Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tooth and Tail 2

Tooth and Tail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 12:38:58 (UTC)

Original – A screenshot of the real-time strategy game Tooth and Tail, in which the player assumes the role of a commander of an army of animals.

Reason: Renomination of this. The criteria mentioned there still stand, and it only fell short by one vote. I was advised that renominating this was a good idea
Articles in which this image appears: Tooth and Tail
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator: Pocketwatch Games, the developers of the game. Uploaded to Commons by Anarchyte

Support as nominator – Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clearly meets featured pictures criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't quite know that this developer has totally worked through how the licenses work. To my knowledge, that they license this screenshot under CCBYSA doesn't actually matter for our purposes, so long as it is wholly derivative of a non-free work, i.e., the game itself. GMG^talk 13:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The game is non-free. This screenshot is free. What's the problem? - hahnchen 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes it derivative of a non-free work does it not? "Free works" that are derivative of non-free works are not actually free. GMG^talk 14:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The copyright holder has freely licensed this image. It doesn't matter that the rest of the work isn't free. - hahnchen 15:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @GreenMeansGo: See images like File:Charlie Murder screenshot 5.png, File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm, and File:IncredipedeScreenshot35.jpg. They're all copyrighted games with freely usable media. The CC BY-SA license here allows for this. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        After some back and forth on Commons, it does appear I'm off in left field. Although it does seem counter-intuitive, but nevermind then I suppose. GMG ^talk 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not of interest to most of the general Main Page audience. Sca (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How? I doubt most are interested in this, which is today's featured picture. JOE BRO 64 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sca: As opposed to this or this? The image doesn't have to appeal to the general public; there's nothing in the criteria on that. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sca - Why on earth are we telling people what they should/should not be interested in? Seems very elitist. There's also nothing in the criteria that it needs to be a "popular" image. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Statista, less than a third (30.6 percent) of the 7.5+ billion population of the Earth plays video games. Sca (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? Not being intimately familiar with a subject does not imply not being interested in it. Wikipedia has tons of featured articles on people that no one alive has ever met, events that no one alive took part in, and beliefs that no one subscribes to.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, since only about (apparently) 55.1% of the world has access to the internet, and presumably there is near 100% overlap between those two figures, and 30.6% of the whole is 55.53% of 55.1%, it actually means that this has relevance to more than half of users who are liable to actually see it on the main page. GMG ^talk 15:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that "60% Americans play video games daily", and "More than 150 million Americans play video games, and 64% of American households are home to at least one person who plays video games regularly, or at least three hours per week". Source. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even more to the other scale, 30% of people in the world play video games... But outside of that, how many of them know what a video game is, or even the particular consoles are, etc. My mother knows what video games are, and she doesn't play them. I'd suggest that 30% is far higher than pthe amount of people Chester A. Arthur is of interest to; who is todays featured picture. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm willing to forgive 1440p for video games, but 1080p is too small for new games in 2017 or 2018. MER-C 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Most games released today are still made for 1080p screens. Home consoles and most PCs cannot render higher resolutions smoothly. In this case, the game is presented in a pixel art style and higher resolutions would make very little difference. - hahnch e n 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @MER-C: I can appreciate this, but note that it's not common for games, especially ones by non-AAA companies to be released at extremely high resolutions (they're on their way up, however), and when it comes to games anyway, the image quality does not get noticeably better (unless you're jumping from 480p to 720p or higher), unlike an image of a plant where the intricacies become apparent. Unless you're using a fairly recently released graphics card (let's say GTX 1060+), your computer will suffer noticeable strain when running at 1440p or higher (effectively removing the gameplay element, and now you're watching a pretty slideshow). Humans don't experience the same issues when taking photographs of buildings. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Framerate doesn't matter for a static image - one could temporarily increase the resolution at the expense of framerate to take a screenshot like the nominated image. Regardless, a GTX 950 should be able to render this graphically simple (much simpler than AAA) game at 1440p@30fps easily. 1080p would have been acceptable a few years ago, but as you said, standards are increasing. The bar for FP is higher than top 5%. We should expect better. MER-C 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @MER-C: I mentioned this down below, and it's relevant here. The native resolution for Tooth and Tail is 1080p. And you're probably right in saying that a 9 series could run this game, I was using the 10 series as an example of what the standard will become in the future. