Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Thumbnail size

Should the template for FPC submission have no px parameter to [[Image:...]]? Default size for images is 180px wide, and image size can be set in preferences if no px size is set. I think having no param would help people on modems because they can set their thumb size to 120 so the page will load faster. However people shouldn't be evaluating these pics on thumbnails so maybe we should set the px size to 120. What do you guys think? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Based solely on the problem of voters going off of thumbnail size, I would say to keep them smaller (but still noticable). --Tewy 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • FPC votes should never be given based on thumbs only... Should this be mentioned in the introduction? --Janke | Talk 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it should. Several voters most likely vote for the thumb. I also agree that the standard be set lower. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what my position on this is. As a broadband user, speed isn't much of an issue with me and I prefer larger thumbnails simply for ease of preview. Of course an image shouldn't be JUDGED on the thumbnail but obviously it is also difficult to force-feed education here. If a contributor doesn't want to read the guidelines, they won't. Reducing the size of thumbnails might force more people to view the full size image to make a judgement, or it might have the opposite effect and result in even poorer judgement of the image based on a tiny thumbnail. Should we allow for what (I assume?) is a minority on 56kbit dialup these days, or cater to the majority? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Preview isn't very important (IMHO), and I think that few people would judge a picture by a tiny thumbnail if they could make it larger. As for what you mentioned about minority/majority, I think that if we can help the minority, without consequences to the majority, then we should help. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think individual submitters should choose their own size for the nomination based on the aspect ratio and content of the image. However, just like any other page the group can change this size if it is not desirable. As discouraging people from !voting only from thumbnails, I think by taking into account the strength of their arguement should make this evident. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Sometimes it is difficult to determine the validity of an oppose, though. For example, say almost two thirds like an image and support it, but slightly more than one-third say the image is blurry and oppose, enough that a super majority isn't formed. If the closer believes that the image isn't blurry, that doesn't mean they are right... but it is possible that the opposers are viewing the thumbnail and deciding it isn't sharp based on that. There is no way to know. Would you discount their reasons for opposing because you don't personally agree with them? Is that fair? In times such as this when somebody opposes with seemingly legitimate reasons (rather than illogical reasons or trolling) but are considered by others to be incorrect, how can their intentions be determined? That said, I think the aspect ratio is important in viewing an image. At the very least, the image should be somewhat the same size as it would be in an article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• My first thought on this would be that thumbnail sizes would be nice if we could have them link directly to either the main discussion or the image page however the one method of doing so is a kludge at best and is also controversial as it violates the ADA and makes Wikipedia less accessible to people with and even people without problems already using such pages. Cat-five - talk 08:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any chance?

This is on today's featured article: Image:Habitable_zone-en.svg. Does it have any chance of featured? I don't want to nominate it and have it completely killed. jengod 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At that size, no just because it's waaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too small even for a diagram though a bigger version, say around 1024x1024 or bigger, would probably have a chance since it appears to be a fairly nice diagram excepting the size issue. Cat-five - talk 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please post on Wikipedia:Picture peer review if you're not sure if an image will pass on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. And while I'm here, Cat-five, the image is in SVG format, so it in fact of unlimited size. But the only way to know if it will pass FPC is to nominate it. --Tewy 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose Featured pictures is changed to Featured Media, with seperate guidelines for each type of media. There would be separate guidelines for different media (audio, video, photographs, animations, diagrams, etc etc) but only one place to vote. I think this would be the best solution as there isn't a lot of media other than images, so combining them into one will get enough people voting when non-image media does come up. If the process works a discussion of how non-image items could be featured on the front page could take place.

I have created sandboxes for drawing up these criteria Please edit them freely:

• Possible Featured Video Criteria (Discuss)
• Possible Featured Illustration Criteria (Discuss)
• Possible Featured Audio Criteria (Discuss)

-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let's get a dialog going on this - I've left some thoughts on Ravedave's sandbox pages. Debivort 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will support this proposal. There should be no minimum dimension requirements for a featured video, which we currently impose on on featured animated GIFs. HOWEVER, the recently nominated Image:Controlled Impact Demonstration 2.ogg can NOT be promoted per these standards. First of all, the uploader has severely compressed it. Second, a higher quality version (480x360 15 fps) is available on the source website. With that version, I would support the nom.
  We do not need to have separate pages for each criteria. We could use a single page with a table showing all of the requirements, with the shared criteria being 3 columns wide. ♠ SG →Talk 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• On another note, this would help get rid of our shortage of featured pictures for the front page. We could replace that with featured media, but another discussion needs to be held on its project page. ♠ SG →Talk 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, now that we are reusing two older FPs per week for POTD, we have no shortage. Additionally, recently, it seems that we have been promoting images faster than 7 FPs/week. howcheng {chat} 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What will happen with front page media on browsers that can't display the ogg format - a blank or broken image box? --Janke | Talk 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ogg format is not displayed. An image with a link to the ogg file is provided, there is no embedded player. If an Ogg ever makes it to the front page I am certain there will be more interest in an embedded player. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

