshop.. just very skillfully. Don't worry about the rock being sharp.. because when you apply the sharpen filter to the entire image, you're just causing unnecessary damage to the entire thing. Just do a pixel-select on the wolf, sharpen it, then edit the contrast/levels to make the photo a little brighter and more attractive.. if I had photoshop on this machine I'd do one for you but unfortunately I do not. Good luck. Might change vote if the final edit looks better.
    • Comment You are incorrect about being able to recover the image in Photoshop. Using a sharpening filter does not add detail to the image; it enhances the detail already there. It is a powerful program, but it's not magical enough to defeat the laws of mathematics. All image processing programs use the equivalent of a "high pass filter" in signal processing to sharpen images. That is, it actually removes "low frequency" (subtle gradient) image information so that "high frequency" (edge) information is more apparent. Anyways, in this particular case, sharpening any part of the image, even just the wolf, makes the JPEG artifacts in the sharpened areas significantly more noticeable. They're already there in the original, they're just very subtle. To remove those artifacts, even with a custom artifact removal filter, the image processing software must do some guesswork that results in some blurring... which defeats the purpose of editing the image in the first place! ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Of course, you could edit it all by hand (with the paintbrush or something), but then it becomes more of a digital painting rather than a cleaned up photograph. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I didn't say you could add detail, but it certainly could be adjusted to look a little better. Even if not a featured picture, the actual image deserves cleaning up for its use in the article. I'm sorry I used the word "recover," I do realize that implies retrieving data that no longer (/never did) exist. Some good folks at Stanford (I think) have though figured out a way to adjust the depth-of-field after the picture has been taken, though it requires a special camera. very interesting stuff. drumguy8800 - speak? 05:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too grey, too boring, wolf is too small. Alr 22:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not bad, but not FP quality. I agree with the comments above about it being blurry; the edited version has simply enhanced the artifacts, especially near the wolf. Also, too much rock for my liking. enochlau (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( − ) Oppose Agree with enochlau --Fir0002 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Blurry background is distracting, and it bothers me that so much of the wolf is obscured by the rocks. Camerafiend 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The wolf is much too small. It can barely be seen because of the rocks. Cobra 09:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at first I thought the snowy rocks were the purpose of the picture... Wolf should definitely be focused in on.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field.jpg
Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Diliff's edit - adjusted the black point for a darker background - view at 100% to compare, you can't really see the difference in thumbnails or preview

Few images are a grand achievement in and of themselves. This is the grandest of those few. Eleven days' exposure reveals thousands of galaxies in a pinprick of sky. It is the deepest image ever taken in visible light, and the light from the most distant galaxies shows our universe over 13 billion years ago.

Promoted Image: Hubble ultra deep field.jpg Raven4x4x 05:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


360o panorama of the southwestern San Juans, photographed from the Gold Hill Ridge of the Telluride Ski Resort. Ridgeline annotation indicates the names and elevations of 43 peaks.
Metric-annotated version. Photo portion is now 800px high.

I think this image deserves FP status because it is a high-quality 360-degree panorama of a beautiful moutain range. It illustrates the great number of peaks in the San Juan Mountains, and the vistas available in their heights. The annotation names these peaks and gives their elevations without interfering with the image itself. The stitching of the panorama is pretty seamless IMHO. It is 4812 x 800 px, downsampled from ~24,000 x ~4,000. I took the pictures, stiched in Photoshop, and annotated in Illustrator. The image appears in the San Juan Mountains

Promoted Image: Telluride Panorama annotated metric3.jpg Raven4x4x 05:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Plumed Basilisk Portrait

Portrait of the plumed basilisk

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Zion Canyon at sunset in Zion National Park as seen from Angels Landing looking south.
adjusted version

Created by Diliff. It's simply magnificent. Excellent composition and filter use. It appears in Zion National Park and Graduated neutral density filter. Many other great shots are created by the same photographer is well.

Promoted Image:Zion angels landing view.jpg Raven4x4x 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Paprika is hanged to dry before grounding. The powder is then used as a spice
Edit #1
Version 2.0, Photoshopped out the head, highlights reduced

This is my first nomination for a FP - I saw the pic in the Paprika article and thought it's beautiful and adds significantly to the article - hence the nomination.

And for the record, I prefer the no-head version myself Dunemaire 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the response to this photo, and in particular the edits quite interesting. When I removed a leaf from Diliff's photo there was a huge outcry against it. But here, a persons head is being removed with actual encouragement and compliments (the response I would give), perhaps this discussion should be continued on the FPC talk page and a definite resolution be made --Fir0002 07:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a message about this to the talk page, so future discussion on this issue should take place there. Raven4x4x 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Idealised single-phase transformer
Idealised single-phase transformer showing path of magnetic flux through the core.
Idealised single-phase transformer showing path of magnetic flux through the core.

I created this and thought it might be worth a try here. Theajiii

diagram is currently illustrating transformer and shows the magnetic flux linkage in a stylised single-phase two-winding transformer. 
Conventionally, in a 'two-port network' as is shown here, current is defined as positive for flows into the device. But aesthetically, yes, it looks better pointing outwards (see pic #3), and this is also common for textbook descriptions of transformers. --BillC 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third version Image:Transformer3d col3.svg loaded on right, having coloured the core to steel-grey, reversed the arrow on the secondary current, and changed the flux and text to green. I'll let this be the final version I upload. --BillC 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the third version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the green line with arrow misleading as to the magnetic flux? The way it's drawn seems to suggest that there is a changing magnetic flux only in the metallic part, which is incorrect (it's everywhere). I know it's hard to illustrate it being everywhere, but one could be misled that flux is some kind of "stuff" that only "flows" along the transformer core. enochlau (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram shows an idealised transformer, that is one with no core or copper losses, and one in which primary and secondary windings have perfect mutual coupling. There is an article (and diagram) at leakage inductance, which illustrates the effect of imperfect coupling you refer to. --BillC 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now done (on 3rd version). --BillC 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Transformer3d col3.svg Raven4x4x 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In Guardia, a bimonthly reinactment of military drills conducted by the Knights Hospitaller in the 16th and 17th centuries.

unusual well-defined photo. It was taken at Fort Saint Elmo, Valetta, Malta, on 8 May 2005 by User:Briangotts. It appears in the articles Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta.

Point of fact - The commandante is conducting a troop review. This is part of the "demonstration or military formation" --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deep Impact Probe Collides with comet Tempel 1 blasting ice and dust into space.

