Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bismuth synthetic crystal
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2012 at 11:03:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, awesome image. The image has been a featured picture on the German language Wikipedia, Persian language Wikipedia and on the Polish language Wikipedia
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bismuth, Iridescence
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
- Creator
- Alchemist-hp
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk 11:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike those Wikipedias (as far as I can see), we've promoted File:Bi-crystal.jpg. I think this would have to take into account the fact we already have a very similar Featured Picture - it might have to be one or the other. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this to the current FP if we can only have one or the other, but I don't have a strong reason to oppose having both be featured. Pine✉ 07:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment how about... having a white background in it? SkywalkerPL (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support It is a good illustration of the element.It will be better with a white background though.Mattsung (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Support I have no problem having two featured pictures of the same thing.They are both exceptionally good pictures, and both illustrate the subject in a compelling way. Dusty777 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)- Support per Dusty. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I love the image, but it's practically the same goddamn picture as another one already featured. One or the other... Clearly, there's significantly less EV in an image when it's next to one that's practically identical. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Dusty777. Nothing against two similar pics being FP, especially if they both add to an article. If there is one thing that could be better, it is a white background. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- How do they both add to the article? They both show the same bloody thing... I'd hypothetically be ok with this one replacing the other, but if this gets promoted, thanks to our impotent delist process, we would end up with two near-identical FPs for years. And that's ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- The one we are nominating here is artificially grown in a "stair-step crystal structure." The other one has a different pattern (likely artificial as well, but unconfirmed). They both show different arrangements of the crystal, so in my opinion, they both add to the article. That is all it was, my opinion. Please don't get angry over it. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable explanation- thanks for the clarification. I disagree, but I can at least understand where you're coming from. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- The one we are nominating here is artificially grown in a "stair-step crystal structure." The other one has a different pattern (likely artificial as well, but unconfirmed). They both show different arrangements of the crystal, so in my opinion, they both add to the article. That is all it was, my opinion. Please don't get angry over it. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly held opinion: we get images similar to other images all the time at FP, sometimes images taken by the same uploader of the same subject; sometimes the same view of a historic monument. And we decline them precisely because we have a similar FP; if they are better they replace that FP sometimes, too. However this image is the same and we aren't applying the same criterion. And I would wager we would return to that criterion afterwards, but I'd rather we either did or did not consistently apply the principle. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- A good point Grandiose. Could you provide us with links to instances where this has happened? Perhaps that is something to put in the criteria. I agree with you 100% that consistency is a must. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ Pāhoehoe ʻaʻā flows at The Big Island of Hawaii is a decent example – it's clearly implied there that if the shots were of the same thing that would be a problem. Things aren't as clear as I recalled, or maybe they were, I haven't had real time to investigate, as can be seen here. Perhaps we could reject the notion outright and be done with it. Needs talkpage discussion I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Another controversial one is this; which finally end up as his temporary (I hope and wish) decision to refrain from further contributions. We have to handle such cases very carefully without hurting any. Here both images are from same contributor; so not a big issue. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Trying to avoid hurting people's feelings is nice, but it's not actually what we're trying to do here. Instead, we should be frankly trying to assess the encyclopedic value of pictures, and anyone with two braincells to rub together can see that two near-identical images can not both be adding enormously to an article; almost by definition, one must be redundant to the other. A redundant image cannot be a featured picture. Think about it. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't disagree on the redundancy. This is a simple as having the community resolve to place this in the criteria. Easier said than done, I know. But for now, we have to work with how the criteria is. I would support a clarification on EV. The problem is that it is very subjective, how do you define if two pictures are too similar? Different objects? Different angles? I do propose we take this to the talk page and get some strong feedback from the community.--WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's a question which requires the judgement of editors, there is no doubt about that. Something can require careful judgement but still be a useful criteria- we're all reasonable, intelligent people (in theory) and can all legitimately make different judgements. That doesn't bother me, that's an important part of being human and interacting with other humans. What irks me is that, seemingly, the majority of people commenting here seem to accept that the images are pretty much identical, yet choose to support them both regardless. I don't think we need a specific point about redundancy in the criteria; I think that's pretty clear already with regards to the whole encylopedic value criterion. I'm a little annoyed because I feel that the criterion is being ignored. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- While checking all the three images at Bismuth including the FPC pages here and in Commons, my understanding is that the current nomination is an improved version from the same contributor. So what should we do? Ignore this since because the inferior one already has a badge as we done in most previous cases or be more practical to consider the technical improvements and remove (and delist if necessary) the inferior one? I think our motif should be to improve the articles with up-to-date information. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood: we've replaced one FP with another before (sometimes through the delist process), and I'm sure Mr Milburn is not opposed to that in principle (whether he thinks this is superior, I don't know).Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, I of course agree with you that "our motif should be to improve the articles with up-to-date information", but the above commenter is correct- I'd want to see the other image delisted if this was to be promoted. If I want to improve my living room with a new carpet, I take out the old one, and put in the new one. I don't leave the two standing side-by-side, which is what those supporting this without delisting the other seem to be doing. I don't need two carpets; having that just looks clumsy. J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree; so what is the right procedure here. In Commons, we usually feature a new image and then raise a delist request; which is sometimes delisted, sometimes kept. I’ve no problem with the only one FP at a time policy here; but it is difficult to remove an FP from an article and delist it (claiming not used anywhere) before making a new nomination. Or do we have something similar to MVR an in VI of Commons? (I too don’t want to keep them side by side. It may be added by somebody who has no confidence to remove the old one. May we remove it?) Jkadavoor (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can open a "delist/replace" request at the bottom of the page. That would probably have been the proper way to nominate this image. I'd be completely happy with a D/R request being opened, but, for that to happen, we'd have to oppose this for now. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I just informed the contributor for his opinion (as he is a subject expert too) prior to open a "delist/replace" request and hope it is fair. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC) .. and see his reply below. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can open a "delist/replace" request at the bottom of the page. That would probably have been the proper way to nominate this image. I'd be completely happy with a D/R request being opened, but, for that to happen, we'd have to oppose this for now. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree; so what is the right procedure here. In Commons, we usually feature a new image and then raise a delist request; which is sometimes delisted, sometimes kept. I’ve no problem with the only one FP at a time policy here; but it is difficult to remove an FP from an article and delist it (claiming not used anywhere) before making a new nomination. Or do we have something similar to MVR an in VI of Commons? (I too don’t want to keep them side by side. It may be added by somebody who has no confidence to remove the old one. May we remove it?) Jkadavoor (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, I of course agree with you that "our motif should be to improve the articles with up-to-date information", but the above commenter is correct- I'd want to see the other image delisted if this was to be promoted. If I want to improve my living room with a new carpet, I take out the old one, and put in the new one. I don't leave the two standing side-by-side, which is what those supporting this without delisting the other seem to be doing. I don't need two carpets; having that just looks clumsy. J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood: we've replaced one FP with another before (sometimes through the delist process), and I'm sure Mr Milburn is not opposed to that in principle (whether he thinks this is superior, I don't know).Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- While checking all the three images at Bismuth including the FPC pages here and in Commons, my understanding is that the current nomination is an improved version from the same contributor. So what should we do? Ignore this since because the inferior one already has a badge as we done in most previous cases or be more practical to consider the technical improvements and remove (and delist if necessary) the inferior one? I think our motif should be to improve the articles with up-to-date information. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's a question which requires the judgement of editors, there is no doubt about that. Something can require careful judgement but still be a useful criteria- we're all reasonable, intelligent people (in theory) and can all legitimately make different judgements. That doesn't bother me, that's an important part of being human and interacting with other humans. What irks me is that, seemingly, the majority of people commenting here seem to accept that the images are pretty much identical, yet choose to support them both regardless. I don't think we need a specific point about redundancy in the criteria; I think that's pretty clear already with regards to the whole encylopedic value criterion. I'm a little annoyed because I feel that the criterion is being ignored. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't disagree on the redundancy. This is a simple as having the community resolve to place this in the criteria. Easier said than done, I know. But for now, we have to work with how the criteria is. I would support a clarification on EV. The problem is that it is very subjective, how do you define if two pictures are too similar? Different objects? Different angles? I do propose we take this to the talk page and get some strong feedback from the community.--WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Trying to avoid hurting people's feelings is nice, but it's not actually what we're trying to do here. Instead, we should be frankly trying to assess the encyclopedic value of pictures, and anyone with two braincells to rub together can see that two near-identical images can not both be adding enormously to an article; almost by definition, one must be redundant to the other. A redundant image cannot be a featured picture. Think about it. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Another controversial one is this; which finally end up as his temporary (I hope and wish) decision to refrain from further contributions. We have to handle such cases very carefully without hurting any. Here both images are from same contributor; so not a big issue. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ Pāhoehoe ʻaʻā flows at The Big Island of Hawaii is a decent example – it's clearly implied there that if the shots were of the same thing that would be a problem. Things aren't as clear as I recalled, or maybe they were, I haven't had real time to investigate, as can be seen here. Perhaps we could reject the notion outright and be done with it. Needs talkpage discussion I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- A good point Grandiose. Could you provide us with links to instances where this has happened? Perhaps that is something to put in the criteria. I agree with you 100% that consistency is a must. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose (or replace other FP) until the community has identified and taken suitable steps to minimise the contradiction Mr Milburn has identified. I would be personally worried about my own contribution area – vector maps. You could make a trivial change and if the existence of the original was considered irrelevant then it too must pass. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- For me, the creator, both images are FP. We have two different images from the element Bismuth: the size, the scale, colors, appearance, ... . It is simple to take allways two or more FPs from the same thing. Sample: a view of a city: by day, by night, by sun, by rain, by other view, from the air, .... An animal: female, male, baby, portrait, in the nature, ... and so on, endless. I'd like to take also more bismuth images: from large bars, crystalline fragments from a bar, and ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- and a Support too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be perfectly happy with two images that demonstrated different things, but these two images are more similar than that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg --Dusty777 18:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
76 Support, 2 Oppose Dusty777 18:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)- Considering this was a moderately controversial nomination, I think you're displaying horrendously poor judgement in closing it when you were one of those who supported it. I'm not going to revert you, as I do think this closure is probably the right one (even if I believe it to be for the wrong reasons), but I do not think you should make closes like this in the future. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I considered not closing it (since I had Supported the nomination), but I decided to go ahead and close it, since my vote is not the deciding factor in the nomination (without my vote, the Support vote still has a 2/3 majority.) I'll go ahead and strike through my vote, since you have presented concerns over my closing it while supporting it. I don't think it will make a difference, but if it makes one person happy, I guess it's worth it. Does that clear up your concerns? Dusty777 17:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think a judge could preside over a case in which (s)he was a witness, even if the statement wasn't officially counted. Again, I'm not trying to kick up a fuss, I'm just recommending that this is not something you should do in the future. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern. I'm not about to close a nomination as Promoted or Not Promoted if my vote makes the difference between the two. However, if my vote makes no difference in the result, I see no reason as to why I shouldn't close the nomination. Dusty777 02:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- We are not desperately short of closers, and, even if we were, I think we'd look to the most experienced closers to "double-up" first. This is getting silly- you need to make your choice between taking part in a discussion and closing discussions. In all but the most obvious cases, it needs to be one or the other, as with any other discussion or process on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if a more experienced user had closed the nomination, the result would have been the same (Promoted)... I'm still not seeing your point concerning this nomination, but I guess I will consider your advice about closing nominations that I participated in. Thanks for your advice and concern. Dusty777 17:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)