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JOE BRO 64 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Does not add significant value to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whaaaat? Gameplay screenshots are essential for VG articles. They illustrate the game, which is the object of discussion of the article. JOE BRO 64 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: By the same reasoning, this doesn't add much because we can just say "it's a bee". I don't understand where you're coming from here. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gameplay screenshots are essential but there are endless possibilities and of the two illustrating this article, which is better? An image promoted to FP should feature the 'hero' or 'baddy' or core of the game and be in the highest resolution possible. Is this such an image? Is 1080 highest possible? If so, I will happily delete my oppose vote. As for the bee, I don't think it should have been promoted. There is a strong bias here on FP and voters favour images that are top-right. For instance, do you agree with the oppose vote on my monkey below? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Charlesjsharp: In relation to gameplay, the proposed image is better than the split screen. This one shows the HUD, multiple characters, and the graphical style (of course). I will say, however, that if there were an article on split screens in video games, the other one would have a fighting chance.I found this from a developer while searching, and it seems like the game's native resolution is 1080p, and ultra-wide versions (like the ones mentioned in that conversation) would be unrealistic in relation to their depiction of the game, as it was not designed for that resolution (hence the initial thread, I presume). As for the monkey, looking through the article, it looks like it's the best image there. The infobox one is nice but very few of these are portrait. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. I have deleted my oppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's rare that a screenshot of a strategy game manages to capture a sufficient share of the game's key elements without being excessively cluttered or difficult for those unfamiliar with the game to make sense of. This image accomplishes that. Reasoning given in original nomination holds true.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. To a non-video-gamer, the image is nonsensical. Sca (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: The majority of the HUD is captioned. There's a map in the bottom left, objectives and rules in the top left, and characters scattered around the screen. I will admit that HUD at the center bottom may be a tad confusing to those unaware to how these games usually work, but it's a scroll-able inventory. It's a lot more intuitive than this. I could say the same about some non-video game files, too: File:Sorting quicksort anim.gif, File:Snells law wavefronts.gif, File:Conventional 18-wheeler truck diagram.svg (only numbered, no words), and File:Supercell.svg. There is no requirement for the image to make sense to everyone that sees it. The closest we've got is It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. And again, that is subjective. I didn't look at the supercell image and think "I'd like to learn more about that", but it's still a good image for those who do (and makes a bit more sense when you look at it in the article). Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the context of the "Tooth and Tail" game it's still nonsensical, since the labels (e.g., "Protect the Meat Merchants") mean nothing to the uninitiated. Plus, the whole thing, a screenshot, is rather fuzzy. Not visually accessible to the general reader. Sca (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia images are meant to enhance understanding of an article's text, not to make reading the text unnecessary. We can assume the image's viewer has some knowledge of the image's context. Also, the image doesn't look fuzzy on either my desktop computer or my mobile phone; are you sure it's not just your monitor?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK for illustrating the Tooth and Tail article. It's meaningless out of that context, and would only puzzle most Main Page readers. The background of the image is done in an ethereal style that appears blotchy at full res. Not suitable for featuring on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: As opposed to this stuttering mess, this diagram that has no information that makes sense to me, this yellow-green cell, and many of these (especially this, where you can see blurriness on the white lines)? Let's be consistent with what we think doesn't appeal to the general public, especially "when 60% Americans play video games daily". Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Sca (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How come you're not responding to points that clearly invalidate your argument? JOE BRO 64 01:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further the affiant sayeth naught. Sca (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Most of the people reading your comment won't understand what you're trying to say. 344917661X (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@344917661X: There's no point trying to continue the conversation. They're quite adamant on opposing (despite it being not at all related to the criteria). We've still got four days to see whether other people wish to add their supports/opposes (currently 4-2, and FP is entirely based on numbers, so one more support and no more opposition allows it to pass at ~71%). Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right that there is no point in trying to continue the conversation. Sca has successfully derailed this discussion and the discussion over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nintendo Switch Portable as well. 344917661X (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree with the reasoning provided by Martin IIIa. I also like to clarify that currently Featured picture criteria mentions nothing about a potential Feature Picture's use on the Main Page and the Main Page should not be taken into account when taking this picture into consideration. This picture clearly exceeds criteria #5 which states Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article while further clarifying A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Based on the fact this image passes all criteria of being a featured picture plus where it adds encyclopedic value to its parent article Tooth and Tail should be enough to promote this image alone based on the (and I emphasize) current criteria. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tooth and Tail - Desert screenshot.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]