Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glardon Vallorbe needle file set

Glardon Vallorbe needle file set
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019  at 22:32:27 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very high resolution capture of the most common needle file shapes of a major brand; in use in several articles. The black background version is FP at Commons, this transparent background version makes it the most versatile to use.
 * Articles in which this image appears: File (tool), Hand tool, de:Feile, pl:Pilnik
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
 * Creator:Lucas


 * Support PNG (oppose JPG) Lucas (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support PNG – Bammesk (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support JPG &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated after ping. There are indeed advantages to JPG that are specific to its display on this project. On Commons I would want the highest resolution regardless of the thumbnail or how MediaWiki renders it. Ultimately, however, if we wanted the highest possibly quality I would figure on something like a TIFF file rather than PNG. The transparency makes it versatile, but I can't think of when we would need it for an image like this on enwiki. To be clear, I'm not not opposing the PNG, but I do oppose promoting both (as opposed to one or the other) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * about "when we need a transparency": specifically for this image, we can match the background of its thumbnail in the article to other images in the vicinity. Also Wikipedia is PD, our images can be used anywhere, outside Wikipedia. Bammesk (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a tough question. After consideration I came to the conclusion that, because image quality is only so important on enwiki FPC. It's important, but we aren't looking at images in a vacuum, assessing strictly by image quality (the argument about promoting a higher quality file for the sake of reuse is more relevant to Commons FPC, I think). Here we're looking at images in the context of use in Wikipedia articles. That is why, for better or worse, we cannot promote an image we find to be higher quality if consensus at the article is that it shouldn't be used. The most important thing is value to one or more articles, not quality/usability in its own right. That's the impression I've gotten from FPC anyway. That's why I think it's sensible to factor in MediaWiki constraints that affect the way people actually see the images. Because in-article context is an essential consideration on enwiki FPC. As I said, on Commons I would likely lean the other way, because the only thing that matters is the quality. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Due to PNG thumbnails coming out blurry, should this be a JPEG? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Adam Cuerden, blurry thumbnails are not my fault, and the png format has the advantage of a transparent background, which was part of my processing of this image. – Lucas 19:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The details are too minute in this case, I don't see much difference between the Alt and the Original at 700 pixels wide above. I am inclined to go with the Original as nominated by image creator. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't tell on the handles? It's glaringly different to me. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 08:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is sharper, and I agree with your general point. In this composition, with six somewhat monotonic monochromatic files, the extra sharpness doesn't have much of a punch or overall effect. It would be different if the subject was a landscape or a portrait. But I am not too attached and would support Alt if consensus goes in that direction. (struck, commented below) Bammesk (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Third file from top looks uncut (not serrated)! Is this the back side of a "safe edge" file? Needs explanation in caption, after that I can support. --Janke | Talk 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Janke ✅ I explained it in the description and in the image note of that file (see Commons page). – Lucas (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The third file is identified in image caption as "barrette", which is listed or defined in the article (slightly above the image) as having one cut-side with all other sides being safe. That, plus Lucas' addition above, should be sufficient, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as it is now explained. --Janke | Talk 08:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both. MER-C 10:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose PNG, Support JPEG I just don't think Wikipedia's software handles PNGs well enough to make them viable, and years of me attempting to get it fixed have failed. Compare how the company name is clearly visible on the JPEG, and not at all on the PNG, for instance, and likewise the texture of the file itself, particularly on the second and fourth. It's just a lower-quality thumbnail that isn't appropriate for FP unless someone actually fixes it. Which no-one is willing to do. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 11:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Adam Cuerden what gets featured is the image file itself, which doesn't have any problems. Also the PNG version has much more value because of the cut out background and lossless compression. So in your opinion no more PNG files can get featured, no matter what, just because of display issues in thumbnail generation which the creators are not to blame for? Please reconsider. I understand thumbnails are important but anyone remotely interested in the image will examine the file itself anyway and not stop altogether at a slightly blurry thumbnail. – Lucas 17:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially since thumbnails in articles usually are only 200 or 300 px wide. If you want to see detail, you have to click to the image page. In full size, I see no discernible difference except for the shade of the background. --Janke | Talk 19:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see two problems with this: Firstly, sure, we may turn Media Viewer off, but it's a default, and the image won't look the same until you get to the full resolution version, which requires going through Media Viewer to the File description page, THEN downloading the full-size version. Secondly, having put thumbnail versions side by side (see above) I'd say the JPEG was noticably a little better, particularly the second, third and fourth, which show a little more shape and detail, and a lot more of the original's variations in tone. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if everyone would clarify whether they support the png or jpeg version (or both). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – about the process: It makes no sense to have an Alt voted on if the nominator who created the nom opposes the Alt, and more specifically when the nominator rejects the idea of the Alt before it is even introduced, as is the case here . After all, a nom is a nominator's nomination, it is not everyone's nomination. I think the JPEG should go through a separate nom process, the PNG should be the only image voted on, and the votes for and against the JPEG should be discounted. Sidenote: I have been a participant in the FPC project for a while and have never seen this, and even if it has happened in the past, that doesn't justify it. Bammesk (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought about this more and struck my comment above. Reason: the choice is between two different versions of the same image, they can't both be FP, it's an either/or situation. The simplest, practical, fair way to prevent voting confusion, such as preventing the possibility of both images becoming FP, would be to evaluate and vote on both images at the same time, in the same nom. Bammesk (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It think there are severe functional issues with PNGs on Wikipedia, and they're not going to be fixed by ignoring them. I would like it, very much, if we could get the bug fixed. I've been told it's quite doable, but the coders for some reason think that having PNGs blurry is a feature to be actively maintained. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 20:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Adam, about PNGs, if you want to prevent PNGs becoming FPs, propose amending the FP criteria here or here, because currently PNGs are as eligible as JPEGs, TIFFs and SVGs. By the way SVGs don't render well in all platforms, and JPEGs are lossy and cannot handle transparencies, so there is no one format fits all. The transparency feature is a plus for inanimate objects, diagrams, etc., such as this nom. Bammesk (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) .... Sidenote: I touched up some obvious typos in your reply above.


 * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T39960
 * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192744

Basically, our terrible rendering of PNG thumbnails comes down to a ten-year-old choice meant to help with edge-case diagrams that might look a bit bad sharpened, instead of, say, just generating a thumbnail manually for a tiny edge case. Until we decide to support all files, instead of an edge case, it's only suitable for the edge case that it was arbitrarily assigned to. I think this is a ridiculous situation, but I've been trying to change it for years. What have you done? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have to do anything about MediaWiki code. Contributions are voluntary, not obligations. With the criteria as is, there will be disagreement about when and where PNG or JPEG is best. You can propose amending the criteria though, to limit PNG noms (to say software-generated images), if you think that's worthwhile. By the way, I don't equate (or correlate) Media Viewer with thumbnail and in-article use. I correlate Media Viewer with viewing the image in its file page (with less text). Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)