Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battle of San Pietro
- Reason
- A 1945 documentary film by a major Hollywood director about a World War II battle in Italy. John Huston's portrayal of the battle and its conditions was so frank that for some time the Army considered the work unusable except as a training film. Selected for the National Film Registry in 1991. Does not create a default thumbnail due to large file size.
- Articles this image appears in
- John Huston, The Battle of San Pietro, Battle of San Pietro Infine
- Creator
- John Huston, for the United States Army
- Support as conominator --DurovaCharge! 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support as conominator (and .ogg converter) — Bastique demandez 01:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think 320x240 is just too small. I understand the merits and would definitely support this if it was a large size, but this isn't near approaching original size. gren グレン 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Shooting Captured Insurgents - Spanish-American War.ogv and Image:Searching for bodies, Galveston 1900.ogg were both recently promoted to featured and have the same size. DurovaCharge! 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- This image is a motion picture, but I wonder this nomination is in this featured photo candidates".--Caspian blue 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- We don't have a Featured Video Candidates page. There are plenty of videos and animations that have become featured pictures. Raven4x4x (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's Featured Picture Candidates, not "featured photo candidates", and a video is a motion picture, i.e., it's a valid nom. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, but as the nom points out this doesn't create a thumbnail, in articles, or even on the image page itself. To me this is just getting too far from the concept of an FP being an image that makes a reader want to know more, given that it doesn't display as an image unless you run the whole thing. You'd have to be pretty committed before you'd manage to track down the actual picture part of this, and most users never would. --jjron (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes the dynamics of featured picture voting mystify me, and frankly this is one of those times. We're lucky to have a John Huston film in the public domain--this man directed many of Humphrey Bogart's best movies. This isn't a throwaway example of Huston's work either; it's been selected by the National Film Registry. And it's a documentary about a historic World War II battle--one gritty enough to use real body bags while the war was still underway. Yet it gets opposed for being the same size as other recently featured videos of less significance, and then because of a technical thumbnailing issue? We were very fortunate to get this into one upload without breaking it up into multiple files because it is much larger than the normal file limit. It's like showing The Maltese Falcon and getting bad reviews because of stale popcorn. DurovaCharge! 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think that assessment (of my comment) is completely wrong. There are two categories of Featured Pictures. There are Wikipedian creations such as photos, diagrams, graphs, etc., and there are reproductions of already important works. This is a mediocre reproduction of a great video. I think of this as an 800x600 of Starry Starry Night. It doesn't mean Van Gogh isn't important. It doesn't mean we aren't lucky to have it. It just means that to properly capture the original and become an FP it should be larger. And, I use this criteria for all videos. As for the thumbnail, that's a problem with Wikimedia software not with the film... gren グレン 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, it's currently the largest file on Commons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do my best to accommodate feedback, but the demand simply isn't feasible in this instance. Realistically, how would I approach a developer and justify a request that would further increase what is already the largest media file on Wikimedia Commons, when the playback dimensions of the current version are already the same size as other recent featured picture promotions of the same type? No reason has been provided why the minimum playback dimensions must be changed since last month. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I must reiterate that I have not supported previous small videos. And the file size is not a function of quality but of length. I think my request is reasonable. Files on Wikipedia up for featured picture (video) should approach the native dimension of the original film (of course this is difficult to ascertain from an analog source but I think it's safe to say this is much smaller). This is the same requirement we have for images so why note for videos. Wikipedias technical limitations are no reason to change our expectations of quality. And, for the record, while I like that this video is in one file, I would prefer 6 files in 640x480 resolution (not just stretching this image, but of native quality) and I would support them for FP. I think the other recent featured videos to which you refer are just the result of a hankering for some featured video content. They shouldn't have been featured if they are that small. There are some 640x480 videos now (Galloping Gurdy, etc.) and they deserve to be FP in my opinion. Below that without suitable reason is tiny for me and I think this is a perfectly suitable criterion to have. gren グレン 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion about video size before, without a satisfactory result. I personally find 320x240px pretty small as well, and while Durova points out some recent promotions of that size, they haven't exactly been overwhelmingly supported. --jjron (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Gren, let me put this another way: at the current dimensions this is already more than five times the maximum file upload size. If it hadn't been for the help of a developer it would have had been a six part file with its current dimensions. DurovaCharge! 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I understand but technical limitations and the difficulty in overcoming them doesn't make it good quality for me. If Wikipedia ever hopes to have long clips in featurable quality it needs to make serious decisions about bandwidth and max file size because 20MB doesn't cut it. gren グレン 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Gren, let me put this another way: at the current dimensions this is already more than five times the maximum file upload size. If it hadn't been for the help of a developer it would have had been a six part file with its current dimensions. DurovaCharge! 