Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eloquence (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 26 September 2004 (nominate guardian lions photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant (see also Wikipedia:Featured articles). Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below into the Current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image that currently exists in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures gallery should not be there, the Nomination for removal section of this page can be used to nominate it for delisting.

For delisting, this page is similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

For listing, it is the other way around: If an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination, and the general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Here are some guidelines to consider (decisions are made on a case-by-case basis):

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.

Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).

When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible.

How to add your nomination

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! However, you may find it useful to copy this form and paste it in the edit box:

<br style="clear:both;" />
===[[Media:name.jpg|Name of image]]===
Add your reasons for nominating it here,
say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
* Votes go here - ~~~~
* And here - ~~~~

Once you have nominated the picture, use the Wikipedia template for featured picture candidates on the correspondent image page.

Current nominations

Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.

Imperial guardian lions

File:Forbbiden City2.JPG
Imperial guardian lions

From Imperial guardian lion and Forbidden City, photo by User:Allentchang. Very striking and definitely enriches the articles, particularly the first one. My only very minor complaint would be the person in the background, but this is hard to avoid in tourist places.--Eloquence* 04:11, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Large White caterpillar

File:Large White caterpillar 800.jpg
Large White caterpillar

Taken by Sannse, used on Large White. Nice symmetry, good focus, excellent perspective.--Eloquence* 00:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Superb quality, I love it. -- Solitude 01:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks even more tasty than the natto. -- Oska 03:03, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Water after droplet impact

1: Water after droplet impact
2: Water after droplet impact
3: Water after droplet impact - Nice base
4: Water after droplet impact - Crooked, but not grainy

An almost perfect photo of what happnens when a water droplet hits water.

  • Comment, have added a series again, only Water_droplet.jpg is linked to a page. The favourite will take the place on the page. --Fir0002 02:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Self Nomination. --Fir0002 22:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I think it looks a bit wonky, and a bit grainy Dunc_Harris| 22:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. 2 and 3 are fuzzy, 1 and 4 are tilted and also an odd angle between the surface and the frozen water column -- Chris 73 Talk 02:41, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)



This is just one out of the collection of catalan solids created by Cyp. They exist both in animated and unanimated form (unanimated version of this one: Image:Pentakisdodecahedron.jpg). As far as I could see, none of these have been featured. They're excellent work and at least one of them deserves the honors, IMHO.--Eloquence*

  • Support.--Eloquence* 15:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it but I think the animation is a bit fast. Dunc_Harris| 15:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant --Fir0002 22:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very illustrative. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:42, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice nomination. -- Oska 02:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Happy pit bull

I didn't like the doggy photo below, but I did like this one, very personal. Dunc_Harris| 14:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Pet photographers everywhere are going "Ewwww." GET DOWN TO THE PET'S LEVEL!! Denni 23:16, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's remember this is an encyclopedia and keep the anthropomorphic comments and cute photos to the many, I am sure, dog fan websites out there. Oska 03:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 14:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great Dane & Chihuahua

Great Dane & Chihuahua

I requested this one, shows nicely the range of dog sizes. I'd be interested to know how people see it for the first time. Dunc_Harris| 14:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Now I know why there is no Chihuahua and Great Dane cross-breed ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (too messy) (William M. Connolley 19:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support. Excellent pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- I think a truly featured worthy picture of this kind would add a human being or something else in the picture to help establish a frame of reference. This picture only provides a relative range of dog sizes...someone not very familiar with the size of a Chihuahua, for example, might assume the Dane is 7 feet tall. A nice concept for a picture, I think, but I'm not sure if this execution of the concept is featurable. Jwrosenzweig 22:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A great concept, but poor execution. I have always wondered, though, what a ChihuaXDane might look like. (You'd want the bitch to be a Great Dane, of course...) Denni 23:20, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oska 03:19, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like it and its a good illustration. The problem for me is the tone of the background hill merges with the great dane's coat and the outline of the chihuahua is not so well defined (lost in the grass?). Looking at User:Elf's other dog pics, I notice they work a lot better when the dogs don't have leads and look towards the camera (that can't be easy though). Kudos for avoiding the photographer's shadow. -- Solipsist 11:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Gaz 14:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The trees seem to grow from the Great Dane's back. -Hapsiainen 23:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)


Natto - a Japanese dish made from fermented soybeans.

Nice composition, although possibly not quite pin-sharp. Somewhat unappetising to my eyes, however it illustrates the article wonderfully — I wouldn't guess what fermented soybeans would look like otherwise. - Solipsist 07:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Solipsist 07:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. And yes, it tastes as bad as it looks -- Chris 73 Talk 08:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent photo of natto, really captures the gooey sliminess. Yum yum yum, I'm getting hungry. -- Tlotoxl 10:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Which criterion, beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant, is this picture intended to meet? I agree that it's a fine illustration for an article of the same name, But featured picture - man, you really have to stretch it. Denni 23:24, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice photo. (disclaimer: natto fan) Oska 03:17, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This scores about 800 on my 1000-words meter - Good, but not quite good enough (focus is off) to get my vote - Sorry - Gaz
    • Somehow I feel the slightly off focus is appropriate for a photo of natto. Oska 02:54, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

