Support – Good large-scale shot of one of Warsaw's most notable postwar squares. (In the '90s the central island was filled with higgledy-piggledy food-vendor shops, later banished.) Część!– Sca (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2023 at 12:50:14 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a nice poster. Touring production of the run, which I think goes some way to show the popularity. The English-language adaptation has a large presence in the article, which I think justifies it not being the original French.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2023 at 13:38:41 (UTC)
Reason
Excellent pose, taken during a performance. I'm normally very iffy about my concert photographs because I've been limited to a cell, but this one I think crosses the threshhold.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2023 at 12:41:29 (UTC)
Reason
Paired with a caption I think it's pretty shocking; my jaw dropped when I first learned of it. Succinctly captures why the period of Korea under Japanese rule has continued to cause controversy. For sources for the claims in the caption, please see the Hyochang Park article.
Support restoration - They what now? Yeah, my jaw dropped. Seems like a newspaper or book scan, but high EV and the halftoning isn't too bad. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – yes the shadows are lost, but it should be judged for what it is: a documentary photo, an early space photo, 1966, the first of its kind (EVA), as published by NASA [1], the lighting contrast is too severe to expect reasonable shadows (or else the highlights would blow), one-time event (irreplaceable). FP criteria has several exceptions for photos like this. Bammesk (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2023 at 15:11:45 (UTC)
Reason
This early map of the New World has already been selected as a featured picture on the Turkish and Arabic Wikipedia. It famously incorporates an early depiction of the Caribbean from the Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was created at a point in time when the Ottoman Empire was still a major power in Europe. It is likely most famous for the disproven theory that it depicted an ice-free Antarctica.
Comment – Good EV but the file resolution is too low. At full size or even if zoomed in, I doubt the text is legible. For a map with so much detail and text, the resolution should be higher and the details should be clearer. Bammesk (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unremarkable looking image. How do we know this was the first example? Might well have been written in BASIC a decade earlier... --Janke | Talk16:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The caption is confusingly worded, but from what I gather, it's a commemorative artwork purposefully created for the auction in 2015, handwritten by Kernighan and quoting his lines of code first published in 1978. The code itself is historic, the artwork isn't. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems excessively cropped, to the point of cutting off parts of the artwork. There's not much more in the original, but given the original isn't even uploaded on here (archive access isn't necessarily forever: Look at the British National Portrait Gallery, for instance, or all the ones that aren't even available at any scale anymore), and there is more, I think we need another look at this. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.23:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could remove the rip on the right, but it's not a mass-produced engraving from what I'm aware, and it's not major enough to hurt usage, so better to just leave it be, I think. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.00:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but confusing. One needs to zoom in extensively to get much out of it, and it's blurry at high resolution.Kymothoë (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. My apologies. The English version is shorter because most of the Portuguese is a short biography of Neves; we have an article for that; instead I focused on what we know about the image itself, which I think is a little buried in the Portuguese. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.05:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2023 at 14:32:22 (UTC)
Reason
Quality photo of the OSIRIS-REx mission's sample return capsule upon landing in September 2023. The capsule returned samples collected from the Bennu asteroid in October 2020.
Comment. This photo has a more interesting composition and shows the landscape of the landing site much better. Not sure if it would have value for the article about the mission but I added it to Utah Test and Training Range, where it has obvious relevance. Weak support current nominee. blameless03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tradeoff, scenery versus the capsule. The original nom image has more resolution on the capsule, and the capsule displays larger at thumbnail. It's more encyclopedic in the mission articles. The other photo suits the test range article. Prefer original. Bammesk (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Alt is a better image in the mission article: OSIRIS-REx, and I am not sure it will remain stable there, if added. The other listed articles are too generic for either photo. If the Alt image is not in the mission article and stable, then it has my oppose vote, in favor of my support vote for the Original image. Bammesk (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kymothoë, what we know is the chronological photo sequence: Here, from arrival on the scene to the transportation of the capsule. Double click on any image to see its description and EXIF data. Bammesk (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't staged, brushed down and straightened! The tilt is from front to back, not side to side, so it doesn't show in a frontal photo. Yes the parachute remnant was removed, and an orange sticker was placed on what appears to be a sensor hole (I suppose to prevent contamination). That's normal procedure, not manipulation. Not a disqualifier as far as I am concerned. Bammesk (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the original at the source link: [2] is a 2.69 MB png file. The converted jpeg file is merely 267 KB. That's too small. Compression? Conversion quality settings! Would support otherwise. Bammesk (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It fails FP criterion #2, 1500 pixels minimum. @ZmajiZmajiZmaji: English Wikipedia and Commons have two different standards (criteria) for FPs. At en-Wiki we go by the FP criteria at this link: WP:FP?. Also we go by the instructions on top of the WP:FPC page. Feel free to nominate images here at en-Wiki, but per the instructions you do not have the sufficient number of edits (100 edits minimum) to vote at en-Wiki, so your votes will be ignored until you meet that requirement. Bammesk (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: While that's probably normally true, Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his combined work after he was president, which probably makes this more significant. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.05:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the same concern on this talk page, and got an answer. If you have any other copyright-related question, you can probably ask Batoul84, who answered my question, or—per the image's page—ask on Wiki Palestine's talk page. FunLater (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whatever its copyright status, this image of a spot news event seems too ephemeral for the POTD ethos, and could be considered POV in the context of the ongoing Israel–Hamas War. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this painting by chance, and thought it pertinent given the situation in Israel right now. Please judge the painting on its own, however. Bremps...05:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – although the resolution (pixel count) can be higher with today's technology. Not sure I agree with "pertinent given the situation" comment, because WP:FPC is not news. Bammesk (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, the google project image has a file size of 2.18 MB. The nom image is 1.06 MB, it's probably more compressed. I say the google project image is better. I couldn't see a visual difference on my screen though. Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2023 at 05:52:24 (UTC)
Reason
Added to the National Film Registry in 2000, this 1915 film feared to be lost until being found in the 1970s is one of the first full-length gangster films. And this is a very clean print of said movie.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2023 at 02:05:29 (UTC)
Reason
Lead image in the Ice eggs article. The technical quality isn't ideal, but this is a rare phenomenon that occurs at low temperatures. Not a common occurrence to photograph. See the Commons nom: [3] for a discussion of the technical quality.