This is an image of a high velocity copper impactor striking the surface of comet Tempel 1 creating drastic brightening that lasted for hours afterward. Created by the Deep Impact space mission on July 4th., it is perhaps the most striking scientific image of 2005. --Deglr6328 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Deep_Impact_HRI.jpeg Raven4x4x 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


••***...whatever... this image despite some of it's shortcomings evokes further images of maybe ... a beach house down by the shore, a small jetty and row-boat, sunsets on evening strolls and picnics, a lazy afternoon/evening fishing with BBQ's and friends - bird-watching and digiscoping with that new Zeiss scope T* coated BUT hold on... is there broadband here? Peace then and a much slower pace. A lot of time to work on another picture for these pages. Maybe try and PhotoShop this picture so it will please every person's eyes that trace these pages... I don't think the person who took this pictures really cares too much what we think - we all have different agendas and dreams. Now where's my rod and digicsope?

Breathtaking image of Lake Clearwater!
an edit

This picture is a very beautiful capture of Lake Clearwater, Ontario, Canada. It is crisp and very pretty.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Six F-16 Fighting Falcons of the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds aerobatics team fly in delta formation in front of the Empire State Building in Manhattan during an air show.
Edit. Other edits here: Image:F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City(3).jpg, Image:F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City(4).jpg
Yeah, we should feature your signature ;-) --Dschwen 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City(2).jpg Raven4x4x 07:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


White's tree frog
Different crop

I found out that my last photo for White's tree frog was up for Featured Picture candidacy after it had been disapproved. I didn't particularly like the image (for technical reasons, the frog is beautiful), but most of the opposition was for image size, of which I have updated since. Someone should have told me it was up. I have been trying to get an improved image for ages, and then I found this one that lives on/near my house. This was the best photo I took. Appears in White's tree frog, and taken by liquidGhoul 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Promoted Image:Australia green tree frog (Litoria caerulea) crop.jpg Raven4x4x 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Turbulent waterflow

I think it is a fascinating illustration to the turbulence article.

Vandalism Ninja 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
An animated cartoon.

I have decided to ignore all rules and reopen this nomination. The first nomination passed despite only a 66% majority, and delisting nomination was inconclusive. I would not normall condone this sort of thing, but I believe the orignal promition was flawed, and the delisting process is not suitable for correcting this. If this image is FP quality, then it should be able to gain enough support. ed g2stalk 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nomination reopened

[edit]
  • Comment, votes from previous nomination carry forward (+10/-5), as I see no good reason to discard them, so if you voted the first time, there is no need to vote again. ed g2stalk 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. ed g2stalk 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasons stated below. The animation is distinctive and contributes substantially to a number of articles. Since it's an example of a cartoon, and it is labeled as such, I don't object to the childishness. -- bcasterlinetalk 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What in the world is wrong with a 10 to 5 majority? Am I missing something? - Mstroeck 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm at it, I also don't get what's inconclusive about a "4-1 against" vote on delisting... Citing ignore all rules is no excuse for wasting everybody's time… - Mstroeck 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just as I supported last time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - good animation, but if this becomes a FP, our standards are slipping. Only the cream of the crop should be distinguished as a FP. This animation is just too plain. --P199 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm... it already is an FP. And, it succeeded in not being delisted when it was nominated for delisting (by ed g2s) below. Now he has decided to treat it as if the previous FPC and delisting request never happened. So, I would have to say speedy keep as both the previous FPC and the attempted delisting have shown it should be kept, and ed g2s's actions do not follow any known guidelines. This would be like restoring a deleted article because you feel that the closer incorrectly closed the AFD. There is a process that should be followed, just as there is in this case. In the request for delisting, everyone but ed g2s voted to keep it a FP, though they could have easily voted to delist, claiming that the closer screwed up. They didn't. Even if the delisting nomination was inconclusive (which it wasn't), then we do nothing (ie, no consensus). We do not follow through on the delisting. In other words, it should remain a FP. If ed g2s would like to renominate it for delisting, again, feel free. But until then, it remains a FP. --BRIAN0918 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this faulty nomination. The channel to delist a FP has been gone through just a few days ago with a default decision to keep it listed. If you would like to try to have it delisted again, please do so. This process doesn't make sense as is. Sorry. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated at the top, the delisting process is not suitable for the grievance I had with this promotion, as it requires a majority to have it delisted, as opposed to the minority oppose that is required to prevent it from being listed in the first place. I am not trying to set a precedent for changing the delist process, but this image was promoted on a borderline majority, and it can surely do no harm to collect another weeks worth of votes. I understand the process fully, but it is not suited to handling this exceptional case. We can use common sense sometimes... ed g2stalk 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No... we do not just keep relisting things until we get our own desired outcome. Common sense says it didn't have enough support to delist it just a few days ago, therefore it should not be delisted. Closed again. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Original nomination

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is one of the few animations on Wikipedia. It appears in Animated cartoon and a couple of other articles.

Comment I nominated it for its appearance in the animated cartoon article, the caption (with links) is was from there, now changed on this page, see additional comment below. It is of secondary importance in the articles you comment about. --Janke | Talk 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again Re Renata3: Original photos? In the animated cartoon article? You must be thinking Muybridge or rotoscoping... I've changed the caption so as to prevent this kind of misunderstanding again. --Janke | Talk 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Yea, I was thinking about Muybridge... Then it is not that bad that it looks childish. But somehow I still don't feel it is up to the featured standard. But I change it to neutral. Renata3 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The leg movements are copied, frame by frame, by rotoscoping, from Eadweard Muybridges pioneering 19th century photos, so they should be pretty accurate - within the limitations of tracing from rather small images. I was surprised to find that someone has already added this animation to this Commons category, despite the "goofy", cartoonish look of the horse's head... Feel free to add it to any article you think would benefit. --Janke | Talk 13:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, support, since I'm assured that it is not misleading in any way. Demonstrates concepts in pages where it is used well. enochlau (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I erased those lines in frame 8, and also fixed the shape of the right front leg slightly in frame 4. If the new version doesn't display, you may have to clear your browser cache. --Janke | Talk 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it's good, but not brilliant. Doesn't really do the full illustration of Animatied cartoon that I'd like either (thinking about how frames add to animation, and specifics about how frames are overlaid to draw the next etc etc.) Sverdrup❞ 01:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Such an image does exist, in the Traditional animation article. This is perhaps the only moving animated cartoon on Wikipedia - I have found some other animations, but they're eiter technical, or "doodles". --Janke | Talk 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Animhorse.gif Raven4x4x 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Nomination for delisting