The Space Shuttle Columbia seconds after engine ignition, 1981 (NASA)

You just have to say 'Wow!' Shows the Space Shuttle to good effect and the colours are rather nice too. This was on the 'Selected anniversaries' section of the main page last week, and it really caught my eye then. -- Solipsist 06:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think I am mistaken. It was probably Image:Ap11-KSC-69PC-442.jpg on the current WP:COTW at Space Race that caught my eye. Not that that matters much. -- Solipsist 11:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solipsist 06:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:02, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- [[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Autiger 00:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - A PD work has to be damn good to get my vote - Gaz 14:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the photo, and I saw Columbia land after this launch, but that brings me to my problem. This is the first launch, and the fuel tank is painted white. Most shuttle launches used tanks painted orange. If we feature a shuttle launch photo, I think it should be more represtative of the "normal" configuration. Gentgeen 22:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Himeji Castle

Himeji Castle modified

Another shameless self-nom. It's a beautiful structure. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Great photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Schutz 06:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the colours are badly washed out and the sky is blank - Adrian Pingstone 07:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Himeji is impressive, but I agree with Adrian P that the colours are washed out and with a grey sky, the photo lacks contrast. -- Tlotoxl 17:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as AP) (William M. Connolley 19:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Oppose. I added an attempted colour-correction..However, I'm not quite satisfied with it, since the sky got even more plain. I bet a professional Photoshop user would do a better job. — David Remahl 00:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm no professional, but I modified the contrast on the sky as best I could and even got some clouds out of the deal. Please reconsider. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It certainly is a beautiful structure but unfortunately this photo does it little justice. Oska 03:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ditto all of the above - Gaz 14:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Very good photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote yet: Is this available in a larger size, too? (Current: 300 x 450 Pixels) -- Chris 73 Talk 03:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, it adds a lot to Water. ✏ Sverdrup 00:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd like to make a comment about the tendency to post 'geek interest' type photos to this forum. I characterise these as photos that are impressive to certain people simply because of the idea of the photo rather than the visual impact of the photo itself. Examples include this photo - Look! Flowing water frozen by a camera! - and the hurricane Ivan photo - Look! That monster hurricane photographed from space!. Oska 03:09, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Needs to be bigger though. ed g2stalk 15:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Large Bonfire

a very large (but controlled) bonfire (Large bonfire.jpg)
Silhouette of person on the left (Large bonfire02.jpg)
Silhouette of person on the right (Large bonfire03.jpg)
Silhouette of persons head (Large bonfire04.jpg)

A very large and fast burning bonfire (unaided by petrol).

  • Comment. Only Large_bonfire.jpg is used on a page. I would like to see which of these photos you like best - the best one I'll put on the fire page --Fir0002 03:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 12:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.     Fire.... Good!   -- Solipsist 12:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is curious that this image is used in Fire but not yet in Bonfire - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have a similar series of photos of the same bonfire on the Bonfire page. --Fir0002 02:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a fine fire, but not a great picture of a fire. Denni 19:20, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
  • Support the pic called "Silhouette of persons Head", shows me the scale - Adrian Pingstone 21:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have uploaded several versions with people silhouetted in them. Hope you like one of these better--Fir0002 03:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:16, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the original best, the scale is given by the twigs. Dunc_Harris| 14:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Large bonfire.jpg, the original image nominated - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like 02 best, though. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Big chocolate cup from Bruxelle

Renomination, received a total of 2 votes, I think there's not better illustration for the instant-water-in-mouth effect of chocolate. -- Solitude 08:13, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- Solitude 08:13, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The different coloured lighting from opposite sides is uncomfortable. Also it just doesn't much look like chocolate. -- Solipsist 12:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The light on the chocolate tower is awkward. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reflections in the window, too dark, and IMHO not very appetizing. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:34, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The background is too chaotic - Adrian Pingstone 16:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, ditto Adrian. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:16, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Solipsist. I think a photo like what they show on the Cadbury ads would be great to illustrate chocolate. Melted chocolate with more melted chocolate being poured into it. --Fir0002 03:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this is a very, very ordinary photo. Sorry Solitude but I think you're wasting our time. Oska 03:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)



Renomination, used in Dominoes, taken by Gaz. As I feel the attention the Featured Picture Candidates section receives seems to have grown extensively the last two months, I'd like to renominate some pictures from the early days. If you object, feel free to comment/oppose, but I feel some pictures that received little attention nor votes receive a second chance. About the picture itself, I think it actually succeeds in making dull domino stones interesting and beautiful. -- Solitude 07:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- Solitude 07:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I would prefer the whole of the first dominoe to be in focus, and its face on the right hand side is possibly a little too dark -- Solipsist 12:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The entire image is too dark (literally not brilliant) and also the dominoes are placed in a pattern that would be unnatural to an actual game; this picture does not contribute significantly to the article Dominoes. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too dark, which I am not sure if I can change due to the odd license. May support if brighter, possibly also a higher resolution and a regular GFDL license. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment/No vote: It is licensed under the GFDL, and I've fixed the brightness. Guanaco 03:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs to be a lot lighter, and depth of field is also an issue. Denni 19:22, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with the issues Denni raised. Also dislike the actual domino's black spots- they seem to be very ragged. --Fir0002 03:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting perspective, poor shot. Oska 02:59, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Night view along the front from the Hotel Suisse in Nice