Support. To borrow the words of one of the commenters at the Commons FPC, this is a case of "extraordinary wow trumps anything else". Choliamb (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to nominate Disney's animated short film Steamboat Willie which has not been uploaded yet. The reason is that the film will famously enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2024 and I would like to showcase it on the Main Page on that exact day (I would upload it on Commons on the evening of 31 December 2023). I know that this is unorthodox, but it would be a really cool way to celebrate Public Domain Day next year. What do you think? --Gnom (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a BIG caveat: In order to avoid any copyright infringement, even one ever so small, it should not be viewable anywhere until January 1st at 00:00 local time. Does the Wiki software actually time the front page view to the actual date/time of the page viewer's location? And how to decide exactly when to upload to Commons? 00:00 according to UTC, or PST - assuming the latter is the time zone for the original copyright? Or even the earliest time zone possible, that of Kiribati, i.e. UTC +14 - which means the upload would be legal at least somewhere on the earth... (This is only half in jest!) --Janke | Talk09:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the file is actually uploaded. While I support the premise of the nomination in principle, I can't support something until I see what the Main Page readers will see. MER-C19:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, you can see the film itself via the YT link above, and the Main Page text can actually be proposed here... perhaps with the help of MP editors? It would be fun to have it at the first possible moment! --Janke | Talk20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think MER-C means that you can’t just download a file from YouTube and upload it directly to Commons. You have to convert the file to a format that’s compatible with Commons, and that conversion can have adverse effects on the video if not properly done. Regards, ArmbrustTheHomunculus20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least with the proposed source. While I appreciate the sentiment, the YouTube version, at 360p, is too low in quality to meet the FP criteria. And the historic exception argument doesn't quite hold, as the low resolution is a limitation imposed on this digital version, not inherent to the original format. Surely there are archives in possession of the original film prints who will be able to publish higher quality conversions once the copyright finally lapses? There may also be issues over the creativity and copyrightability of the restoration work itself, if such work took place as part of the digitisation. Altogether, I don't think it's practically possible to have Steamboat Willie as POTD for 1 January, so better just take the usual route and nominate it when it's ready (and maybe discuss making an exception for jumping the POTD queue to feature it as early as possible then). --Paul_012 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to oppose uploading it December 31st, when it's still in copyright. I'd suggest the earliest we can go for is January 2nd. The copyright law is a little vague as to the exact time of changeover online, where there's many timezones. The servers are in Florida and California, I believe, which means we technically should be careful about hosting something before midnight Pacific time, by which time it will be 8 am UTC and the POTD will have been running for 8 hours. We could do it by the same logic as the IAR for Queen Elizabeth's funeral (which might have proven controversial as every section of the main page independently got in on it, but I don't think was an issue otherwise): Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hrh Princess Elizabeth in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, April 1945 TR2832.jpg - If it's passing, and there's no opposition to it after a reasonable discussion done a few days beforehand, it can jump immediately to the next day's queue. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.21:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke and @Geni, thank you for your comments – would you support a FP nomination of the Bluray version (assuming that I can find a way to upload it to Commons)? Gnom (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a January 1st upload (U.S. time) and a January 2nd POTD. I am Ok with the current 360p version on youtube [4]. It's downloadable as MP4 and can be converted to WebM. A 1080p version can be uploaded later to overwrite it (whenever available, and with a proper license if needed for reproduction creativity and restoration). Bammesk (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the stated caveat. I changed my comment to a vote. When/if the concerns expressed above by others are addressed, regarding the feasibility of a January 1st POTD (i.e. timing), and/or a 1080p version (and its copyright if applicable), then I support those scenarios as well. Bammesk (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we will address the copyright issue separately (I am a media lawyer and actually hold a PhD in copyright law, so I think that I should be able to figure this out). Gnom (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea, in whatever way it is accomplished. But could we be absolutely sure that a Blu-Ray rip is copyright-free, since such a HD transfer was probably originally done by Disney? --Janke | Talk19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2023 at 12:02:04 (UTC)
Reason
While finishing up things with Nettie Stevens, I checked Wilson - who independently discovered the Y chromosome - albeit without as much insight as Stevens had - at around the same time. This was the lead image. So, yeah, I took it upon myself to research and restore a better image. This kind of dramatic lighting was a bit of a photographic trend a decade or so either side of 1900; This is one of the better examples, with superb facial detail.