Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Play fight of polar bears edit 1.avi.OGG

File:Play fight of polar bears edit 1.avi.OGG, featured

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2009 at 13:59:08

•  Info created Mbz1 , uploaded by wadester16 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Polar bears are engaged in play fight in Churchill, Canada. Play fights have an important role in social behavior of male polar bears. During these fights the bears come into body contact, but never injure one another. Play fights might be observed in the autumn before the ice is formed.

•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Is it correct that there is no sound on the movie? At least I do not hear anything when playing it on my computer? --Slaunger (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I am so glad you're back! Yes, the sound was removed in purpose. The video was taken from w:Tundra buggy. There were around 7 people, but me, there. Of course there were lot's of exclamations and so on. So, in order to make the video more encyclopedic I removed the sound. Sorry, should have had mention this in the video introduction.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The glad you're back thing is mutual! Thank you for explaining the missing sound. --Slaunger (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - the sound couldn't have been that crucial anyway. Good file. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, ogg's are not featurable. This is featured pictures, not featured films. Lycaon (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment First of all I'd like to thank everybody for interest in the video. May I please make few points?
  1. English Wikipedia FP is also Feature Picture not featured films, yet the nominated video is FP there.
  2.The template states :" Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template " Well, it was overridden already before the template was posted (please look just above)
  3."This is featured pictures, not featured films." and what about animations that were featured? Are they pictures or animations?
  --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I dont see any other place for this media. --Muhammad 17:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed! That's because there isn't any. And all the big shouters (no names) haven't done an effort to create a forum for this kind of (valuable, that I've never contested) media. Lycaon (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• IMO we do not need a new place for the videos. I could make gif file from the video, I just do not see any reason to do it. English wikipedia FP allows videos. I am not sure why Commons should be any different. In a mean time it will nice to follow the rules (Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template) and take the template off the nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support →Diti the penguin — 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the movie but we have quite high standards regarding resolution/compression when it comes to images so why not video; this looks really bad in fullscreen. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote and question, Daniel78. I believe the best way to answer your question is to ask you to take a look at this FP File:Cicada_molting_animated-2.gif. Right now it holds the second place in Arthropods category for POTY 2008. There are around eighty high resolution absolutely beautiful images of Arthropods, yet this very low resolution animation is at the second place! This image File:8-cell-simple.gif holds the first place in category Diagrams2008. There are also quite a few high resolution still pictures. So, if you try to look at the video as at an animation, maybe you would agree that it is not so bad after all :). Anyway I'm glad you liked the video.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that gif animations and videos are targeted at different usage, gif animations have such limitations that one would not consider using them for real videos. Are we voting for videos for web usage ? /Daniel78 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel78,I am not sure how to answer your question. The only video files Commons accept are OGG. When, I converted my original video to OGG it is what I got. Of course I could have done something wrong, but so far all videos I saw on Wikipedia are about the same resolution. So maybe it is fair to say that the videos also have some limitations. Also as I said before the video is FP on English Wikipedia. I believe it would have been voted down, if there were quality issues. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What English Wikipedia does is completely irrelevant here, but I guess you know that and just want to stir a bit ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hans, may I please assure you that I did not want to stir even a tiny bit? I honestly cannot understand what is the difference between featuring videos and animations, and what is the difference between featuring videos on Commons and on English Wikipedia.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference to me is that we need new guidelines, as I mentioned above I do not know if we are voting with the videos targeted for web usage or for full screen / TV viewing. With images we actually mention that we should consider printing or very high resolution monitors. And animation and videos are at least to me very different, for an animation I am thinking of a short (probably less than a minute) illustration of a process while a video could in theory be more than an hour (though I have no idea what the limits are for video uploads here at commons). It is also hard to know what criterias I should look at when judging a video. I am not against featuring videos, and I think this video is good. I mean the big problem is that there are no guidelines for how to treat videos. Videos has a lot of characteristics that animations do not, for example sound. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A lack of guidelines doesn't justify an oppose, I think… To me, the current guidelines for photos can work for videos. But I can't see the point of opposing if this vote is based on nothing. Lycaon (because I've always seen you opposing anything which isn't straight in the guidelines), why wouldn't you give clear guidelines for videos, instead of opposing? It would be much more constructive. Should I mention you are a talented photographer so you can express your feelings regarding to those somehow easily. →Diti the penguin — 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read my first comment you can see it's not based on nothing, basically I am applying the photo guidlines to the video and then it fails to me, you do the same thing and interpret them differently (and that is what I mean is the problem). And yes I agree that actually writing some guidelines would be more constructive than this discussion . / Daniel78 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Diti I agree guidelines would be the way to go. But I don't feel qualified for video. And that's the problem: those that are qualified don't come forward, or much more likely, are completely unaware of the issue here. Lycaon (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Daniel78 May I please ask you to take a look at this video File:Icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov in the Ross Sea, Antarctica from helicopter.OGG? The size of the file is about 2 times bigger than the nominated video. I have a cable Internet connection, and even at my computer it does not play good. IMO that means that most Commons readers, who have slower connection will not be able to view big video files. That's why I believe that the smaller the size of the video the better. I posted this note not because I wish you to reconsider your vote, but simply to share my observations about video files. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Videos are motion pictures and their creation responds to basically the same characteristics as still images such as composition, exposure, etc., so with that regard I think they can be featured. Even though there are many videos of polar bears frolicking around in the snow, in internet and television, this is the one we have, it is free, and it is definitely valuable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tomas, as a matter of fact this video is rather rare. Of course there are many videos of polar bears frolicking around in the snow. For four days and four nights I spent there I myself took many videos of play fights, but this is a special one.It was taken from a different prospective (directly from above). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Weak Support Anyway, there's been a few discussions on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates that came out strongly in support of adding videos, and a few others have already run without comment. Size could be bigger, but downloading time is an issue, and it's as good or better than pretty much any other video we have. Could wish for sound, which doesn't seem to play, at least on my computer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I won't say anything about the video or not discussion. But this is small and shaky and the tracks disturb me. Estrilda (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Info The quality of the videos deppend greatly on the speed of the Internet connection. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 3 oppose => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)