File:Dscn0113-night-view-with-blurred-cars 1200x900.jpg
Night view along the front from the Hôtel Suisse in Nice
  • I like this one. Ericd
  • Support. A truly superb picture... ermm... OK, yes, I took it (William M. Connolley 22:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)). BTW it really is the Primotel S., not Hotel S..
    • Oppose - I'm jealous (just kidding) - BTW, we don't care if it belongs to the Primotel group for everyone in Nice this is the "Hôtel Suisse" do you want a photo to see what's written on ? Ericd 22:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Janderk 00:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry to seem negative but it's not sharp enough for me to enjoy - Adrian Pingstone 07:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support'. Sharp enough, nice colours for a night shot. ed g2stalk 16:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - my only gripe is that the shutter speed could have been a bit faster, although I suppose that's no fault of the photographer (it being a nighttime landscape and all). Great shot! And yeah, I'm jealous... ugen64 02:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. As I recall, the shutter is deliberately slow to blur the car headlights (William M. Connolley 22:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • Support. Schutz 06:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like the way the road gets cut off. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Icelandic sheepdog

Icelandic sheepdog

Alitalia Airbus A321

Alitalia Airbus A321 landing at London (Heathrow) Airport

I like the angle, which makes it seem to be taking off although it's actually landing. Photographed by myself and used on the Alitalia article - Adrian Pingstone 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. (Am I allowed to add a Support for my own pic?) - Adrian Pingstone 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The clouds give the impression that the aircraft is in some kind of distress (sort of like the old Windows logo which looked like it was going down in flames). Denni 23:57, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
  • Support. The clouds look fine to me -- Chris 73 Talk 00:08, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:20, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A featured, thus brilliant as stated above, picture should have something special. I am afraid I do not see that in this one. This picture is one of the gazillions taken from the ground near the runway. Janderk 08:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I was on the ground near the runway. I find that's a good way to get a pic of an aeroplane!! Also it's no bar to a pic being Featured if gazillions of other such pics exist. You are being asked to judge this one, not those! - Adrian Pingstone 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Some pictures in one gazillion are not that easy to make. BTW I think it's important to feature some picture in a gazillions as long as they are GPDL This week-end I saw a whole street forbidden to cars, one small truck, 3 other utilies vehicles and a 5 persons crowd just to take a photo of a building with a large format 4"x5 camera for advertising purpose... I prefer not to figure what it would be for a 8"x10" cam ;). We aren't boxing in the same category as an airline company... Ericd 21:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see anything actually illustrated well in this photo. For example, I can't see clearly the name of the airline, and although it is an interesting angle that shows the underside of a landing aircraft with the wheels extended, that portion on the aircraft is in deep shadow, obscuring the detail. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 11:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An orchid

removing candidate --Fir0002 12:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please don't just remove a candidate without at least archiving the discussion, and in fact it would be best to just let it run the course (unless something like Copyvio mandates an immediate removal). - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • oh, okay Sorry! I guess i am not quite familiar with feature picture candidate etiquette, should I put the pic back up? I just thought it was too far in the wrong. Not even being an orchid (oops) --Fir0002 02:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Since you are the nominator, perhaps it is your option to withdraw it early, but it should have been added to the current archive (I added it there late yesterday). Let's leave this here another day or so to allow comments on the process. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 12:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Henry Moore sculpture

Used in Henry Moore. Very striking picture, well composed. Could just poss do with the very top cropped. (William M. Connolley 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)). Note (William M. Connolley 17:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)) someone seems to have cropped the top. BTW, I can't see the jagged edges.

  • Support (much better than rope :-) (William M. Connolley 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support. Great pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:55, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Tarquin 21:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The sculpture is very nice. The light is good the shadows are good, but the background is pretty poor for a featured picture.
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose. Nice pic of a wonderful sculpture. But the JPEG encoding seems to have been done at too high a compression rate. On the full size pic the sculpture's edges appear quite jagged. This is a critical flaw given the smooth curves of the sculpture being such an important feature. Oska 01:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
You've got a good eye, its better without the jaggies. I've a new version which hopefully addresses this and crops the top too, but for some reason I can't upload it - on overwriting, I keep getting an error message saying 'The file you uploaded seems to be empty.' -- Solipsist 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK it looks like the cropped, retouched and de-jaggied version has managed to upload now, although something odd was/is going on with the upload page. -- Solipsist 16:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. William, maybe you can try contacting the original creator for the original version and re-encode it. -- Solitude 06:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - If someone will crop the jagged edge from the top I'll change to support (I'll do it later if I get time) - Gaz 10:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 11:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Forgetting I could. -- Solipsist 12:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote, but the copyright status on the pic is wrong. Taking a picture of a copyrighted work (in this case, the statue) causes the picture itself to be a derivative work -- IE, you do not own the copyright on it, thus you cannot release it under the CCL. →Raul654 19:56, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I've asked on some other talk pages what the copyright status is for 2D images of 3D works, but never received a reply. Copyright on the photo when the 3D work is out of copyright seems clear. When the 3D work is in copyright its more confusing. A 3D copy of a 3D work is clearly a problem. I've seen some people claim that with 2D images of a 3D work, it matters whether the 3D work is in a public space. This page appears to give good advice and draws that distinction for photos of buildings but not sculptures. (buildings are copyright in the US ?*#$! )
However, the situation may be different in the UK. This article suggests that sculptures are not covered by UK copyright law at all. AFIK the sculpture was made in the UK in 1951, the photograph was taken in the UK from a public street, but is effectively being published in Florida. So does UK or US law apply? -- Solipsist 23:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Oblig. IANAL)
  • Oppose. Nothing spectacular here. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Coils of rope used for long-line fishing