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Nominating for delisting. Original vote was only +10/-6, so it really shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. ed g2stalk 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. ed g2stalk 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It makes a valuable contribution to a number of articles, and the arguments in favor of promotion below still stand. I agree that its original candidacy could have gone another way, but, now that it's a featured picture, I don't really see a compelling reason to delist it. bcasterline t 13:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be delisted and renominated simply because the original promotion was not valid. If it is a worthy FP - it will be promoted properly the second time. ed g2stalk 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disregarding the new user (whose vote was his 20th edit or so), the vote was +10/-5. That can go either way. I don't think this image's promotion was so severe a violation of the rules that it needs to be delisted and resubmitted. bcasterline t 14:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still stand with my support, but e2gs is right. If the promotion is invalid it should be renominated. What's the difference to putting a completely failed nom on FP or putting up an image without nominating at all? --Dschwen 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think its promotion was invalid. Numbers upwards of 60% are usually considered a supermajority, and both +10/-6 and +10/-5 fall within that range, albeit at the lower end. I'd say the decision was at the promoter's discretion, and, again, I don't personally see a compelling reason to challenge him. Is there a specific "support" percentage necessary for FPCs that I'm unaware of? bcasterline t 14:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is essentially an affirmation of my support for the image in the first place, but I agree that if it were to be considered invalidly promoted, the simplest way to resolve the issue would simply be to re-nominate it and let the chips fall where they may. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was +10/-5, and I trust Raven4x4x's ability to make such judgments. --BRIAN0918 14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and relist should be renommed where it can be definitively promoted or not. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I don't think there is a need to renominate. This was not an invalid promotion! 10/5 at FPC will always need a judgment call from the closer, and a glitch that had been cited in earlier opposes was fixed during the nomination, but not all votes were updated — I expect I'd have given them slightly less weight too ~ VeledanTalk 10:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not you think 66% is enough (I personally think it should be much higher), I don't think anyone could disagree that it is a borderline case. The best thing to do here would be to relist it. It would certainly do no harm. ed g2stalk 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It needs to be delisted before being relisted. Simply relisting it bypasses the previous vote and closing decision. It would be like putting a Featured Article up on FAC in order to remove its featured status. --BRIAN0918 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except this is a special case, as the original nomination was not an obvious promotion. The delisting process is flawed in this instance (a clear majority is needed to delist, when only a significant minority is needed to prevent listing in the first place), so the only sensible thing to do is to just re-open the nomination. A bit of common sense is needed here, instead of just doing everything by the book. ed g2stalk 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7-day mark - This listing has now had its seven days, but the question whether people think the original promotion was valid or not is still not entirely clear. I see 3 people think it was valid (bcasterline, brian0918 & I), 1 or 2 invalid (ed_g2s & possibly Pegasus1138), and 2 have used neutral wording on that particular point (Dscwhen & Diliff). I recuse myself from closing the debate, although the consensus for keeping the image unless the nomination is judged invalid seems clear. ~ VeledanTalk 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wingtip vortex demonstration created by NASA Wallops Flight Facility.
Edit

I just ran across this photo and thought it was an extremely striking and effective visualization of wingtip vortices. It's certainly an unusual image of a subject that is difficult to photograph. Perhaps you'll agree.

Promoted Image:Airplane vortex edit.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


St. Basil's Cathedral and Spasskaya Tower of Kremlin, Red Square, Moscow
The same image cropped a bit higher

A striking image - great composition and colours. Copyright by Dmitry Azovtsev and used in Wikipedia with permission, appears in the Moscow, Red Square and History of Moscow articles.

It's true it could've been cropped better at the bottom — you see only the heads of people, but not the square itself. I think cutting it a bit higher would be appropriate, I might even give it a try tomorrow, but I don't find it a problem we can't deal with. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... you can't actually reveal what was left out of the borders of a photo :) Achieving what you want is almost impossible, involving very good photoshopping skills, a whole bunch of suitable Red Square photos from the same position, possibly some talent in digital drawing and a load of free time — and it would be just a collage, not the real photo that was taken. So forget about it :P → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The crop was a complete misunderstanding, the opposite of what I wanted. I'd support a retake with less sky and more red square.--Dschwen 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it was a misunderstanding, as other people actually suggest cropping it higher, and you retaking is impossible... → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean retaking is impossible? But the red square is still there, is it? So the pic can be retaken, if not by you then by someone else. Like this I cannot support it. --Dschwen 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apache Wickiup, Edward Curtis, 1903

Highly-detailed photograph of an Apache wickiup, taken in 1903 by the famous photographer Edward S. Curtis. It shows in detail the structure, art, and pottery characteristic of the Apache tribes.

  • I've modified the original image to make the wickiup stand out from the background, and changed the contrast a bit. Better? Worse? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-12 06:15

Promoted Image:Apache Wickiup, Edward Curtis, 1903.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Spiral notebook

I took this picture of a spiral notebook. The spiral is really cool. It is on the "Spiral" page.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cows in a beautifull green field in Tongio, Victoria, Australia
Rotated

I like the strong rural themes in this photo. Rotated version didn't seem to be as popular on the commons, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.

As much as I appreciate your zeal and large "improved" template, if you read what I intially said I already have a rotated version. Yours is lower res and has the mountain cropped out. --Fir0002 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Yours... has the mountain cropped out." Eh? Not from here it doesn't... Anyway, that's fine, I'll just IfD the rotation. And, even if you don't like my efforts, I'd appreciate it if you didn't replace my pictures for me. As you said, I didn't read properly, and a rotated version was already supplied. I'll still User:Vanderdecken/Support the original. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cows in green field - nullamunjie olive grove03.jpg Raven4x4x 02:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Stunning image of Navy binoculars

This image of a pair of binoculars is used in the former article, and was uploaded to Commons by Neutrality. Depicting a set of binoculars, a ship and helicopter can be seen in the reflection on the lenses.

Promoted Image:Navy binoculars.jpg Raven4x4x 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nez Perce warrior, wearing loin cloth and moccasins, on horseback, 1910

I uploaded this several months ago and forgot about it. Titled "The old-time warrior--Nez Percé", photographed by Edward S. Curtis, and used in Nez Perce.

Promoted Image:Nez Perce warrior on horse.jpg Raven4x4x 02:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clyde Dam, a big dam in Central Otago
Edited, looked a bit washed out before.

This pic was taken by User:Tristanb. I accidentally discovered it and I like it. It's a great picture of a dam. It's not for nature lovers, but it shows how a dam works.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Black spot of rose

Even though it is a diseased leaf, I think it looks nice. Also illustrates all the stages of the disease: yellow, black and completely dead tissue.; Features in Black Spot, and was created by liquidGhoul.

