Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kue gapit

Kue gapit[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 22:55:39 (UTC)

Reason: High quality (macro) image of this traditional Indonesian wafer
Articles in which this image appears: Kue gapit +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator: — Chris Woodrich (talk)

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jobas (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The scale needs to be labelled. (I don't buy the argument against doing so, by the way. The percentage of literate people in the world who do not understand "1 cm" must be small, and changing it would be pretty trivial anyway for anyone who really wanted to.) 109.153.225.51 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is likewise trivial to include the scale in a caption in articles, as necessary. And that has the added bonus of being language-appropriate. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pictures get separated from captions when they are copied and used outside Wikipedia. Also, the absence of the scale annotation just looks like a mistake. It doesn't seem plausible or conceivable that anyone would add a scale and deliberately not label it. 109.152.148.119 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pictures can also be turned pink, purple, or neon green by reusers. To make an album cover, one reuser added grain and deep shadows to an image I took. They can copy the scale, or remove it, or label it themselves. The license doesn't limit them from doing it. If they don't care to copy the size (which is, after all, noted in two separate locations) denoted by the scale, that is their prerogative. That you could not previously conceive of a scale bar that isn't labeled on the image itself doesn't that they don't exist. Here are two other examples: Nature, Journal of Neurophysiology. Yes, labeled bars are more common. No, unlabeled bars are not "implausible" or "inconceivable". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Previously the difficulty of editing the scale label (e.g. to translate) was advanced as an argument against putting it on the image. Now the ease of editing the scale is advanced as an argument against putting the label on the image. 109.153.232.72 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Pardon? My issue ("we agree to disagree. Particularly about the "smallest" graphical skills.") was with your overly sweeping statement that "anyone with even the smallest graphical skills could replace the text if they really wanted to". For, say, a three-year-old using Microsoft Paint, your assertion is untenable.
        
        Or is your issue with the statement that "text is not as easily replaceable (in JPG) as in SVG"? It's true. Properly coded SVGs simply require us to open the file in notepad and edit the text. We don't have to worry about formatting or location. JPG requires image editing software, the patience to orient the text properly, and the ability to choose an appropriate font (unless you think a plain straight line goes well with Comic Sans or Ye Olde Font). I said it was more difficult to edit a JPG. I didn't say it was difficult.
        
        You have said we "need" to label the scale. That "It doesn't seem plausible or conceivable that anyone would add a scale and deliberately not label it.". The question of plausibility and conceivability has been answered. Such scales are used elsewhere, in reputable publications. It is certainly not necessary. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support whether or not the scale is labeled. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above.--Godot13 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't like the artificial shadowing. – Editør (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow was original, but blurred and lightened to avoid drawing focus from the subject. See this video — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No waffle, just a support. Belle (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I find the arguments in favour of an unmarked scale (especially the fact that major scientific journals publish them) persuasive. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kue gapit, 2015-06-16.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]