From the NOAA, used in Rope. Graphic and does exactly what it says on the tin - Solipsist 16:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Solipsist 16:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can find litle interest in this photo and I don't find it striking, sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A large part of this picture is blurry due to a bad depth of field making it again look like snapshot. A tripod and smaller aperture or just better light conditions would have made this picture much better. Maybe I am too critical. Janderk 23:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised you say that. I rather suspect the photographer went to some effort to control the depth of field in order to blur the distance and create the impression that the coils go on for ever. If Fir0002 think this makes it look like seaweed, even better. Given the source, I would guess this rope is on the back of a trawler so an impression of seaweed is rather good. I also like the monochromatic quality. But I am clearly in the minority here. -- Solipsist 14:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Janderk on the blurry part of the photo - looks kinda like seaweed. --Fir0002 05:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the subject, but a better composition is required. -- Solitude 06:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Composition is OK, but the final result is not good enough from a technical stance - Gaz 10:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The DoF is obviously intentional, and the effect works quite well. Quite laughable that people could think it accidental, really. James F. (talk) 17:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. DoF is not adequate. And yes, it's quite possible it was accidental - not everyone uses a 35MM SLR. There are still plenty of point-and-clicks out there, which give you whatever DoF they want to give you. Denni 00:03, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
    • The DoF you get from a point-and-click is never that pronounced. As this is clearly a professional photo taken for a government agency - it is highly likely that the photographer knew exactly what he was doing - and did it rather well. The DoF is more than adequate - having the entire rope in focus would be boring. Support. ed g2stalk 00:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well I would love to agree with you Ed, although I have to admit that 98% of the pictures in the NOAA library are far from professional. I'd say most of them were by research students with a disposable they bought from the supermarket. This could easily just be a grad-student with an SLR and an interest in photography. In any case as Markalexander100 says, the intentionality is beside the point - the real question is whether people like the end result. -- Solipsist 15:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- I like this one. ✏ Sverdrup 10:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The DoF looks great, and helps draw the viewer's eyes towards the detailed/closer-up parts. Prevents there from being all that distracting detail in the background. It also looks rather nice, IMHO. --Gregb 02:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support- what Gregb said. Obviously the intentions of the photographer are irrelevant: even if the picture had been a luck snapshot, it would still be just as good a picture. Markalexander100 02:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - ugen64 02:43, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see how it contributes significantly to the aticle Rope - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hansom cab

A Hansom cab being filmed as part of a costume drama.

Self-nomination. Added to Hansom cab, but could probably be used elsewhere too. -- Solipsist 13:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Interesting circumstance to grap a photo for the 'pedia - worth about 1000 words - Gaz 14:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: is there a larger version of that image available for use here? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Janderk 23:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems pretty bland to me. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful photo. Always wanted to see a 'hansom cab' and driver. You read about them in books and its good to see the old fashioned method of transportation. --Fir0002 05:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solitude 06:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Lorax 00:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination :) - Tarquin 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Cos it makes my eyes go funny ;-) - Gaz 13:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • ...and I love the little green thingy - It gives the eye something to focus upon - Gaz 10:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That green thing spoils the picture. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 14:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The picture makes you want to know more. -- Solipsist 16:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the green dot could be explained on the picture's page. -- Solipsist 00:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Same here. makes me click the article.Janderk 23:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.Definitely -- Chris 73 Talk 23:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fits in well with the life-cycle photos.--Fir0002 05:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great stuff, although the green stuff distracts, it's not a problem. -- Solitude 06:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The green thing reminds of the pond and its vegetation, so it is OK. -Hapsiainen 13:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - almost perfect.--Eloquence*

Painted Lady

Painted Lady butterfly

Self-nomination :) - Tarquin 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Is that a reflection or some sort of motion blur? - Gaz 13:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The only way I could get close enough to it was through a window, unfortunately :( -- Tarquin 13:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Gaz said, shame about the reflections - Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I guess it may seem liking harping on, but that blur does something shocking to the photo. --Fir0002 05:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good effort, too bad you could only shoot it through glass. -- Solitude 06:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mushroom gills