Well I was reffering to the fact that it hardly grips the audience with fascination. Mundane. Certainly the actual leaf demonstrates the disease well but thats about it. --Fir0002 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A panorama of downtown Montreal as viewed from Mount Royal at twilight

This image newly appears on the Montreal page, as I took it earlier today. This is actually a 5 segment by 3 row panorama stitched in landscape format. It is one of my highest resolution (9118x2774!) panoramas yet and I'm pretty happy with the results. View at 100% to appreciate the details available (beware the file size however :/ - ~8mb).


Promoted Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The famous map of Lewis and Clark's expedition. It changed mapping of northwest America by providing the first accurate depiction of the relationship of the sources of the Columbia and Missouri rivers, and the Rocky Mountains.

The famous historic map created by Lewis and Clark, detailing their expedition across northwest America, which forever changed mapping of the U.S. Among collectors, this map has become quite valuable, and even modern copies of it are expensive. The image had to remain large for all of the text to be readable. Currently used in Lewis and Clark Expedition.

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Shame its so small though. :0) --Deglr6328 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Strongly Oppose Yes, the map is famous and very articulate, but the image itself is as captivaging and aesthetically pleasing as a 4 year old's doodle on gray paper with black markers until it's enlarged -- and when it's enlarged it's simply too big, and for anyone not intending to print it out it is useless. --JPM 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Above user has 10 edits.
    • This is Wikipedia FPC, not Commons FPC. The point of the Featured Pictures here is to illustrate an article well, which a map of the Lewis and Clark Expedition would do for said article, besides its historical value. See for example the first photograph, which isn't very pleasing to the eye, but has great historical value. That's why it became Featured. You say that the map is large, and thus useless. I would say that if it was shrunk to where none of the text is readable, that would render the map useless. Isn't that the purpose of maps, to be read? In any case, we have similarly large (or larger) images already, so I don't think this is pushing it. It is necessary for the image to be this large, so "too large" seems a bit subjective/unfounded. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-7 01:08
      • I see you to your point on the Wikipedia FPC/Commons FPC idea. I should clarify: yes, there are larger images that have been featured, but they don't all have text and small details to look at. When you look at a map you want to see the whole picture and be able to quickly reference to any point on it. It seems too difficult to do that with this image, unless it is printed. --JPM 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't it only difficult for you because you are not familiar with the area? This map is one of the most famous historical maps, and illustrates the content of its article perfectly, so it fulfills the requirements of WP:FPC. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-7 15:27
          • I am familiar with the area -- I've taken my share of American history courses, as have a lot of people here have, so don't assume I'm not. You obviously want this photo up badly, so I'll just change to neutral like Dschwen did down there. I still don't agree with you but you'll just cite that sentence to death to counter me, so I won't bother. --JPM 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - while it's not stunning, it highlights the article well and adds considerably to it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. enochlau (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose FPs should not only illustrate their article well, they should also be striking. I agree with JPM. Denni 12:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence on FPC says: "Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This definitely illustrates the article well, so it has fulfilled the requirements of FP. We have other featured pictures that are not striking, such as the first photograph. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-7 15:20
      • And I voted in favor of the Niepce picture, becuse, for me, it was a striking image. Frankly, I'm disappointed that someone decided that the text that ran so long with FP Candidates, namely, "Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" was no longer relevant. I choose to continue to adhere to the belief that Featured Pictures should not just illustrate their article well, but should also be striking. No change in my vote. Denni 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Oppose. High resolution and clarity. An impressive piece of media which would make a great FP... ...on commons. --Dschwen 15:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Commons is for striking images, so it probably wouldn't go over well there. Wikipedia is for informative images. See the first sentence of WP:FPC. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-7 15:20
      • Wow, you are fighting for your baby ;-). But you do have a point. I'll still go with neutral here, since it is not eye catching as a thumbnail (thinking how it would look as POTD in the Mainpage). --Dschwen 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the bigger concern is that it illustrates an article well, not how it will look on the main page. It never has to be on the main page. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-7 16:43


Promoted Image:Map of Lewis and Clark's Track, Across the Western Portion of North America, published 1814.jpg JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Chart illustrating 61 morphological terms describing leaf shape, margins and venation.

While Diliff's mega-panoramas are a hard act to follow, I thought I would throw the metaphorical hat into the ring with this illustration. I created it with the desire to make a richly encyclopedic image/poster with lots of information about leaf morphology. There is a lot of jargon in botany (and science generally) and I think images that visually define that jargon are useful. The image illustrates the leaf article, in the terminology section. Now, I know there is an on-going debate about illustrations as FPs, particularly how they scale down as thumbnails. While I am biased, I do think the thumb of this image is attractive in a symbolic/technical way (kind of the way a optometrist's chart or wanted poster could be seen to have aesthetic appeal). In either case, I am interested in your comments. On a technical note, I know you all prefer the SVG format to PNG, but I was unable to successfully save the image out of Illustrator in PNG. The fonts were screwed up (see this version particularly in the margin section). If you have a tip on that please pass it on.

  • Nominate and support. - Debivort 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Highly informative and aesthetically pleasing. So it's got scaling problems - big deal (not!). Surely, someone can put a link to the high-res version in the image caption for someone who wants to study it in more detail? - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (added: titleless version). This looks better than most diagrams do in thumbnail size - the captions are readable, thus giving the viewer the incentive to explore further. And the graphic design is just excellent - if you ask me (and methinks that's what you're doing ;-) there's just one thing I'd change, and that is the slightly garish green in the "shape" and "venation" sections, the green in "margin" is more pleasing. --Janke | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Your diagrams are great. We need more annotators here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great content and presentation. I'd love to have it in SVG and clickable sometime. --Dschwen 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good remark by Renata3. I second that. titleless looks better. --Dschwen 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Leaf morphology no title.png Raven4x4x 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg
A mosaic of the interior of Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica
Edited version at full res. I accidentally uploaded this photo on the en Wikipedia but have now uploaded to commons under the same name

This is a 5x5 mosaic/panorama of the interior of Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica. Like my previous panorama of Montreal's downtown, this image is extremely high resolution. It is downscaled to around 50% of original size (I worked out that even with some overlap in the stitched images, there is around 200 megapixels of detail) and still comes in at around 12mb, so it unfortunately beats my previous FPC by another 4mb! I tried to reduce the size of the file by compression but I noticed obvious artifacts - there is just too damn much detail and I didn't want to lose any of it. I also tried downsampling it but it has already been done to get it to 7577x5157 and there was obvious loss of detail. So take it or leave it guys, this file is big, but the detail is amazing. For the record, I also created another version with rectilinear projection (this one is cylindrical, hence the slight curve at the bottom of the frame), but I didn't like the way warped the roof, but it is available for reference if you'd like to see it.

