Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Airport traffic pattern.jpg

Airport_traffic_pattern.jpg [edit]

Image created by ericg for traffic pattern. Clear, attractive, and nicely illustrates the concept.

Nominate and support. - — ceejayoz ^★ 23:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, unfortunately low resolution compared to other FP diagrams. Phoenix2 23:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ericg has uploaded a larger version. — ceejayoz ^★ 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My first thought was to oppose because I had to read the article to determine that upwind, crosswind, downwind etc were in reference to "legs" of the trip regardless of wind direction. However, alongside the information in the article, this picture adds significantly to its effectiveness, and quite well done. CapeCodEph 07:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I say it every time a diagram/chart comes up for nomination. I just don't like them. Not for FP's anyway. Maybe we need a Featured Diagram kind of thing. I just don't see diagrams as striking or anywhere near as beautiful as some of our FP's. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, diagrams are able to become FPs on wikipedia because they "add significantly" to an article. Indeed, they may not be as striking as beautiful landscapes, but until a featured diagram category is available, opposing valid FP candidates on the grounds of "just don't like them" seems in poor taste. CapeCodEph 07:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of having a new section or page for featured diagrams, but I don't see how that would help you. If you don't like diagrams, wouldn't you then vote against them on the "Featured Diagram Candidates" page? I you don't want to see them, I'm sure you can easily avert your eyes from the respective nominations. Wikipedia:Featured pictures already has its own "drawings and diagrams" section. Or is this related to the featuring of pictures on the Main Page? If so, it is not at all clear that featured diagrams would not be shown on the Main Page. In any case, we could already choose to treat drawings differently on the Main Page or the POTD using the existing tools. So, please explain how separating diagrams to a different page or section here would address whatever problem you have with them.--Eloquence* 13:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the discussion on the Talk page for more about this topic. The way I look at it is like this...To me, graphs/charts/diagrams are in a totally different category as pictures. I don't think that ANY of the FP's that are charts stand up as equal to any of the other images that have been deemed FP's. Now I know people don't like this stance as a FP is really only supposed to illustrate its topic, but that's kind of the reason I think a Featured Diagrams index would be a good idea. I wouldn't necessarily vote no against a chart if I knew all it was being compared to was other charts. I just think comparing a chart to a picture is ridiculous as they are not the same thing. I certainly feel that they need an opportunity to be featured though, just not as featured pictures. It's possible for charts/diagrams to be interesting and captivating and thoroughly illustrate their topic, but as far as FP's are concerned, I think we need to take into account its artistic, striking, captivating value as well as how well it illustrates its topic. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would you take someone's FPC vote seriously if they voted "oppose" on every butterfly photo because they don't like 'em? — ceejayoz ^★ 19:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if it was a bad photo. I'm not trying to cause a problem here...I'm simply stating that I don't think charts/diagrams meet the requirements of being FP's, and i'll continue to vote as such until I see one I feel is deserving. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a most delightful contribution... and I love those shadows! Enochlau 15:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. comment: Scotty, ceejayoz was asking if you'd take someone seriously who rejected butterfly photos purely because they were butterflies, quality being completely ignored. You responded 'if it was a bad photo' - which isn't an answer to the question. ericg ✈ 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah...I see what you mean. That's a totally different story though. There's a big difference in voting no because you simply don't like a particular image, and voting no because you don't think that image meets the proper criteria.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support A simple diagram to show a simple concept that may be hard to understand for some folks, especially those not familiar with the subject. bjelleklang 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support but why not PNG? —jiy (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice image; I like how everything is nice and clean. --Bash 00:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

discussion[edit]

- - Comment: I think the point here is that diagrams do meet the proper criteria. ericg ✈ 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure...some might. No one's refuting that. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - And, as I asked you before, which of these criteria does this one not meet? — ceejayoz ^★ 12:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Specifically...the requirement that it be pleasing to the eye, but also those are not the only criteria it needs to meet. Conveniently since I made this suggestion, the definition of what a FP is located on the WP:FP page has been changed, but still includes these criteris: that it be particularly beautiful, shocking, and/or impressive. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have omitted the bits about it including diagrams, and including informational stuff too. The criteria on that page certainly don't state that they must be all of "beautiful, shocking, impressive and informational". — ceejayoz ^★ 15:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, but that's not what you asked...I didn't omit anything. You asked what I had specifically wrong with THIS image and I don't feel it meets any of the criteris i listed in my last post. And the way it reads now...it does make it seem that the image needs to meet all of those criteria. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Will you be voting Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Yarra_Panorama and Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Corn_cobs down, then, on the basis that they are not shocking? How many currently featured pictures fulfill all of those criteria? — ceejayoz ^★ 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying you consider them to be not shocking? I believe I voted "yes" for them because I feel they adequately fulfill the requirements. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say it takes a rather large stretch of the definition of "shocking" to find a photo of ears of corn "shocking", yes. If ears of corn are shocking, anything is. — ceejayoz ^★ 18:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, by the definition provided on the FP page, you must seem to find something particularly "shocking" about a diagram of little planes flying around or you wouldn't be voting to support it. I wouldn't be so hung up on that one word...when put together with the rest of the definition, thats what makes a FP worthy of its status. (Perhaps if we want to continue this discussion we should move it off this page? It's starting to not so much reflect this one individual candidate)--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, by the definition provided on the FP page, you must seem to find something particularly "shocking"
        No, you're still misreading me. I'm the one who believes that the criteria are "one of", not "all of the above", not you. Thusly, I'm fine with the corn photo. You, however, are arguing that a picture must fulfill all of those criteria, in which case your support vote for the corn photo seems inappropriate. — ceejayoz ^★ 23:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        My vote in support seems inappropriate because I think it meets all the criteria???...yeah...that makes a lot of sense. And I certainly DO think it should meet ALL of the criteria. If it didn't there would be hundreds upon hundreds of FP's as some would certainly meet one criteria and not another. They would also be worthless as there would be so many of them. Using the word and to me indicates they should have to be all of those things. If i'm misreading you, try to explain your position a little better please. You're the one who seems to be focusing on the word "shocking," I see all of the qualities listed above in those candidates not only that one. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Your position seems to be that it must fulfil all of those criteia. My objection is that I find it difficult to apply "shocking" to a photo of corn, yet it is certainly still featured picture quality. — ceejayoz ^★ 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure why you aren't understanding this point ScottyBoy. You feel that a featured picture should meet all of the criteria: "beautiful, shocking, impressive and informative". We are just wondering how Image:Corncobs.jpg, which you supported for featured picture, meets the 'shocking' criteria. That's all we are asking: for you to explain to us how you think the corn photo is shocking. Raven4x4x 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't know why you people are so focused on the 'shocking' factor. As I mentioned in my last post, its not me who keeps bringing up the word shocking. I never pointed that factor out as the most important reason i like that picture. Also, as a whole, i think the image collectively meets all of the criteria. It's an awesome photograph. It's colorful, vibrant, balanced, and...surprisingly beautiful (which if you look up the definition of shocking, surprising is a key part of the definition). If you would like to continue the discussion of that candidate, I suggest we discuss it under that image instead of this one. The issue brought up here was the one of being a diagram, so let's get back to that so this image isn't bogged down with talk of corn. See the discussion here for that issue. Lets try to keep the talk on the voting page geared towards the images. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Airport traffic pattern.jpg Raven4x4x 05:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]