Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giant plane comparison

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Giant plane comparison

[edit]
A size comparison of the four largest aircraft ever built.

This image is a great schematic size and shape comparison of four of the largest aircraft ever built. It is used on the articles of these aircraft and significantly helps to give an impression of the diferences in size and shape between the four aircraft. The schematic is well put-together, visually appealing, and is in the public domain.

Oh god, my head is going to explode! This is unbelievable, did you not read my comment? What is so hard to understand about high-quality reproductions and easy translations for other wikis? --Dschwen 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Wikistress alert! Yeah, I read your comment you linked to, and it just seemed just as uneccessarily angry as the one you just gave now. I found this though, which was a bit more helpful. Still, if the image accuracy, usefulness, quality, and copyright are all awesome - like this one - I'm in. I just don't see why you're splitting hairs over the image format. Certainly not to the degree of totally rejecting the image outright, totally dismissing Cyde's efforts over what (to me) seems a trivial issue - Jack (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another plus of SVGS: If a larger plane comes out and this is a SVG and Cyde is no longer on wikipedia than the image can be updated. Agree that Dschwen might need to take a deep breath :) -Ravedave
IMHO the "easy translation" comment is spurious. Providing an image in raster format does not inhibit translations. *Failing* to *also* provide it in another format may inhibit translations. This is Featured Pictured Candidates for the *English *Wikipedia and there is absolutely nothing wrong with text in English for images here. Providing the images in easily-translatable format is nice, but not a necessity. Having said all that, SVG would be a more logical format for a diagram. Stevage 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deep breath taken. Two things, I'm not completely rejecting Cydes efforts, I just want to avoid setting yet another precedent of promoting an image with an suboptimal format. If Cyde uploads an SVG version I'm all on board for support. Secondly about the spuriousness of the translation argument, I disagree. This might be en:FPC but the argument transcends this page. FPC isn't the wiki-world. The main point is, there are no reasons for uploading a pic like this as PNG, but there are several reasons to upload as SVG (however little you might think they are). If anyone wants a PNG so badly, SVG->PNG conversion is easy, PNG->SVG conversion is not. From some of the comments I just get the feeling that people do not quite realize the difference. Take this as the wakeup call ;-) --Dschwen 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you write an SVG vs PNG page with pros/cons of both? We probably also need a page on how to create images as SVG. -Ravedave 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Feel free to join in at User:Dschwen/SVG_explanation. --Dschwen 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What has happened to the outer engines of the 747? They are usually pointing alonside the axis, in flight direction. This really has to be corrected. SVG would really be nice, for the reasons mentioned above. Mikeo 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reason for it to be SVG - Wikipedia 1.0. Expandability. On Wikisource, a project is discussing printing small educational leaflets with Wikipedia material - this image would not be very good for print, but as an SVG can be infinitely scaled, the quality of an SVG in print would be impeccable. Oppose because: it's not SVG, it's a little small for a diagram of this type even if it is over 1000 pixels (but that would be fixed by SVG anyway), it's too blurry at full size, and as Mikeo mentioned, the 747's engines are wrong. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It just makes FP in my opinion, and it's not bad for what it illustrates. (And in this case I am not taking into account the PNG/SVG format issue). --Tewy 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this type of image should be SVG. gren グレン 02:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, would support SVG version of this. HighInBC 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since all the information is included on the captioned imgaes, why is it also included at the top of the image in columns, I think it makes the diagram crowded.--Peta 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I agree, an SVG version would be greatly preferable. --Golbez 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For a diagram the resolution is too low. You could print this out only 3 inches wide at 300 DPI. It would be pretty hard to read the text. Would change my vote if it was an SVG, which would also make editing it (i.e. adding/removing a plane, re-using the plane outlines, translating it, etc.) trivial. Also, as it is two of the planes have very jagged edges on their diagonal surfaces (Boeing and Airbus) and there are some consistency issues (why is the Mriya the only one which has flaps visible in the last shot?) --Fastfission 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a clever and interesting diagram that provides a high level of information in a clean, easy-to-read format. Madman 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
  • support nice! --Vircabutar 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Giant_plane_comparison&oldid=1056570941"