I trust Diliff when he says he wanted to keep the pic as close to the original interior as possible. Has the editor actually been there? --Dschwen 12:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the first, which was also the only one when I stated my support above. The moody feeling was just right for a cathedral. The second one looks a bit artificially lightened on my monitor. This is an important point: people have their monitors set very differently. I use a calibrated Mac display, while run-of-the-mill PC monitors tend to show images both darker and contrastier. Laptops and flat-panel displays are again different... It's hard to find the right balance to suit all. I won't oppose the lighter version, though, if consensus favors it. --Janke | Talk 16:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the lighter version. And abstain on the first one. That is because even though the resolution is GIGANTIC I cannot see too much detail because it is simply too dark and everything becomes formless shadows of grey/black. Now a lighter version makes a lot more details visible. The moody feeling can be expressed by a low res pic. When you have THAT kind of resolution, you want - and expect - to see the details. And the lighter version should allow it. Renata3 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Janke here. My support only goes for the first one, I don't think it needed to be lightened -- now it seems too artificial and doesn't have the same feeling to it. --JPM 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that perhaps the original image could be too dark for some people's monitors, but I think if you have a correctly calibrated monitor, you wouldn't find it too dark. I made sure I kept the image looking as close to the actual interior. I don't support the edit as it does look artificial and not as correct - the interior of this particular basilica was quite dark, and the front of it was lit up. If you enhance the shadows you lose this mood. It might look 'prettier' to some viewers but it is definitely not as correct. This is an encyclopaedia, remember. I know that we've discussed this and subjective things like brightness are open to interpretation but I do feel in this case, being the photographer, that the original is more correct and the edit is not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. But I reserve my right to like the lighter version better :) (in any way, form, or case, dark or bright, the pic is absolutely awsome!) Renata3 02:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monitor gamma test
  • Comment: To test whether your monitor is properly adjusted and can display shadow detail properly, please check this image that I made - in the large square, you should see the left half of the circle very faintly (or not at all), but the right half should be clearly visible. If not, you need to adjust your monitor. Hope this helps! --Janke | Talk 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I just ran my laptop through the Adobe Gamma tool on Windows, and pictures look warmer now, but I still can't see the two halves of the circle. Any other suggestions? enochlau (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it's quite OK if you can see only the right half clearly, but not the left half. RGB 6,6,6 is a very dark grey, virtually indistinguishable from black. If you see the left side clearly, then your monitor is set too bright. I've just now experimented with a PC laptop, and on this model (Compaq Presario 2100) the settings are pretty coarse - but by tweaking the brightness, I could get a proper adjustment. This changed the mood of the second version to "very brightly lit"... --Janke | Talk 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Should we include this, or a similar, simple monitor "check test" on the top of the FPC page, in order to alert people to the problems of different monitor settings - which can influence voting rather significantly? --Janke | Talk 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful, but it may discourage casual voting. enochlau (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting a calibration standard would save us from pointless discussions and image edits. It would be a good addition. I don't think it'll dicourage casual voting. If you don't want to recalibrate your monitor you'll at least know not to comment on exposure. --Dschwen 12:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's making FP's a bit exclusive. I mean we want the FPs to look good for casual users of wikipedia more than anything else. IMO they're there to showcase the best wiki has to offer to users in terms of photography. --Fir0002 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I get this straight, you want to sacrifice authenticity and image detail, create a dumbed down McDonalds version of each picture so it looks acceptable for each and every miscalibrated monitor out there, instead of encouraging the user to once and for all calibrate their monitors. Because calibrating a monitor is exclusive, I dare say "elitist"? --Dschwen 13:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you are going for, I look for more striking photos. As a photographer I firmly believe we play with light, and in dark places is the best place to work, light does just some wonderful things when you bring the shutter speed down. PPGMD 15:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you when the purpose of the photography is artistic expression or something along those lines. I mean, anyone could mess with that photo and completely change its aesthetics with colour saturation/balance and further brighten the shadows and it would certainly look striking, but if someone is reading the article and wants to know what the interior LOOKS like, surely they want an accurate image, not merely a colourful and striking one. I'm all for working with light (and photographic tools) to bring out the best in a photo, but not at the expense of accuracy. I agree with Janke when he said on the talk page that it should really be up to the photographer to make adjustments to things such as colour and luminosity, as only they were there to see it with their own eyes. That said, we can continue to discuss it and figure things out. Consensus rules. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well speaking as someone on dial up, I really would love to see the detail in your photo even in the preview. As it is, unless I view the image at it's full gigantic size, most of the shadow detail is not visible. The brightened version shows a lot more in the preview size. And as you rightly said, this is an encylopedia, and people do want to see the interiror, so atmosphere should be rejected in preference to detail for the average person. However its just a thought and as most people are happy with a dark version that's fine with me. Just another point a bright interior of a church doesn't make it a carnival. For instance this photo has almost daylight brightness. And I'm not saying your lying when you say it was really dark (I can well image), but in this photo and this one, this one and this one {which I think are of the same basilica}, the interior is very bright; so a brightened version isn't really so unrealistic. I'm not trying to detract from your obviously brilliant images, but maybe you should be a little more open to help from others in post processing --Fir0002 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I can't speak for everyone as I don't see through their monitor, but I think that the shadow detail CAN be seen for the most part - it is probably just darker than some people would prefer. I don't think that sacrificing accuracy for ease of viewing is right - I think atmosphere is just as important for an encyclopaedia as the detail. It all contributes to the illustration of the article. As for the images you cite, the first is taken with a flash which would illuminate the shadows, the second is of mainly the already lit area of the church and doesn't display any of the darkest parts, the third is just as dark in the shadow areas, if not MORE dark than mine, and I get "Server configuration does not allow access to this page" when I try to view the fourth. Obviously it is POSSIBLE to take a photo that is brigher, but there is nothing to say that it is more accurate. It just keeps coming back to accuracy. I AM open to help in post processing, but I'm still entitled to an opinion on edit policy and on whether the edit reflects the scene accurately. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must have some kind of javascript checking to see if you've seen the page first. Go to the source page here

Support absolutely amazing. chowells 00:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Magmafox 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


View of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky's harbour from Avacha Bay, with Mount Koryasky rising in the background.
Edit #1; Adjusted contrast, hues, rotated 0.3deg CCW, saturation, removed speckling.
Edit #2; Same as #1, without despeckling filters applied. Perhaps can be salvaged by a better pshopper.

Great shot of an interesting part of the world (I've always been curious about what's on that peninsula on the far right of Russia). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky is the region's main city.

