Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rubik's Cube

Rubik's Cube

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2015 at 12:16:07 (UTC)

Original – Rubik's Cube

Reason: High quality and EV image of a high-importance mathematics/engineering topic. SVG file format means that the image can be scaled up to unlimited resolution without quality loss. Is already a featured picture on Commons and six other Wikipedia language versions.
Articles in which this image appears: Rubik's Cube, Rubik's Cube group, Group (mathematics), Group theory, Permutation group, Permutation, Mathematics, Toy, National Toy Hall of Fame, Hungary, Science and technology in Hungary, Lethal Inspection
FP category for this image: Either Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others, or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
Creator: Booyabazooka

Support as nominator – sst✈^(discuss) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks ok, but the photo is remarkably small. --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a SVG file, and therefore can be scaled up to unlimited resolution. sst✈^(discuss) 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, thank you. --Tremonist (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a photo here, though, like the others. --Tremonist (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think SVG is appropriate in this case when an actual photo could be taken. Brandmeister^talk 15:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I'm not really feeling this. SVG is appropriate for diagrams and representations, but a Rubik's Cubes are real objects in the world, and fairly common ones at that; we wouldn't have an svg at the top of wooden spoon (although the picture used at time of writing is terrible), bouncy ball or engagement ring, so I'm not really sure why we would have one here. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at pictures like that spoon, I get the desire to set up my little studio again. No room, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd agree that for a common physical object a high quality photo is preferable to a render and is eminently achievable Wolftick (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Josh. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think a picture would bring anything more here. – Yann (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're going to need to give us more here. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - why not have a photograph? Mattximus (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with the others that a photograph of a real cube would be preferable. 86.152.161.36 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wolftick.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]