Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinball

Pinball[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 22:46:47 (UTC)

Reason: High EV for Pinball, large enough, looks studio-y
Articles in which this image appears: Pinball (lead image)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery
Creator: Kevin Tiell for the Pacific Pinball Museum

Support as nominator -- In the process of building Portal:Games, I happened upon this image. I asked Muhammad Mahdi Karim if he thought it was FP quality (as he's active here and had recently made edits when I decided to ask someone), and his answer convinced me to nominate this. Note that this is not a WikiCup nomination, I had nothing to do with this image except for finding it already uploaded. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be negative here, but that's only just barely over the minimum size, and a lot of that size is made up of context-free whitespace. If we can get this bigger (and possibly from a different angle - a bit more to the right and down and you'd see a lot more of the insides), it'd be very good as an FP, but given its effective size is about 1000x1500px... I just don't see this passing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I noticed that, and I agree it's a shame. For some reason I've yet to internalize that the minimum size has jumped from 1000 to 1500, but I did notice that there's just a ton of white surrounding the machine. I would love to have a pinball machine FP, they're such interesting machines and their cultural impact was significant, but if this one isn't it, this one isn't it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's annoying. It may be worth writing the museum, and pointing out that getting the image onto the mainpage through FP would serve to advertise their museum, and see if they respond. Durova used to be really good at that sort of thing, so I know it can work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It would be worth doing what Adam suggests though to get a higher resolution --Muhammad(talk) 01:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They've already gotten back to me, it's only a matter of time, I think. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it's below the size limit. Why was it ever raised from 1000 to 1500 anyway? I personally think 1000px would be a better minimum. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, because having larger limits encourages people to seek out better files. The old limit wasn't 1000x1000px, it was 1000px on one dimension, which was probably a bit small. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded; size of "Original" is now 5,409 × 5,409 pixels. If someone would like to make a cropped version using the new size, I encourage someone with better knowledge of proper cropping to do so. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both are definitely covered under the OTRS? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I did the ticket update myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't updating the file, as in, you couldn't look at the large version - a common bug at the moment - so I moved it to a slightly more descriptive name. This may break a few usages until CommonsDelinker plays through. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Commons has bugs. The one that gets me is the thumbnail not updating one. So as to the OTRS situation, what I do in these cases is I forward the entire email chain to OTRS, and then merge the new conversation into the old ticket. It just makes everything easier. The ticket for the new conversation is ~~2013012610001245~~, which was merged into 2012101510001125, the one linked in the file description page. Thanks for promoting me to try and get a bigger version. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting it so fast. Oh, er, Support if it wasn't clear. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@all: Should we use the square or the crop? No one has specified their preference for one or the other, and if we're going to use the crop, we need to update the crop to use the new size? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not QUITE so close of a crop; perhaps half the whitespace? It feels a little tight as it is, Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support crop. Calhoun ^talk 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC) User blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
Strong Oppose EV here is quite minimal, sure it's a pinball machine, but it's a HIGHLY modified one. I can assure you when that thing came out it wasn't in a plexiglass box. An image of an original machine, would be vastly more EV. — raeky t 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was built by the museum specifically to show what the innards of a pinball machine look like. That's the point of it. See this write up. Sven Manguard Wha?
  - I still don't see high EV for the general Pinball article... — raeky t 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose it's obvious that I disagree, so I'll leave it by saying that my personal view is that it's extremely high EV because not only do we have an image of the functional product, but also the ability to see the insides, something we rarely get with complex machines. And now I'll stop badgering the opposition. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop. Agree with Sven about the high EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop The point is to see the innards. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Visible Pinball III - Pacific Pinball Museum cropped.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]