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion about video size before, without a satisfactory result. I personally find 320x240px pretty small as well, and while Durova points out some recent promotions of that size, they haven't exactly been overwhelmingly supported. --jjron (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I must reiterate that I have not supported previous small videos. And the file size is not a function of quality but of length. I think my request is reasonable. Files on Wikipedia up for featured picture (video) should approach the native dimension of the original film (of course this is difficult to ascertain from an analog source but I think it's safe to say this is much smaller). This is the same requirement we have for images so why note for videos. Wikipedias technical limitations are no reason to change our expectations of quality. And, for the record, while I like that this video is in one file, I would prefer 6 files in 640x480 resolution (not just stretching this image, but of native quality) and I would support them for FP. I think the other recent featured videos to which you refer are just the result of a hankering for some featured video content. They shouldn't have been featured if they are that small. There are some 640x480 videos now (Galloping Gurdy, etc.) and they deserve to be FP in my opinion. Below that without suitable reason is tiny for me and I think this is a perfectly suitable criterion to have. gren グレン 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do my best to accommodate feedback, but the demand simply isn't feasible in this instance. Realistically, how would I approach a developer and justify a request that would further increase what is already the largest media file on Wikimedia Commons, when the playback dimensions of the current version are already the same size as other recent featured picture promotions of the same type? No reason has been provided why the minimum playback dimensions must be changed since last month. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, it's currently the largest file on Commons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think that assessment (of my comment) is completely wrong. There are two categories of Featured Pictures. There are Wikipedian creations such as photos, diagrams, graphs, etc., and there are reproductions of already important works. This is a mediocre reproduction of a great video. I think of this as an 800x600 of Starry Starry Night. It doesn't mean Van Gogh isn't important. It doesn't mean we aren't lucky to have it. It just means that to properly capture the original and become an FP it should be larger. And, I use this criteria for all videos. As for the thumbnail, that's a problem with Wikimedia software not with the film... gren グレン 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes the dynamics of featured picture voting mystify me, and frankly this is one of those times. We're lucky to have a John Huston film in the public domain--this man directed many of Humphrey Bogart's best movies. This isn't a throwaway example of Huston's work either; it's been selected by the National Film Registry. And it's a documentary about a historic World War II battle--one gritty enough to use real body bags while the war was still underway. Yet it gets opposed for being the same size as other recently featured videos of less significance, and then because of a technical thumbnailing issue? We were very fortunate to get this into one upload without breaking it up into multiple files because it is much larger than the normal file limit. It's like showing The Maltese Falcon and getting bad reviews because of stale popcorn. DurovaCharge! 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can somebody make a still thumbnail from this movie, and package it together wih a play button as in the "Au Clair de la Lune" illustration? That would address the above concern... --Janke | Talk 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll get back to my point here, since the other discussion veered away from it. One of the risks of putting things up at FPC is that people may oppose them. I hardly think it's fair to say my oppose is akin to complaining about having stale popcorn. For mine, this is basically one step away from providing a link to an image on an external site and claiming that as a valid nomination; by following the link the reader could view it, so what does it matter that it's on an external site? If the wikimedia software can't display this, then perhaps it was unwise to nominate it until the technical issues are resolved. It reminds me of a nom made earlier in the year, that, if I remember correctly, was in PDF format and thus didn't display as an image, and was resoundingly opposed mainly for that reason. I can't remember any regulars rushing to its defence. And if plenty of other people find this non-image FPC worthy, then they will support it and my oppose won't matter anyway. --jjron (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it might be a recent issue with the thumbnailer. I just uploaded Image:Scincus scincus.ogv and, surprise, the thumbnailing is borked.
Facepalm. See WP:VPT#More .ogv thumbnailing problems. MER-C 08:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if something can be done about that. .ogv thumbnailing has been an issue before. DurovaCharge! 08:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the difference between .ogg and .ogv. Its the version of ffmpeg2theora I used which apparently is too current for our ffmpeg thumbnail generator to pick up its meta tags. When the developers update our generating program, the thumbnail will be updated. Bastique demandez 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if something can be done about that. .ogv thumbnailing has been an issue before. DurovaCharge! 08:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it might be a recent issue with the thumbnailer. I just uploaded Image:Scincus scincus.ogv and, surprise, the thumbnailing is borked.
Comment How do you view the .ogg format? I suspect my security settings are blocking it anyway, but just out of interest. TerriG 149.155.96.5 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the thumbnailing issue can't be resolved without developer attention (and they've got more urgent things on their hands), would it be appropriate to withdraw this nomination? DurovaCharge! 23:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bug filed, though the devs are preoccupied with creating fundraising widgets. MER-C 09:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)