Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Controlled Impact Demonstration 2

Controlled Impact Demonstration 2

The video add significant value to the article (since it is the the only one to show shots from inside the plane) It is pleasing to the eye in that is is a plane crashing and catching fire (don't worry no one got hurt) as part of an experiment. It is historically-important because I don't think it is going to happen again. it appears in Controlled Impact Demonstration Created by NASA

Nominate and support. - Geni 14:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is featured picture candidates, not featured video. Not sure about its appropriateness here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If gif animations can be featured picture I don't see why not videos is well (although there should be a seperate Featured Video/Animation Candidates page for that. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per above, and it's not the greatest, IMO. → JARED ^(t) 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. Furthermore, I can't even see it. "ogg"? My video viewers don't recognize that format. Sure, I know you can download plug-ins, but I won't - tried once, didn't work, too much bother. I'd rather edit or revert vandals... --Janke | Talk 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ogg is the standard format for videos on Wikipedia. Meniscus 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but wonder why not a "standard" standard is used - such as mpg or avi or wmw, accessible with almost all players... --Janke | Talk 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case if you use Windows. On Linux (well the distributions that don't include proprietary codecs anyways) the only thing you can play out of the box are oggs and flacs. WMV, AVI and others have patent issues and are not open and patent free like ogg and flac. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, it could be accessible on almost all windows players if they so chose, that's the point. Leon 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please remove your objection on these grounds. Ogg/Theora is the only video format we permit so it is unreasonable to oppose on that basis. Other more popular formats are patented and can't be legally implimented by free software in countries where the patents are valid (like the US). Sometime soon we'll have a built in browser based player for these videos, just like video sites such as Youtube. The player is already written, only the mediawiki integration remains to be done. Also, if you actually tried following our Media Help and had trouble, could you *please* provide some feedback? Because everyone who I've had sit down and try it says it works without a problem. --Gmaxwell 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't see it either but you're right, it's a full fledged video not a gif so I don't think it should count as a picture. The gifs I've seen are generally moving or rotating representations of things that can be viewed as static, like car engines or a molecule rotating. This is clearly different.Simondrake 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree on that but the file format should not be used as the sole arguement for opposing something. Compare this and this, they basically show the same thing (zooming in on fractals), where does the line that seperate video and animation go? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but neither of them are Featured Pictures. I'm not sure that either version would pass. Besides, FPs need to be viewable on the main page as POTD (or at least, thats the idea). An OGG file requires an external player and does not integrate into the pages themselves. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be about to change. It has been discussed a while ago to use an existing Java OGG Player to allow video embedding. (if the toolserver weren't fracked righ now you could see a proof of concept here) --Dschwen 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Very Strongly Oppose. This is a bad quality video and not even a picture. How can a video be a featured picture? Especially a bad-quality one like this one. Ilikefood 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We feature animations frequently and looks like a "series" of images will become featured. No harm in some flexibility. That said, there should be a parallel Featured Animation/Movie process. Debivort 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to temporarily suspend discussion pending "featured media" proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion Ravedave has set up a good frame work for exploring other featured media. Let's get to it. Debivort 05:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thirded.Geni 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need I mention fourthed? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll archive this discussion for now... The nomination can be renewed once we have a process for featuring videos. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]