Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DrugChart

DrugChart


This image appears in the Psychoactive Drug article and was created by user Thoric I nomintate because it beautifully illustrates the relationships between the confusing myriad of psychoactive drugs. Please see the main article for the wikified version.


 * Nominate and support. - TimL 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note this is a nomination for a diagram not a picture, please evaluate on the basis that it is a diagram not a picture. TimL 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Really, it is not a stunning picture. It adds something to the article, but is meaningless without the article. Thus strong oppose. --Vidarlo 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sorry, it's not that stunning, and appears meaningless at first. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I oppose both versions (with and without the text). Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Not stunning, it is confusing, subjective, and violates wiki's ban on original research. --65.87.105.2 21:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be logged in to vote. --Dschwen 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * One does not need to be logged in to vote. EOM.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but do note that: "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)"
 * That is absurd. There is no original research here. TimL 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The image relects original research which is prohibited. there is no source attached to the image and the creator regularly changes the groupings.  Please compare original to current.  Check out the psychoactive talk page.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - Note: the nomination was for the image with the overlying wiki-links. The actual image is meant to be a clean and light diagram.  It is also not subjective as the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications. (As for the "meaningless" comment, according to the top of this article -- "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons.")  --Thoric 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. This sort of nomination should be valid and the diagram does add significantly to the article. We just have to figure out how to handle it on FPC (if we can). -- Solipsist 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If indeed "the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications," then where are the citations? These groupings are subjective and constitute original research byThoric. --65.87.105.2 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They are common knowledge. I've added some citations to the talk page, and will add more if requested.
 * I have asked the creator to cite one source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics as depicted in his chart. He has been unable to do so. If there is no source, then this is clearly original research prohibited in wiki.--65.87.105.2 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is fully explained in the talk page. 65.87.105.2 is being deceptive.  --Thoric 19:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meaningless without text. D e nni &#9775;  02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Charts are meaningless without an appropriate caption. Glaurung 07:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The picture is too small, it is impossible to read the names. Make it as big as it appears in the article and I won't oppose anymore Glaurung 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok I gave it a try: the full-size picture was perfect, but when resized (for example on this page) the text was ugly so I reverted to the original version. I now understand why such a low resolution was chosen, but if there is no way to read the text, it is not more informative than the version without text... Glaurung 07:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The low-res version is only for the purposes of a thumbnail view. I've now replaced it with a full size version that looks fine as a thumbnail (at the expense of file size).  --Thoric 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support OK, now this is perfect. This is a very informative diagram. Congratulation for turning the dynamic diagram which is in the article in a readable (therfore also useful) static image. On a side note I'd add that diagrams and charts are so different from pictures in the criteria that make them remarkable that the process of featured diagrams and charts should be created in parallel from the process which already exists for the pictures. But this is another story. Glaurung 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree, the image alone is nothing spectacular, it is the organization it give the overlying wiki that makes it beautiful. If I could I would nominate the "whole shebang", but I can't. TimL 08:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the "whole shebang" (why can't we). If it needs the caption/text give it the caption. Broken S 13:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added an image to hopefully solve this problem. Please base your votes on the image containing the text labels.  --Thoric 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still against it. Yes, it adds to the article, but I can't see that this is really special in any way. It is not terribly creative, such things have been made before I'm sure. It's nor too striking, so I'm still holding my oppose stance. --Vidarlo 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to find an example of something similar. How is this any less "creative" than something such as Downtown Chicago plan?  --Thoric 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is more creative than image:Chigaco_top_down_view.png, and I do see that it contributes to the article. I don't think either belongs to featured pictures. It ain't a extremely nice, such as others that has been presented, but I agree in that it adds a lot to the article. So, whilst I've moderated myself, I'm still against it. --Vidarlo 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I respect your decision.
 * Support: I really liked the diagram 'cause it just puts all kind of psychoactive drugs on only one diagram. And I can't figure out what is incomprehensible about this? --Quinlan Vos 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This adds significantly to the article and is a pretty original contribution (please correct me if it is just a rip-off ;-) ). --Dschwen 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a great diagram, very informative, and is perfect in the context of the article. But I can't imagine it as a FP (in thumb size, without working links) on the Main Page of Wikipedia... --Janke | Talk 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - My thinking is that this does appear to be a very good illustration to help explain the topic. I'm not comfortable with any of the compromises so far for featuring this on POTD, but that is a different problem. We could for example make an exception and not show it on POTD, we might be able to find a trick for redirecting HTML if you clicked on the image, or I could just spend half the POTD caption explaining that you go and read the article to see how it works. Either way, I would hope that featuring it, would encourage its translation over to several of the other language Wikis (the Spanish are already halfway there) and get other editors to think "how can I make a diagram like this to illustrate my favourite article" &mdash; and that's what Featured Pictures should be about. -- Solipsist 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * eek, the spanish page is using my tables-based chart which I created before I figured out how to use divs to overlay wikilinks on top of a graphic ;) --Thoric 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You created that table based chart, Oh Lord! ;) TimL 13:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I created the original black and white graphic first (image:Drug_Chart_version_1.0.png), and from that created the table-based version, using color mixing to make it make a little more sense. Once I figured out I could overlay wiki-links over a graphic using divs, I then made some adjustments to the original graphic to reflect the gradual changes to the table-based chart, added in the color, and so the current chart is the offspring of the two ;)  --Thoric 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think it would go well on the Main Page, given the size issues, but it is a superb image which greatly improves its article.  