Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Portal physics-2.svg

Reason: We don't yet have any FP related to any video game, and I thought that this might have a chance. Placed in the right context the image can be quite informative. First of all it illustrates a feature of the game's engine (passing through a portal will not alter your momentum, but only your direction), and it also represents the sort of schematics used by the developer to advertise Portal. This type of drawings have also become quite iconic for the game.
Articles this image appears in: Portal (video game)
Creator: Dammit (edited by Pbroks13)

Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simplistic, not very exiting graphic. Not FP material IMO. --Janke | Talk 08:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose - the image is iconic, but only to those who watched the Portal trailer (it wasn't in the actual game). The license is quite dubious - the image is a tracing of a still from the copyrighted trailer of a copyrighted game, the portals themselves are not stylised in the Portal way, and to many people this image wouldn't make any sense. Sorry. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone feel like raiding Category:Ubisoft screenshots (on commons)? MER-C 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. FWIW, here's a video-game-related FP. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat per Janke, although I don't think diagram FPs have to be exciting. I think diagram FPs should be explanatory, simplistic, and beautiful (in the scientific sense of 'it explains a lot in a little space' if not in the sense of a aesthetics). In other words I should be able to look at it and with little or no explanation be able to figure out what's going on, and that's not the case here, because I don't understand what's going on even after reading a bit on it.D-rew (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much expected the image to be confusing t for a lot of people. It's pretty obvious that it has little chance of passing, but I would appreciate if you could also mention modifications that would improve the image in any way, especially by making it self explanatory (maybe an animation would be better suited?). Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that animation would be the way to go here, but I wonder whether that would run into copyright problems. I'm no copyright expert, but I'm honestly not really sure how this image doesn't. Is it not just basically a copy of a screenshot? I would also like to know if there is an historical/iconic nature to this image in regards to the game or gaming and if so why?D-rew (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm pretty sure it doesn't violate any copyright laws. You can have a look at the official game trailer to see how the official schematics look like. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it does. The game is iconic, this image isn't particularly so. It would also help if the arrows were labeled to show which event hapens first - it basically illustrates that momentum is conserved between portals. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not enough EV in my opinion. Fletcher (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an animation within this theme. As it is, the image requires too much explanation to be an effective diagram. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a picture, this doesn't really explain what's going on. An animation would work much better. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this graphic could be a whole lot more informative, but even so, it may still not be FP material. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]