Mushroom gills

Self-nomination :) - Tarquin 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Depth of field has let you down - I would need to see all of the front gills in focus - Gaz 13:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same reason as Gaz - Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- Solitude 06:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - The DOF objection is OK but we don't care with front gills this just need some cropping. Ericd 22:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Naval Academy chapel

USNA chapel
Modified version

Shameless self-nom and first attempt at a featured picture. Shows the beauty and grandeur of the structure. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 18:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Beautiful. →Raul654 20:49, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This pic is tilted, why are so many sloping pics put up for Featured Pic? A slope looks amateur (IMHO, others may not agree)) and won't impress WP's readers. It also has bad purple fringing around the windows - Adrian Pingstone 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Defnintely tilted. But then ... it's the navy, maybe its on a ship ;-) Also agree with Arpingstone on purple fringe -- Chris 73 Talk 00:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow! Nice. Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:16, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Severely unbalanced. Denni 01:32, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • I've rotated it half a degree counter-clockwise and cropped it slightly. Due to velvet ropes and a large bouquet of flowers it was impossible to take the picture from the exact center. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The rotation was not nearly enough, the original needs 1.2 degrees, not 0.5 degrees, (according to Photoshop) - Adrian Pingstone 08:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Incidentally, how do you get Photoshop to tell you how much a picture needs rotated? Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The lighting in the windows spoils a great picture for me. -- Solitude 07:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with Arpingstone, and add that a subject with such obvious symmetry MUST be taken from dead centre - Gaz 12:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janderk 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Fantastic, engaging image. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's just a bit dull. I don't know how to make a blackbird interesting, but not like this, anyway. Markalexander100 06:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A good picture of a Blackbird but not special enough for a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 10:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well, yes, it's a blackbird, but it's a pretty pedestrian shot. Denni 01:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 12:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doh, I like the bird, but the setting is just poor. -- Solitude 06:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I actually prefer this one myself. -- sannse (talk) 17:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan from the ISS

File:Ivan iss.jpg
Hurricane Ivan from the ISS

Just a simply wonderful NASA picture, and the best picture of a hurricane I've ever seen. Uploaded by me, used on Hurricane Ivan and tropical cyclone. Tom- 09:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Totally Awesome. The RHS solar panels look a bit overexposed. But the hurricane is superb. --Fir0002 10:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ugen64 22:22, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have been in doubt here. While being a good picture, this shot takes away the sheer magnitude and power of the hurricane. The lack of coastline references makes it seem like Ivan is 10 meters across. I prefer a hurricane picture that at least got a significant amount of coast line in it. Preferably where you can recognize parts of the earth. So it makes you think: wow this thing is huge. This picture just does not do that. Janderk 11:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think whoever took the pic should have opened the window of the space station first and moved those solar panels out of the way. Seriously they do detract significantly from the image. Also without local scale it's really hard to decide if this is anything important. We know it's important 'cos the caption tells us it's a pic of Ivan, but without the caption I wouldn't have been impressed. And it's the pic that's gotta do the talking.Oska 03:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm with Janderk and Oska - Gaz 13:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - similar reasons to above. The lack of scale makes it look like a plughole in the bottom of my washing up bowl. GWO 13:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same as above -- Chris 73 Talk 23:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I do miss the scale reference in the picture, but I still love it. -- Solitude 06:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The solar panels look like skyscrapers to a first glance, which makes it seem weird. Then perspective shifts and you're looking down, so it looks huge (William M. Connolley 17:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We're only seeing the central part of Ivan, for a Featured Pic I'd want to see all of it (or at least more of it) - Adrian Pingstone 16:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)iva
  • support. I like it! Dunc_Harris| 21:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Nice photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The photo may be composed well, but to me, the subject is unappetising. I dont think I've ever eaten Guacomole but I dont think I would enjoy it --Fir0002 10:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There's no specific rationale that can be addressed, because this objection would apply to any photo of guacamole. Guanaco 22:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is just a snapshot that is descriptive, but not good enough as featured. I love Guacamole, but the messy environment, pieces of tomato on the table, out of focus objects in the corners, just doesn't make me say yummy. Janderk 11:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The composition is OK and I don't care that the surrounds are messy (in fact they make it interesting, I think), but IMO the specular reflections caused by the camera flash preclude this from being a featured picture. -- Tlotoxl 11:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 13:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's a nice enough snapshot, but the best we have to offer? Nah. GWO 13:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Or maybe I'm just too hungry? -- Solitude 06:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte

Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte - Georges-Pierre Seurat

Painted by Georges-Pierre Seurat (December 2, 1859–March 29, 1891) in 1884-1886.
Excellent effort by wikipidian The lorax to find this quality of image for this signature work of the artist for inclusion in the Wikipedia.