I awarded Thoric a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for his efforts :)  --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  00:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * support: Great work on graphic that quickly and concisely conveys substantive info.  Ombudsman 05:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mainly Thoric's original research. JFW | T@lk  02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The chart is based on the underlying (linked to) articles. You claim of WP:NOR is dubious. TimL 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thoric suggests his diagram is a synthesis of books he has read. That's original research. His unique compilation cannot be found in any specific source.--24.55.228.56 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources for the information in the chart is cited in the psychoactive drug article, and the actual graphic cannot be found published elsewhere since I drew the chart, which is allowed by Wikipedia's view on original images which states, "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them". --Thoric 19:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thoric is ignoring the key parts of the NOR policy: "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." and "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." The features in Thoric's diagram cannot be found in any source.  I have repeatedly asked him to cite one source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics as depicted in his chart. He has been unable to do so. According to the talk page, Thoric believes "the anti-psychotic part is controversial, mainly because there are a large number of doctors (esp. psychologists) who believe that anti-psychotics are poor medicine attempting to pharmacologically control disorders which have little to do with physical brain function, and all to do with psychological issues that can be fixed through therapy.e"  The chart reflects this fringe POV.--24.55.228.56 20:01, 26 Decsember 2005 (UTC)
 * 24.55.228.56 is purposely selectively ignoring my responses. I already explained that the intersections in the chart can (and mostly do) represent areas that do not fall under the parent groupings as compared to items that are completely within the parent groupings.  For example, many of the psychedelics are in the intersection between the stimulants and the hallucinogens, but those psychedelis are not classified as stimulants, and by many accounts not even classified as hallucinogens either.  --Thoric 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But that is not clear from the image/diagram. --WS 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tim, the sources were inserted today, and I urge you not to refer to other users' opinions as "bogus". JFW | T@lk  23:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't know about the sources you refer to but is 'dubious' OK? TimL 00:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: too simplified view. --WS 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the whole point of the chart, too simplify something really complex. What would a  better chart look like? TimL 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, way too boring for FP. -- ʀ6ʍ ɑ  ʏ89  17:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User Thoric posted a message on my talk page, so I am clarifying here. I think that images that are to be featured should be inviting (aka good looking).  Diagrams and maps just don't do that (most of the time).  That's why I am opposed.  I have no problem with all these diagrams and I congratulate whoever put all the work into making it, but that doesn't mean that it deserves to be featured. -- ʀ6ʍ  ɑ  ʏ89  03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. perhaps the best lay-out of psychoactive drugs based on scientific classification that i've ever seen.  it is not original research, but simply a very coherent chart outlining the actions/accepted classifications/relations of various drugs, fully supported by the literature.  He made the chart from easily available and accepted classifications.  --Heah talk 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Illustration is cluttered and difficult to read. A higher resolution version would help, but an SVG version would be even better. &#126;MDD4696 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Request for help. I've been trying to decide what to do with this picture, and I really can't. It seems that the version with text has consensus, but the article version isn't this one. It does appear in the article, in a manner of speaking, so I'm not sure if it's valid or not. And what do I make of the original research allegations? My feeling is promote it, but I'm not quite that bold. Please could someone help me decide what to do with it? Raven4x4x 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Who can help? What happens now? TimL 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The original research allegations have been addressed in the article and talk page. The version with text is for the purpose of FP such that it can be seen as a thumbnail.  The image page has a link to the proper article.  --Thoric 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Copied from User talk:Raven4x4x) My personal opinion is still oppose (and I'll clarify that on the nomination page). Regarding the nomination, here are the two choices: either fail it now (there are nearly as many oppose as supports, and not all opposes are to the version without links), or extend it for one or two more days. If you choose the latter, I would recommend contacting everyone who has voted or made a comment on the page and then just informing them that the debate has been extended for 24 or 48 hours, and that they may wish to check out the page again (I would abstain from any mention of the problems, as that may bias the notice.) If the vote outcome still stays approximately the same, the image should not be promoted - there's a considerable amount of opposition (10/9). Alternatively, as I said above, you could just close it as a not promoted because of the significant amount of opposition - a large influx of "support" votes would be required to make this image pass. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of the trickiest nominations we've had for a while. Well on the one hand it is quite straight forward &mdash; there is quite a mix of supports and opposes (10:9) and comment, but there isn't clear concensus to support &mdash; so it fails. However, when determining concensus, one ideally takes into account the nature of supports and objections and it is quite clear that some of the oppose votes are misguided or haven't been retracted even when some of the issues appear to have been addressed. If all votes were carefully weighed and revised or discounted it might be possible to seive out a consensus for support, but that would be quite hard and somewhat controversial. I don't think extending the vote is going to help much in this case. So my suggestion would be to let it fail for the moment, regroup, then renominate it in a month's time &mdash; preferably with a more clear introduction explaining that it is an untypical illustration and that although it is being represented by thumbnail the nomination is actually about the diagram as used in the article. -- Solipsist 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

After speaking with a few people, I've decided that Solipsist's suggestion is the best for now. Thanks to all those who helped in this decision. Raven4x4x 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