Uploaded two edits. drumguy8800 - speak? 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted . Diceman 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rooster
Edit

Another photo with a strong rural theme. Taken at sunset when the Australian bush turns orange tinted and with a warming filter the iamge has a nice look. Maybe a little too yellowish for some so I've uploaded an edit. Thanks to Didactohedron for removing the grass from the roosters eye.

Oh I'm very active in that discussion, and I would scoff at anyone who says that the removal of the out-of-focus grass head that was in the roosters eye has altered the meaning of the photo --Fir0002 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, save it for the talk page. In any case stating that he altered it is rather a plus. --Dschwen 11:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rooster04 adjusted.jpg Raven4x4x 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


White-breasted Nuthatch. Image is not upside down.
More contrasty edit

Another very good bird picture by Mdf, this one of a White-breasted Nuthatch. Nuthatches are the only North American birds that can go down a tree head first, a feat that Mdf has caught this one doing. Illustrates White-breasted Nuthatch


Hermajesty 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001.jpg Raven4x4x 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An elephant with a castle

This striking and somewhat unusual image illustrates the Elephant and Castle article particularly well.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Castle Neuschwanstein at Schwangau, Bavaria, Germany
sharpened

Amazing photograph that is currently a Featured Picture on Commons. Illustrates Neuschwanstein.

Promoted Image:Castle Neuschwanstein.jpg Raven4x4x 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Brooklyn Bridge at Night.

I like this image becuase it shows the beautiful surroundings arround the Brooklyn Bridge.

  • Nominate and support. -- Sam916 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not currently used in any article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:19
  • Support Someone has since added it to the Brooklyn Bridge article. It is a stunning photo that I think illustrates the bridge and its surroundings quite well. However, the original suffers from severe JPEG artifacts, and it's really too bad about the flag. I uploaded an edit, and while they are still visible, I don't think they are noticeable enough to prevent it from gaining FP status. ~MDD4696 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know... the image doesn't seem all that clear. It almost looks like a painting, not a photo. Personally, living 3 miles from the bridge, I've seen it look much better, and if someone dug harder a better picture could be found. I don't agree with the "surroundings" comment above, its true surroundings would show parts of Brooklyn and more of Manhattan, like the 1890 map in the article did. Not that it makes this photo bad, just that a surroundings argument doesn't really hold up. --JPM 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I hope the very slight blurriness (or lack of clarity, or whatever) doesn't keep this stunning image from being featured. It just might look more like a painting than a photo - but there's no harm in that! Zafiroblue05 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support either. It is a very nice shot, and I really like the way the lights reflect off the water. Gives it a kind of Cyberpunk look. JQF 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support very good picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a very blurry picture. It only shows one of the spans, and the surroundings aren't exactly all that great.. especially since its in NYC and there are certainly more appealling angles. Though, this is an interesting angle, and I'll admit I've never seen the bridge in this light. Also, the image doesn't exactly provide much in the way of contrasts, and I'm afraid, because of the darkness and few colors in the image, that this is not salvagable. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, sorry. The first image isn't blurry. The edited version is.. and it isn't exactly an improvement, whoever put it up.. drumguy8800 - speak? 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So ya know, drop what I said about the contrasts and lighting too. The first image is a lot better than the edited, which I viewed. I still oppose due to the poor surroundings and lack of focus on the actual bridge.. drumguy8800 - speak? 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the blurriness that you don't like about the edit I made? I rotated it slightly and tried to smooth out the JPEG artifacts, which unfortunately does smudge it up a bit. I was hoping that the edit would appeal to people who would've oppose based on the severe artifacting. ~MDD4696 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the edit since the original seems to be favored. ~MDD4696 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . 12 supports and 9 opposes just isn't consensus enough for me to promote. Raven4x4x 09:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


San Francisco International Airport at night

I nominate this picture because it has already been awarded featured picture status on the commons. I also believe that this is a beautiful picture. This photo was taken by Andrew Choy

  • Nominate and support. - Sam916 05:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This picture is beautiful with sharp contrast that reveal details in the dark - Falconsgladiator 09:43, 7 January 2006 (PST)
  • Comment: The colors are nice, but nothing appears to be in focus. Maybe I'm asking too much of a night-time photo :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 06:36
  • Support - TomStar81 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Nice when viewed as a thumbnail, but as noted above, it seems a little too unclear and undetailed for me to support. enochlau (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Early on the standards for FP were somewhat lower than they are now (not in 'theory' but in practice yes)[4], [5] and this image would've probably been adequate, but lately the quality of images here has risen so high that for beter or worse, I think the standard for acceptance has changed as well. This is a nice idea for a photo but the focus is unfortunately really rather poor, at 1/50th second exposure there is no reason it should be if focus was properly manually set to . I can't support it for FP. --Deglr6328 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Below standard FPs can be unfeatured. And the Yarra pic definately should. It's not eligible anymore anyhow sice it is not used in any article.--Dschwen 11:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:San Francisco International Airport at night.jpg Raven4x4x 09:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Resin flowing out of a tree's wound

Image of a wounded tree, with the resin flowing out to close the wound. The pic is taken at sunset by me, and it illustrates the Resin article.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Uncle Sam, half-length portrait, pointing at viewer as part of the United States government effort to recruit soldiers during World War I.

The most famous military recruitment poster, at least in the United States (and surely that's all that matters ;-)). The "I Want You" image of Uncle Sam has become iconic, and the subject of countless parodies. This is a high quality scan of an original poster from 1917, not a modern remake.

Currently used in Uncle Sam, Recruiting poster, and James Montgomery Flagg.

Promoted Image:J. M. Flagg, I Want You for U.S. Army poster (1917).jpg Raven4x4x 09:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Passionfruit Flower

Other versions: Image:Passionfruit flower06.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower05.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower02.jpg
I think this is a nice photo of the beautiful flower of the passionfruit.

OK I can understand that, but if I decreased the aperture the background would have become even more prominent and the flower may have become lost. Also shutter speed would have been a problem with a moving object (wind) in the shade --Fir0002 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But fir002, you can't use your own (and physical) limitations as a justification for a photo that has others believe has flaws. It either is or it isn't FP quality in their mind and the reasons why you couldn't do it differently shouldn't really matter to them, unless it is an exceptional photo that didn't allow for better planning. I do agree that it is difficult to get a macro shot with pleasing bokeh and good depth of field though. Perhaps you could have taken the photo looking down at the flower rather than from the side. I don't know if it would have improved the composition but its just an idea. I also know you can't please everyone. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have made myself more clear. Disregard what I said about shutter speed that was merely as an after thought. My main point is that the low DOF makes the picture look good IMO because it focuses on a central subject - the center of the flower --Fir0002 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pehaps there is a different photo from the ones listed above which you would prefer? --Fir0002 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are all very good, and very close to FP, but there is something small annoying me in all of them. I tihnk number 2 is the best, but it is out of focus in the front instead of the back. Number 6 is good with focus, but the lighting is distracting. I think you chose an incredibly difficult subject, and needed some luck to get both good lighting and focus, especially if it was windy. --liquidGhoul 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 is the best (although you haven't listed it). I support it. The lighting and focus are good, the only problem I can see, is that a leaf is partially obstructing the flower. I have no problem, as it adds more encyclopaedic value, and it doesn't really distract. But I don't know if others will see it that way. I really like the flower bud as well. --liquidGhoul 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vaduz Castle (Schloss Vaduz), Vaduz, Liechtenstein

This striking picture of the Vaduz castle illustrates the article on Liechtenstein and gives a sense of the natural beauty of the alpine region.

