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.


Incandescence

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.

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.
  • 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]
  • That's a good solution. The pic is much better off in this article. In fact in this context I'll happily support it. --Dschwen 08:44, 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]

Rocket Man, 2005 Melbourne Show

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

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 A95

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]

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

Monarch Butterflies

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]

Shisa2

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

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.

  • Comment If it means anything, I didn't even notice that it was a zoo, especially in the first image. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ray Sunset from Telstra Tower

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]

Blue Mountains - Three Sisters

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]

Human Cannonball

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]
  • I tried it with skewing as well and you end up losing nearly as much :-/ ~ VeledanTalk 22:26, 20 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]

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

Remembrance Poppy

Remebrance Poppy

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

  • I'll rather go with Flcelloguy and oppose as well. --Dschwen 22:29, 21 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]

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

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.

  • Oppose not stunning, and see above. --Dschwen 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Air Pollution over LA

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]
  • By request, here is the original[1]. It is quite a bit longer and a little taller. While it does extend far further to the right, the visibility gets much worse too. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 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]
  • I stand corrected then. :) Sorry for the confusion. Hard for me to tell given the visibility. I was merely a tourist! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. See above. --Dschwen 08:58, 2 January 2006 (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]

Lillee Marsh Stand

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]

Missouri’s Veterans

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]

Arcing pickup shoe

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]

Our Rose

File:SSM10260.JPG
Our rose
  • Since the 2day comment period got silently killed off I might as well oppose right now. --Dschwen 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
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

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 feathers

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

  • Comment I believe that is the texture of the surface behind the feathers. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 22:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

An American breakfast

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]

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

Cola de Caballo

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

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]


Superb Fairy-Wren

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]

  • I went driving, and got out to photograph a kookaburra. Then I noticed a family of wrens, and that one flew right up to me without noticing. I took a few photos, accidentally moved, and it flew off. --liquidGhoul 04:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incredible luck and even more incredible photography! Congratulations --Neutralitytalk 06:03, 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]

DrugChart

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]
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]

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

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.

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]
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]
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

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]

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

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

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]


San Juan Mountain Panorama

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

  • Support, I definately second this. Nice work! --Dschwen 12:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Plumed Basilisk Portrait

Plumed Basilisk Portrait

Portrait of the plumed basilisk

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


Zion Angels Landing

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]


Dried Paprika

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]


Single-phase transformer

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]
  • Strong Support the coloured version. It is nicer than the bw. --Vidarlo 12:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support this one. Thank you for your responsiveness. (The text is still slightly unclear here, but not when resized to 400px, as in the article.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it's the best picture of a transformer I've ever seen, it's very clear and the last colored version is very nice. Alessio Damato 15:54, 2 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]


Malta Knights.jpg

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 Collision

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]


Lake Clearwater

••***...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]


F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City

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

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]

  • Support Edit - That's much better! Doesn't make me fell nose to nose with the frog. JQF 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can easily fix that. I will now. --liquidGhoul 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Turbulence

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.

Animated horse[edit]

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]
    • Since consensus is the ideal, 66% is a little low. But personally I don't think it's illegitimate. -- bcasterlinetalk 20:06, 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]
    • If you read the comments - its not as straightforward as that. ed g2stalk 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just as I supported last time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated before, votes from the last nomination are carrying forward. ed g2stalk 00:03, 18 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.

  • Self-nom and support. - Janke | Talk 10:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a great addition to the article in which it is attached and breaks the monotony of 'the usual' static images. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Would illustrate rotoscoping better with the original photographs being played next to it. I don't think it is a particularly good image for the persistance of vision article either. ~MDD4696 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Oppose - it looks very childish, it's too fast, and original photos are better to illustrate the article. Renata3 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Neutral per below. Renata3 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( − ) Oppose Nothing special. Agree with Renata3 and add that on frame eight (last frame), two black lines appear at the bottom, and the legs on the horse in frame 7 look a bit strange. --Fir0002 06:14, 4 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]
  • Support, nice work! --Dschwen 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cool image. (Ibaranoff24 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Ignoring the stylised horse, how accurate are the movements of the legs? Would this stand up to being placed onto a horse-related page to illustrate how horses gallop? enochlau (talk) 11:19, 6 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]
  • Support - I like it. It's too fast to show horse's movement, but as an animated cartoon - it's fine. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a very good example of an animated cartoon. Thryduulf 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now - There seems to be some sort of (I hope) "mistake" in the image. It looks as if on the last frame there are two lines at the back of the horse's legs. It is already been discussed above. If it's removed, I will most gladly change my vote. --Kilo-Lima 12:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Since the minor glitch has been removed. --Kilo-Lima 15:33, 8 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]
  • Support How can you oppose a galloping horse?! DaGizzaChat (c) 04:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing about this animated GIF that makes it stand out against others like it. Junes 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Bevo 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree with Junes; I don't find this too striking - an infinite number of animated images can be created; what makes this one special? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree with Junes. Eyesclosed 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    New user. Only edits are on FPC.

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

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]


Moscow

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]
  • Uhm, well, I was kind of aiming for the opposite direction :-), showing more at the bottom. --Dschwen 22:31, 4 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

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.

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


Spiral Notebook

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 green field

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]


Binoculars

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 on horse

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

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

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.

  • I can understand the background, though I personally don't mind it, but what do you mean by "the subject matter [is] poor." --liquidGhoul 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]


Montreal Twilight Panorama

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]


Lewis and Clark expedition map

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.


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]


Leaf Morphology Chart

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.

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]


Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica

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

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]


Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky

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

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

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]


Elphant and castle

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

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

Brooklyn Bridge at Night.

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

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]


SFO at night

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

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 wound

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 poster

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

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]


Schloss Vaduz, Liechtenstein

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]


Self-immolation of Thích Quảng Ðức

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.

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


Draget Canal

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]


Gecko

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 Blue Marble

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]


International Space Station

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

Green Tree Python

Picture of the green tree python, self photografer

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

Swainson-Tukan (Ramphastos swainsonii)

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]

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

Space Colony

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

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

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]


Grimsvoetn

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]


Image:Fire02.jpg

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 Sunrise

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.


DTW Edward H. McNamara Terminal

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 orchids

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]


Supernova

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

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]

2003 UB313 artist's impression

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 at Lake Forest Academy

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]


Intentionally blank page

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 Panorama

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.

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]
  • I'd like to shoot the person who decided the ISO setting on the 20D should be hidden away. Still, not terrible for accidentally leaving it in ISO 1600 mode ;) chowells 15:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I only got the camera at christmas, that was the first time I've used it properly. I will definitely be checking the ISO more carefully in future. 84.9.223.82 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


British Museum Great Court

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[edit]

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]