Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Triton-en.svg

File:Triton-en.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2022 at 05:29:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Triton-en.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Triton-en.svg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Astronomy
•  Info created by A loose necktie - uploaded by A loose necktie - nominated by A loose necktie (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- A loose necktie (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment I changed the gallery to a more appropriate one. BigDom (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment You need to check the text on the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Question What should be changed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Many new versions have been uploaded. Is this OR? Description of atmosphere doesn't agree with English Wikipedia article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely NOT OR. I have made this version in alignment with current (as of 2022) research on Triton. I have now modified the atmosphere to reflect the corresponding Wikipedia article. The bottom line is that we don't really know what Triton "actually" looks like on the inside, but this image matches current understanding of its likely content, and I very much doubt that any planetary astronomer will disagree with the interpretation presented here. References available, if that will be helpful.12 A loose necktie (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Definitely OR and misleading too. The size of the supposed layers does not in any way agree with the diagram in your reference 2 . Neither do the supposed contents of each layer. This diagram should be removed from English Wikipedia (where you placed it ten days ago). If this is peer-reviewed and agreed to be authoritative, then of course any approved version could be put back. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Question What does OR mean? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• original research Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oh. I'm the son of an anthropologist who did really important original research. Original research is responsible for scientific progress. Is Commons opposed to it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Because Commons is not run by "experts", the presentation of "original research" is considered generally inappropriate because no one can be vetted as being a qualified researcher. I myself am not an astronomer, just an editor and would-be graphic designer. I understand that this FP nomination is now dead in the water, but I would like to know how (specifically) others feel my depiction does not align with the references I provided. I tried to be very careful in this regard, and given the degree of ambiguity that exists around Triton as a planetary body, felt I had done a good job of this. Misleading? How can a thing which is unknown be misleading? A loose necktie (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• If Ikan Kekek's father's work was published then that is exactly what we should reference on Wikipedia. If it was not published, then that would be OR. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm talking about my mother. Sure, her work was published big-time, but it was her original work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia (though not Commons) requires that even published works that are original and even vetted be treated as less reliable than secondary sources-- sources which discuss that work. And so while your mom's work could be cited in an article, other editors would likely treat it as less reliable than sources which discussed her work. None of this is really supposed to apply to a Featured Picture discussion, in which the criteria for a diagram is supposed to be the quality of the image. I suspect another editor (Charles Sharp) has mistaken a diagram of Neptune (that appears in one of my references) for a diagram of Triton, though the diagram I created is accurate and contemporary. But I cannot stop this now, as the Neutral vote below shows. A loose necktie (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Neutral per discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Charlesjsharp Please confirm that you are not confusing my diagram with the diagram of the planet Neptune that is shown in the reference I provided. My diagram is of Triton, not Neptune, and no visual diagram of Triton appears in the refs. Thanks. A loose necktie (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry; the diagram was of Neptune. Many apologies. With no diagram, then your work is unfortunately OR. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• So I made a diagram according to the specific text of several scientific articles, a Commons editor mistakenly accused me of OR, apologized by saying that while he had made a mistake, the fact that I had not used a diagram for my diagram meant my diagram was still OR, and so the whole thing failed. Do I have this right, Charlesjsharp? And also, you may notice that there is no policy on Commons against "original research": COM:OR has nothing to do with it which is why you were unable to link to it above. Featured Picture consideration is, as far as I understand it, meant to focus on the nature of the material itself, not on whether or not it satisfies some Wikipedia policy regarding its accuracy according to scientific precedence (though it actually does this as well). There are no criteria under Commons FP that say anything at all about original research. So, can you clarify for me please? Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)