  • Nominated by [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely art example. Janderk 11:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its just a scan of a piccy. There is nothing of wikipedia in it. The only reason to feature it would be to thumb our noses at the galleries copyright page (William M. Connolley 21:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support. Particularly striking and clear reproduction. Properly credited (not just "pd image from internet" as sadly many images are credited here on wikipedia) and public domain according to Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great quality - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The original work of art is great, but this copy is just a copy. Get me a photo of the artist applying the final brush stroke and I'll reconsider - Gaz 13:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not too pretty if you ask me. -- Solitude 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I look at this from the perspective of how an image contributes to the wikipedia. For notable artworks, the wikipedia can serve as the best conservator of images of those artworks in the world. As to whether any particular image of a work of art is especially worthy of featured picture status, we have to decide on a case by case basis on the quality of the image, and to a lessor degree on the quality of the original work of art. The more "famous" a particular work of art is, the less I am concerned about the art itself, and more concerned about the quality of the image for purposes of suitability for Wikipedia:Featured pictures. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly my thoughts. You may or may not like the painting, but it is world famous and one of the best examples of Pointillism, adding a great amount of value to that article. The picture is perfect too, with perfect lighting, no weird reflections or distracting borders or objects. The image does 100% what it should: Show the painting in it's full greatness. I agree with Gaz that a picture taken of Van Gogh while he's painting his sunflowers in the fields of Arles might be even more interesting, but something tells me that such a picture will not be posted soon on Wikipedia. Janderk 13:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Black Swans

  • Great photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work. -- Solitude 07:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good composition. Kbh3rd 00:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good clear photo. --Fir0002 10:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice picture. ugen64 22:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral Oppose - I suppose it is because I've seen so many black swans in the wild, this shot looks kind of ordinary. Sure it shows a black swan in reasonable detail, but it lacks "punch". Maybe it is the bare stretch of water? - Gaz 13:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Gaz on the background. It makes the picture not special enough to be featured. Janderk 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Black swans are beautiful but this particular photo is very ordinary. Oska 01:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks too ordinary. Black swans are not familiar to me, so it must be due to the water.-Hapsiainen 13:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much water, dull light. Markalexander100 04:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a good picture but not striking enough for Featured - Adrian Pingstone 08:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its nice composition, but the tone of the water is off-putting. Oddly the image looks much better in the large version, where you can see the detail. Perhaps tighter cropping would help. -- Solipsist 13:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Giant Isopod

Giant isopod brought up by the NOAA Ocean Explorer.
File:Giant isopod crop.jpg
A cropped version, centering creature and removing visually distracting elements

This picture got a lot of attention when the giant isopod article was on the Did You Know on the front page. It's absolutely adorable and fascinating. PD-US Gov't creation. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure adorable would be the first adjective that came to mind, but I =do= wonder if it might make a nice alternative to lobster on a seafood menu. This cropped image suits me better - what do others think? Denni 00:14, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 13:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solitude 06:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Reminds of a giant version of the garden woodlouse - Adrian Pingstone 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would like a more natural setting for an image to add significant value to the article Giant isopod. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


LG-118A Peacekeeper missile system being tested at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

This is PD-USGov, and it always sends chills up my spine. "The lines shown are the re-entry vehicles -- one Peacekeeper can hold up to 10 nuclear warheads, each with its own guidance system. Each warhead, were it armed with a nuclear payload, would carry with it the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-sized weapons." I have always felt that these MIRV test pictures always look Biblical (though I am not religious). --Fastfission 16:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)-Fastfission 16:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Will support if a larger version is found, until then oppose for that reason. ed g2stalk 18:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This image is already quite a bit larger than the minimum size (280px horiz) for a featured picture. Sure, I'd like a poster-sized one too, but this one is a fair nomination. Agree that there are religious overtones; believe it is known as "creating Hell on Earth." Denni 00:20, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
  • Support, really cool, I wish we had a bigger image though. -- Solitude 10:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Very cool, yes; support, but would definitely prefer a larger version, of course. James F. (talk) 10:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Kbh3rd 00:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice. The missles sure went striaght, I dunno whether to be in awe of the technology or be against the purpose.--Fir0002 10:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That's really the same contradiction I feel. I guess I'm also in awe of its purpose -- such destruction to wish upon another! But anyway... I'm not sure there are bigger versions of this out there. I have seen another version of this file but it had also sorts of JPEG artifacts and other obvious signs of compression -- this one was actually a great find because it is so crisp. --Fastfission 16:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Throughout the inspiring course of human history, our best and latest technologies have ever been devoted to killing our neighbours. Smerdis of Tlön 18:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. Support. —No-One Jones (m) 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Scary -- Chris 73 Talk 23:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure what this is a picture of. Are the re-entry vehicles executing a powered descent? Do the warheads detonate on contact with the ground, or in fact are the warheads deployed above ground, and so the tests produce a descent that would not occur in actual use of the system? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It scares me. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:18, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

DNA labels.jpg

The chemical structure of DNA

I found our DNA article lacking a chemical diagram, so I created this in photoshop. It took a while, but I think it fills in the gap quite nicely.

