Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pirate

[edit]
A caricature of a stereotypical pirate.
Not really meant for vote. Example of Piratey as SVG via semo-automatic conversion via Potrace. This image should look ok when printed. It could be possible to do a better job than this. This version is missing some important detail, and edges could be cleaned up a bit. Feel free to download it and clean it up (e.g. in Inkscape), or try converting it yourself using the original :) —Pengo 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn vector version.

Two of J.J.'s other creations, Mad scientist caricature.png and Villianc.jpg are already at featured status, but I've always thought this his finest work. It functions in the same way "Mad Scientist" and "Villain" do: a perfect realization of the stereotype, illustrative in all senses of the word. As you can see from the list of links, it's already quite popular on Wikipedia, far beyond the piracy article from whence it came.

Er... this is not animation, even though it's a cartoon... --Janke | Talk 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I sometimes mix up the terms "cartoon" and "animation". GizzaChat © 10:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wrong image format. This is a knock-out criteria for me. --Dschwen 18:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have dozens of FPs in jpg format. What is "wrong" about it? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-25 22:24
      • I think he referring to the fact that its animated and in jpg, really should be SVG or PNG-Ravedave
      • This type of image content, plain colors, sharp edges can ideally be represented as an SVG image. It was probably created using a vector-based program. JPG is the format of choice for Photos or photorealistic images. due to the nature of its compression algorithm. I'll try and find the pages where this matter has been discussed already and link back. --Dschwen 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it can ideally be represented in another formatted, it can be represented just fine in JPEG as long as the compression is very low. This isn't a valid complaint, since the image doesn't have JPEG artefacts. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-26 15:27
          • Please read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format, hope this alleviates the need for further discussions. --Dschwen 19:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It says "preferably" and "should", not "must" nor "shall". That leaves some room for judgement by voters. --Janke | Talk 10:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, well, obviously it is not a felony to upload in a wrong format ;-). And neither am I voting to remove the nomination or let alone delete the image. Let me quote myself: This is a knock-out criteria for me. So I really do not get why there is so much discussion about the voicing of my opinion going on here :-). And replying to Brian with a quote from Janke: That leaves some room for judgement by voters, so it is a valid complaint. --Dschwen 10:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You would have a case if the image was grainy due to high compression. This is not the case here, so I don't know what your rationale is beyond using an efficient format. The guideline you cite also says: "In general, if you have a good image that is in the wrong format, convert it to the correct format before uploading. However, if you find a map, flag, etc in JPEG format, only convert it to PNG if this reduces the file size without causing artifacts." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-27 19:51
                  • Let me cite what is a featured picture: [It should...] Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions.. I just don't get why you are so unruly insisting on JPG beeing the appropriate format for an image most likely created using a vector-based drawing program. This is counterproductive. I'll go ahead and assume that it would be easy for the original author to provide an SVG version (if not I'm sure he could convince me otherwise). Just accepting a tiny image which could benefit so much from an appropriate format sets a wrong precedent. Just think poster-size prints without visible pixeleation. It is not just about artifacts! --Dschwen 20:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am not being "unruly", nor am I insisting it be in the JPEG format. I am simply saying that there is nothing wrong with the current JPEG version. If you can find a problem with it, beyond its 3 letter extension, feel free to let me know. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:43
                    • Timeout, fellows! You both have a right to your own opinion - and FP voting is mostly opinions, anyway... Of course it would be nice if this could be in SVG, and in fact, I've asked J.J. if he can supply it in that format, but if not - well, consensus will rule. --Janke | Talk 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - size & not encyclopedic (maybe a kids encyclopedia) I am dispmayed that all of the size-ists suddenly disseapeared. In my opinion the above buffalo picture is much more interesting, yet it is being opposed on size. -Ravedave 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a photo, low resolution means a loss of detail. For an illustration, it usually does not. In this case, the relatively small size of the image doesn't result in any loss of information. bcasterline t 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm glad we have contributors to make stuff like this but I don't see this particular image as being that notable. --Deglr6328 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is notable in its flawless realization of the stereotype. As for the sally that this belongs in a kids' encyclopedia, the stated criteria for featured pictures include "add significantly to articles...by illustrating article content particularly well". The caricature idiom is encyclopedic in this case because, as with villain and mad scientist, this is an illustration of stereotypes. An actual picture of a pirate or a quote-unquote "more serious" depiction would detract from the purpose. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Top job on the artistry (is that even a word?), but the res is too small, especially considering this is probably a vector. --Fir0002 www 10:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per Deglr6328. --P199 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support vector version. I will change to support if a vector version is provided. It's a great illustration but the low-resolution rasterization makes it hard to reuse (especially for printing). Furthermore, a minor problem with jpeg is that artifacts appear when the image is resized as in the thumb above—even if it's free of artifacts at its original resolution. –Gustavb 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no way for someone to convert this image to SVG format? Surely this is possable? Raven4x4x 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to do it (i.e. redraw it), but only if J.J. can't provide the original in vector format. It takes some work to make a good conversion, so I don't want to redo something that already exists. –Gustavb 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to redraw it, perhaps consider using a tracing tool like poTrace (available within InkScape, which could cut down your work. Though redrawing completely may give better results. I've uploaded an example of a traced image I made in Inkscape, but I had some trouble getting it to keep all the detail, and yes, the original does have JPG artifacts. —Pengo 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer redrawing it from scratch. Maybe it's just me being bad at tracing, but I always end up with too many nodes in the wrong places and too few where I actually need them. Another drawback with tracing is that strokes are lost (everything ends up as unstroked paths). Since it seems like J.J. hasn't got a better version [1], I redrew it — It's not a perfect match compared to the JPG, but it might be close enough… –Gustavb 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for fixing! –Gustavb 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To really pick the nit, J.J. originally released it without a license, and others added a PD tag... --Janke | Talk 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1, is infinite resolution not enough for you? ;) –Gustavb 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it'll have to do. |→ Spaully°τ 15:19, 1 April 2006 (GMT)

Promoted Image:Piratey.svg Deciding if I should promote this nomination or not was very difficult. I spent quite a bit of time reading everyone's comments and taking every opinion into account in making a decision. There were 18 support votes, 7 opposes and 1 neutral. 18/25 = 72%. With 72%, I probably wouldn't have promoted this. However, two opposes cited the image size as the only problem. Since the image was redrawn as a SVG after these votes, I have chosen to discard them. Fir0002 said "Oppose Top job on the artistry (is that even a word?), but the res is too small, especially considering this is probably a vector." MDD4696 also opposed because of the small size and it was a vector, however both of these issues have been fixed. So, that brings the vote total to 18/23 = 78.26%. Wikipedia:Consensus states that 60-80% and above is usually a consensus. However, the people who promote FPCs tend to be much stricter and be on the high end of the scale. I for one don't think I have ever promoted anything under 75%. In the end, I decided to promote the image. If anyone disagrees, feel free to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates instead of the talk page for this nomination as that page is more visible. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Pirate&oldid=1156178764"