Photographed by Michael Gredenberg, August 8, 2004.

Promoted Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg Raven4x4x 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is the famous photo of self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Ðức on a busy Saigon street in 1963 in protest of the Vietnamese government's repressive policies on Buddhism. This is an important photograph, both historically and for the illustration of Self-immolation and Thích Quảng Ðức. It is of reasonable resolution for a photograph of its era.

  • Nominate and support. - Dylan 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a cropped version of the original, which is a lot better. Theres no copyright or source information on here either. The talk page suggests it's just a cropped version of the RATM album cover. - Hahnchen 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a cropped version, the full version of the original photo would look like this. Also, it has no licensing tag. If someone could find a big-enough copy of the original, and were to tag it, I would support it. - JPM | 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This site says that a different picture is from a 1963 issue of Time Magazine. I'm not sure of the copyright regarding that, though. If no one can find out the copyright information, then maybe it can be uploaded with the {{Fairuseunsure}} template? - JPM | 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for FP unless a legit licence can be established, preferably for the original full photograph. I agree the pic and subject are incredibly striking and worthy of FP, and we should keep this (much reproduced and widespread) pic under fair use even if we can't find a free licensed version, but we can't have copyrighted fair use pics as FPs. The terms of Fair Use prevent us showing the images in other contexts (e.g. FP galleries). ~ VeledanTalk 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I changed the photograph so that it's not the one from the Rage cover. I've also posted the relevant info about the picture on its page.
  • Conditional Support If the copyright is allowed for FP. The image is spectacular.--liquidGhoul 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment due to the incompatible license the nomination might as well be removed right now. Memorable photographs will have to do for this one. --Dschwen 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed due to non-free licence. Raven4x4x 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Draget Canal

Peaceful and calm image of the Draget Canal in Sweden. Note the strange, greenish color that the algae give the water. I created and uploaded the image.


Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A green gecko in Eastern Texas.

A high-res, clear shot of a green gecko for the gecko article.

NOTE: Not sure if this is policy or not, but I'd like to withdraw this image and replace with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gecko Revision, which is farther up the page. This image can either be left to run its cycle and be dismissed or the votes can be crossed out.

Ahem.. That was me... -Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Earth seen from Apollo 17

"The Blue Marble" is a famous photograph of the Earth taken on 7 December 1972 by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft at a distance of about 45,000 kilometers or about 28,000 miles. It is one of the most widely distributed photographic images in existence. Earth is said to have the appearance of a child's marble in the photo; that is the Earth has the same aspect at this distance as a child's marble at about arm's length.

This photo is of Africa, Antarctica, and the Arabian Peninsula as taken en route to the Moon by Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt on December 7, 1972.

Removed - already featured. Raven4x4x 09:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ISS in Orbit

A picture of the International Space Station in Orbit over the earth in August 2005; it was photographed from the Space Shuttle Discovery during the STS-114 Return to Flight mission. This picture is from the commons, and is already a featured picture there.


Green Tree Python

Picture of the green tree python, self photografer

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramphastos swainsoni This is a portrait of the ramphastos swainsoni
Edit
Support the edit. drumguy8800 - speak? 06:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What article is this picture in? According to the File links, it is not listed in any article. Also, "Ramphastos swainsoni" does not link to an article. Either make the article a redirect page to "Toucan" and put the picture on the Toucan page or create an article for the specific species, with the picture in it. This is a good photo, and when you have it in an article, I will again support. drumguy8800 - speak? 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 ! Strong Support I really like this picture.. and its good that its in an article now. Disagree with comments that it is over saturated. drumguy8800 - speak? 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well spotted, part of the bird's gone missing. Although as for the branch, I don't think that's a major problem since the bird isn't sitting on that part of the branch - the bit removed just happens to be in the foreground, no real loss of encyclopedic value. However, if I would prefer it if the bottom part were cropped off instead of photoshopped out. enochlau (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree - do a crop, and we can get out of the nitpicking about whether to retouch or not. In this case, the touch-up did nothing to destroy the encyclopedic value. Crop slightly at the top, too, to balance the composition. The colors in the edit are more to my liking, though. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No concensus ~ VeledanTalk 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interior view of an O'Neill cylinder showing alternating land and window stripes
Color-corrected version of above by AlbertR.

Striking and high-resolution image of a space vessel rather more interesting than the one right below it on the page. ;) In article O'Neill cylinder.

Not promoted No consensus. Alr 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mourne Mountains, pictured from St. John's Point. The 850 metre Slieve Donard mountain is the centre and highest peak (straightened)

Self-nom. Added it because the other pictures of this iconic mountain range do not give any sort of perspective.

I meant the mountain range, but I agree its closer to 10% than 5%, but still too small. Glaurung 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Star Ferry and the IFCs

The photograph features the facinating night view of the Victoria Harbour of Hong Kong in two layers, with Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon Peninsula in the foreground, the Central, Hong Kong Island (the opposite side of the harbour) in the background. In the foreground is a Star Ferry, one of the oldest cross-habour transportation in Hong Kong, parking at the pier. In the backround are the International Finance Centres (the taller "2 ifc" on the left and the shorter "1 ifc" on the right), which was constructed in recent years. The foreground and the background create a strong contrast between the old and the new in Hong Kong. This photograph was taken by Alan Mak, the nominator, in December 2005, and appears in the articles Star Ferry, International Finance Centre and Tsim Sha Tsui.


Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The only part of the crater of the volcano Grimsvötn in Iceland which was not covered by the ice of Vatnajökull glacier in 1972

Used in the article Vatnajökull, picture taken by myself.