  • Support. →Raul654 07:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 08:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. High quality work and fits perfectly in the DNA article. But I think it misses something to give it that special featured picture feel. -- Solitude 09:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One suggestion: an important property of DNA is that adenine and thymine are connected by 2 hydrogene bonds, while cytosine and guanine are connected by 3 bonds (making C-G harder to break than A-T). It would be nice to show that; for reference, shows exactly which atoms interact with which. Schutz 10:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, there's three things - (1) I can add extra hydrogen bonds to show that they are bound by more than one, but I can't indicate which atoms to which without (2) radically altering the diagram, or (3) having the bonds cross over each other (IE, X shaped). What would you suggest? →Raul654 23:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I thought it could be a problem. I don't like bonds crossing over each other; I guess just duplicating or triplicating the pink bond, without attaching it to any atom in particular would do the job for now. Schutz 01:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added the extra bonds, as requested. →Raul654 18:03, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice! Schutz has a great suggestion. --mav 07:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not quite clear and self-explanatory enough. (comment edited) [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 14:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a PNG version is uploaded. Guanaco 03:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, as a PNG, the file is 4x larger. →Raul654 03:33, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Red Sunset Panorama

A red sunset panorama (Red sunset02.jpg)
The original image before the color was modified (Red sunset.jpg)
The image that is called out in the section header (sunset.jpg)

This photo captures the full splendour and colours of a red sunset. It almost looks like the hill is on fire. It is the feature picture on the sunset page.

  • Support. Self nomination. --Fir0002 08:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great colours. Markalexander100 09:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, beautiful. Fir0002, you mention it is a self-nomination. Did you indeed take the picture yourself? If so, could you license it under the GFDL please? Also then, a bit more info on the location and maybe the camera/settings would be appreciated. -- Solitude 11:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I did take the photo, of which I'm proud. Orignally when I uploaded it, I made it GFDL, someone must have changed it. Anyway, it was really a question of taking the photo. I have a pretty ordinarly digital camera, it was just the subject that was breath-taking. So the camera settings were just the cameras preset "nightshot mode". It was taken near my house Swifts Creek Australia. --Fir0002 00:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • This picture was uploaded (according to the image's revision history) by TakuyaMarata in spring of 2003 -- I guess I'm confused now. Fir, are you Taku under another name? If not, how did Taku get the photo from you? Sorry, just a bit puzzled. Jwrosenzweig 00:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually I'm pretty confused now as well. I 'm just fir0002. I have put up the image again, so hopefully, it will work good. TakuyaMarata do you have any idea whats happening?--Fir0002 00:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Jwrosenzweig, can you point me to where you found TakuyaMarata in the revision history? -- Solitude 07:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • This is getting really fishy. When I commented, Image:Sunset.jpg was displayed here. It has since been replaced by Image:Red_sunset02.jpg, which is identical (update -- this replacement was done by fir immediately after I made my comment -- why would he switch images and then claim he had no idea what I was talking about?). Sunset.jpg was uploaded by Taku in March 2003. Redsunset02.jpg was uploaded by Fir a week ago. This looks very suspicious to me, and I can't figure out why anyone would try and misrepresent a picture as theirs if it wasn't. Anyone have any idea what's going on? Oppose till we get this sorted out. Jwrosenzweig 15:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Note: Fir also replaced sunset.jpg with Red_sunset02.jpg on Sunset on the 14th, according to Sunset's edit history. Sunset.jpg, which has been in sunset for over a year, it appears to me, now links nowhere except here (due to the text links). Jwrosenzweig 15:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • I am Taku and TakuyaMurata mentioned here. I am sorry but I cannot say more than I remember I uploaded a file. Was it the same as Red_sunset02.jpg, one taken by Fir0002. I don't know. I think I found a copyright-free image, so I just uploaded it. True, I should have left a note where I got it. I thought I did as I usually do but it appears I did not. Actually I just found that Image:Sunset_s.jpg contains sunset.jpg. The truth is that I uploaded back in 2003 a larger version of the picture displayed at Image:Sunset_s.jpg as sunset.jpg and was, without trace, replaced by shot by Fir0002. I don't know where the old one is gone. Anyway, I think, aside from dig into the mystery, what we do is just use Red_sunset02.jpg and delete sunset_s.jpg and sunset.jpg. I suspect there may have been a techical glitch; a developer might have presumed, when fixing files, that sunset.jpg was the same as Red_sunset02.jpg. Hope this will help. -- Taku 02:52, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
                • OK, to set the record straight. When I first upload the image, it was called sunset.jpeg After Wikipedia loaded up the "there is already an image with this name. I clicked back, and renamed the image to Red_sunset02.jpeg. Next day I went to the sunset page and added it to the bottom. NOT AS THE MAIN ONE. A couple of days later, I visited the sunset page. The sunset over the ocean was replaced with mine as the feature picture. What must have happened was when I uploaded the initial image, it replaced sunset.jpg. When I went to recommend it as a feature picture, I just went to the sunset page and got the image filename from there. That is why the image i first put on the features page was sunset.jpg. But when all this stuff started up and everyone was questioning my authenticy, I put up the Red_sunset picture. I admit it was stupid to replace the sunset.jpg on the sunset page - leading to false conclusions being drawn, but I thought that it would be bad to put up a feature article without it being on a page. At that time the new "pictures" category wasn't in the sunset page, and it looked pretty good where it was anyway. I sincerly hope everyone believes me, and that this whole issue is resolve. I took the photo. Really. I can upload the orginal with the camera info and all that in the EXIF data if anyone still disbelieves me. --Fir0002 04:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • Jwrosenzweig, I just thought of a good idea to prove that I am the photographer, of the photo. When I get back from school today, I'll take a picture of the exact spot where I took the photo, upload it and provide a link.--Fir0002 04:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • Jwrosenzweig click on Media:Hill_where_sunset_pix_was_t.jpg to see the place where i took the sunset photo. Also i just checked the EXIF info on the original photo, and it was taken in April 2004, I could upload that aswell if you still doubt me. --Fir0002 06:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                  • Well I think something just went wrong in uploading your sunset over the previous one. This one is clearly shot by you and we can leave it at that. Let's get on with the voting. -- Solitude 07:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, switch me to support. Sorry for my doubts, fir, but I hope you understand it looked odd from my perspective. I'm more than adequately convinced at this point that it's your picture. Sorry for the trouble. Jwrosenzweig 13:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah no problems, thanks for restoring your confidence in me. Im glad that is all over, i was getting woried. Anyhow its history now. Did make the list a bit long though didn't it? :-) --Fir0002 10:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Prisonblues 16:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Oska 08:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Surport tooto 17:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) , authough i think i like sunset.jpg better. not much in it though, both are wows
  • Support -- Chmouel 09:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, this one is amazing. User:Sverdrup 12:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose this version. The red colors are pumped up too much in the image processing. I support it when the colors are tuned back to the original image a bit. - Janderk
  • Oppose this modified version. This time the photo editting has disturbed the essential elements that make this photo contribute to the Wikipedia article. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Just for clarity, which version is "this" version? ✏ Sverdrup 00:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • "this modified version" in my opposing vote is Red_sunset02.jpg (the other two, sunset.jpg and Red_sunset.jpg are currently equivalent images, and are the one from which Red_sunset02.jpg is a derivative work) This nomination is flawed, as the section header indicates sunset.jpg and the topmost image is a different image, Red sunset02.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joey in pouch

Joey (baby kangaroo) in its mother's pouch.

An image of a very tiny baby kangaroo feeding in its mother's pouch. Looks quite impressive to me, especially since the little joey is at the same stage of development than a 7 weeks human embryo. I uploaded the picture but didn't take it. The licence is not free, but should be close enough (only requires attribution) The image is licenced under the GFDL. Schutz 02:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Just for the record, the old license was BSD-style. These are free - even freer than the GFDL) →Raul654 01:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC))

I was going to mention that, but the old licence was talking about "reuse", and I wasn't sure if this covers modification. In any case, I'll mention that it can be used under both licences. Schutz 01:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It might have been free to use, but specific attribution is a big price to pay. Good work on getting it under the GFDL license. -- Solitude 09:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Good photo, shame about the licence - Gaz 12:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've found the author email address and will ask him if the image can be relicensed. Schutz 12:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The author has agreed to release the image under the GFDL. Schutz 22:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. But ONLY on a proper license. Heartwarming and quite impressive. -- Solitude 13:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Schutz 10:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks sickening. I don't want to see it in the featured pictures list.-Hapsiainen 12:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not that squeamish - but this makes my stomach turn. ed g2stalk 13:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Remember guys - ye looked something like that once! (except not in a pouch). JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 15:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That this little guy even makes it here is one of Nature's most awesome accomplishments. Denni 00:02, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100 03:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Janderk 11:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 00:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No Vote - this is a good pic no doubt, but it's ugly too. It brings mixed emotions. I can both appreciate it (and nature through it) and eeek ... disgusting too. Maybe if there is a similar image that is not so slimy? Its beautiful. OK, its adds a lot to the article. Support--Ankur 09:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good picture, good illustrative qualities, and unusual. Lorax 00:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

St Helens from Monitor Ridge

A composite image of St Helens before and after the May 18, 1980 eruption
featherd version

Excellent combination of Wikipidian talent and US federal government PD archives by Maveric149 used in 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

  • Nominated by Bevo 16:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Pretty ragged bottom edge. I'm thinking a 20px feather would do wonders for this picture. Denni 01:47, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
    • A major improvement, and support, though I would like to see before/after shots bigger. If they intruded a bit into the main pic, I doubt it would cause any grief. Denni 00:09, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice photo. Have added a feathered version (is there enough?)--Fir0002 08:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done Mav! - This one is good for at least 2000 to 3000 words (feathered version) - Gaz 12:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see the "before and after the explosion" comparison pics closer together, they're separated by a couple of screen widths on my 1024 by 768 monitor - Adrian Pingstone 12:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Chris 73 Talk 04:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I just noticed this nomination. :) I really like how the feathered version looks and will do that to the tiff version of the image soon and upload the result. The small photos are where they are only because there isn't any room for them anywhere else. The 550px wide thumbnail in the article is what really counts and all three images can be seen even on a 800x600 screen. --mav21:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome, probably the best GFDL image on Wikipedia. Soon National Geographic will want pictures from Wikipedia. (considerably better than Bryce Amphitheater ;-) --Ankur 09:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: wow. I agree with Adrian Pingstone's comments above about the distance between the before and after pictures, but I have no suggestions on how it could be fixed. — Matt 10:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!

Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page: Archive.
When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible.

Nomination for removal