Done --Roger McLassus 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The sloping of the horizon is now corrected --Roger McLassus 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Iceland Grimsvoetn 1972-B.jpg Raven4x4x 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fire generated by a burning weed. No use of petrol
Existing FP

I think this is a good replacement for the existing FP photo I took with my old Kodak. Higher res and quality IMO. Of course if you feel there is space for two fire FP's I'd be happy with that too :-)

Comment I didn't realise we were voting on the caption as well. Put a bit more detail in it --Fir0002 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAFP says that pictures should be, "Be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." I think the picture looks nice and would suggest you take it to commons, but I see you have already done that. Broken S 14:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps it would be more suitable for the "flame" article --Fir0002 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be great in the flame article. I just added it. --Dschwen 19:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider supporting? --Fir0002 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is now used in an article where it fits? That should be the case for every picture on wikipedia. Don't get me wrong the image quality is realy outstanding, but if you check the flame article you'll see that the other picture adds more to it in an encyclopedic way, explaining the different flame colors.--Dschwen 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Trickey Pond, Naples, Maine

My own image. Trickey Pond is a beautiful pond, sought out for its beauty by photographers around the state. I believe it clearly illustrates the pond, as well as being quite eye-catching.


Detroit International Edward H. McNamara Terminal

I took this image on my way to South Korea. It shows the architecture from a different point of view than the main floor as well as showing the trains that allow passengers to effortlessly move from one end of the linear terminal to the other end. The image is shown in the article about DTW in the Edward H. McNamara Terminal section.


Cymbidium orchid (version 1)
Cut out version (version 2). Also availble in black: Image:Cymbidium08 black.jpg

Maybe this flower photo has a little more "wow" factor. It also contributes well to it's article. Personally I like the colors in the non cut out version. I have other versions: Image:Cymbidium04.jpg, Image:Cymbidium06.jpg, Image:Cymbidium07.jpg

Which version? - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support any of those versions --Fir0002 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed the outer glow effect --Fir0002 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The second image. Eyesclosed 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Multiwavelength X-ray image of the remnant of Kepler's Supernova, SN 1604. (Chandra X-ray Observatory)

As stated on the picture of the day site, the purpose of the POTD should be to pique the reader's interest and add significantly to content. An image like this accomplishes both, not to mention its quite beautiful. The image appears in Supernova, and was created by User: Janderk and originally seen via NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.


Hay bale with bird

I got up at dawn to get this photo and I think it came out quite well. The bird was a bonus.

Not promoted . Close, but with seven supporters (eight including nominator) and four opposers (five including the anon) I can't say there was consensus to promote. Raven4x4x 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:2003 UB313 artist's impression.jpg
An artist's impression of the view towards the Sun from near 2003 UB313.

Just a beautiful image which portrays the considerable distance between this newly discovered satellite and the sun perfectly. Article appears in 2003 UB313 and is in the public domain being created and released by NASA

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Formal Gardens

The Formal Gardens at Lake Forest Academy in Illinois. This was formerly the estate of Chicago meat baron J. Ogden Armour; it was later bought by the school. Beautiful place. I took this photo myself.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:No test material on this page.png
Intentionally blank page as used in the SATs.

High resolution, catches the eye in its own unique way, and illustrates its article perfectly. Specifically, it illustrates the counter-refuting method used in the SAT. Rather than leave the page entirely blank (and leave the nervous student worrying that he got a defective test), and rather than add a self-refuting message like "This page is intentionally left blank", they chose an appropriate alternative.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Albert Dock, Liverpool, UK
Albert Dock, Liverpool, UK, attempt 2

In a rare bit of January sun, I took 27 pictures of the Albert Dock and created created this Panorama using PTGui. Quite pleased with the result.

  • Nominate and support (self-nom). - chowells 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are a couple of flaws I'd like corrected before supporting: 1: The buildings lean to the left in an odd way - maybe the stitching should be re-done, or the whole image rotated slightly clockwise, and 2: A little sharpening (maybe "unsharp mask" filtering), and after that some downsampling, to reduce the unnecessarily large size, which would also improve the apparent sharpness. --Janke | Talk 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Rotated by 0.7 deg and buildings seem perfect now. Applied some USM and downsampled in resolution slightly. Please see version 2. chowells 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Fir002. For the record Chowells, you could probably tell by looking at the the shutter speed and aperture that something was strange if it was at ISO 1600. A panorama like that should be shot at ISO100 so the shutter/aperture would have been 16 times faster/more stopped down. ;). I'm not saying I've never made that mistake before, but I usually pay more attention when I'm creating a panorama. You have all the time in the world to get things right! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice attempt to capture a picture, but it really isn't all that stunning.--Ali K 11:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but it does show the busy dock to advantage, I do like the mixture of tugs and sailing vessels. However, the leftmost brick building is still leaning in an awkward way... Reducing the size somewhat further (it doesn't have to be 18,000 pixels wide!) would remove some of the noise. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The tessellated glass roof of the British Museum's Great Court.
File:British Museum Great Court roof edit.jpg
Edit 1
File:British Museum Great Court roof-2.jpg
Edit 2

Solipsist took this picture of the Great Court at the British Museum. It is used in that article and I think it is an excellent picture of a striking piece of architecture and engineering.

original or first edit. Edit2 has a distinct purple tint. Edit1 might be a tad too warm though.--Dschwen 12:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:British Museum Great Court roof.jpg. In the absence of any real consensus on which version to promote, I promote the original. Raven4x4x 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hoverfly on chamomile flower
I'd rather go with oppose, see my comments further down. The other pic is just better. --Dschwen 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this picture adds a lot more to the flower-fly article as the actual fly occupies a lot more of the frame and is shown from a better angle. --Dschwen 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is striking but is it nominated? Would support if nominated.--Dakota ~ ε 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just nominated it on commons. But in any case, having a superior picture is a pretty good reason to oppose this nomination. --Dschwen 12:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Washed Out? I don't quite follow you there - it seems to me as perfectly saturated. I also fail to see any haloes, let alone "strong" haloes. There is a little compression where there is fine hairs, but that is what you get with jpeg. Also with all due respect I think your photo is a little washed out and unsharp. --Fir0002 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, can you see that the yellow part of the flower lacks definition and seems posterized? The sides of it have strange highlights. They don't look like genuine highlights as they're sort of pale, so I don't know what they are. I can only guess that it is posterization anyway. We're obviously not on the same page here as I think my image looks more balanced and yours looks washed out (when I said that, I was refering to the flower - the fly is overly contrasty actually, so I guess I should have been specific). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I honestly don't see any posterized elements. Maybe you could uploaded a picture with a circle around it? --Fir0002 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well personally I think that is one of the strong points. So many photos of hoverfly's are top down because that is pretty easy (couple examples from me {not including the rest on the article) 1, 2, 3, 4). And getting a shot that is side on is quite unusual and I find more interesting --Fir0002 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]