VideoLAN works on pretty much any OS.Geni

Video and audio feature media could be accompanied by an image to appear on the main page as the link to the media. Debivort 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

: Support, with a view to putting featured media on Wikicast Perhaps?? ShakespeareFan00 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside projects are not really relivant.Geni 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• It has my support if how to implement it can be worked out. Cat-five - talk 06:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Something like this? User:Ravedave/FMC All of the FP pages would be changed to FM. The listing pages would be subpages like: Wikipedia:Featured Media/Video. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One question: Into which category would you put animation? Pictures, videos, diagrams? How 'bout a separate category for animations? --Janke | Talk 08:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Animation could be a separate category, unless there could be a category that would encompass all hand done work including diagrams, cartoons, animations, 3d drawings (ie POVRay) I am not sure what I would call it though. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • How about Illustrations? (I think "Featured graphic candidates" sounds funny). --Tewy 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Thats the word I was looking for. I like it [1] "a visual representation (a picture or diagram) that is used make some subject more pleasing or easier to understand" I have renamed Diagrams to illustrations. Janke what do you think? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • "Illustration" is passable for animation, but not really ideal. --Janke | Talk 08:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't mind adding featured media, but replacing Featured pictures is going to get us in trouble with old archiving systems and procedures. Why not simply add featured sounds and featured videos? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As Ravedave pointed out in the beginning of this discussion, there aren't a lot of media files that pass through FPC. And if there aren't a lot of files, there aren't a lot of voters (look what happens at Wikipedia:Picture peer review). So while the problem of the archives is a big task, I think this is the better option. But of course, if this idea is put into effect, the number of nominations for previously untouchable media files (sounds and videos) might go up, allowing for their own separate section. --Tewy 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think there might already be a featured sounds page Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates being created. TerriG 149.155.96.6 12:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That page hasn't been edited in months. I think using more of WP's other media content on the front page is most likely to come about as a fork of/ alternative to Featured Pictures. I would support a move to "Featured media", but then again I think I have more of a chance of getting featured music rather than a featured picture. I'm sure a bot could be grabbed to fix all the links or even move pages, if that's the problem. Having a separate featured sound/featured video section of the front page is likely to languish from lack of files, whereas I think a "featured media" process could support mostly pictures, with once or twice a month a featured sound clip or video. Mak (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Have a wonderful Christmas, everyone. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wishing all participants to FPC HAPPY HOLIDAYS! --Janke | Talk 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Janke. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merry Christmas, Janke. --Fir0002 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas to you too, guys. Heres one of carollers at London's Trafalgar Square that I took earlier tonight. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  

• AAAHHH!!! POLITICALLY INCORRECT! POLITICALLY INCORRECT!!! ;-) ...Merry Christmas everyone. --Tewy 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Resolution, blown highlights. ;-) —Dgies^t c 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

PC GREETING

OK, then, let me revise my greeting:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, this wish for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter/summer solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of our choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all - and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, sexual preference, religious faith, or choice of computer platform of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with or without alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

--Janke | Talk 07:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, your greeting is northern hemisphere specific. it's summer in australia, not winter :P merry christmas. enochlau (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why the clause of clarification is there... Fixed, thanks for catching it. --Janke | Talk 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, thanks for that, Janke - Merry Christmas from me too! --YFB ¿ 15:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Very nice. This should be copied into the Political correctness article. --Tewy 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, and merry Christmas! --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New Watchlists

Hi everyone,
Probably should be posting this on the Village Pump or something like that but I thought I'd stick to familiar territory - anyone know what the new green and red numbers in the watchlist mean? --Fir0002 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a link at the top of your watchlist to Wikipedia:Added or removed characters explaining what they are. Basically, it's the amount of characters added or removed. The page describes how to remove them if you find them annoying (like me). enochlau (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict - yeah Enochlau has said what I just wrote - except I commented that while the colors have too many connotations (red=bad) considering the potential quality of edits that shorten article - it may be helpful because large red numbers will tend to indicate blanking vandalism. Debivort 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup I seen the link now ( wouldn't ya feel like an idiot...) - thanks! --Fir0002 10:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Nomination Procedure

Hi everyone,
Can anyone point me to the discussion which resulted in the change? I personally am against the change and don't plan to be using this new template. I think the old style of nomination was much nicer and simpler to implement. Until we get a straw poll to see if consensus is to use this style, I think it should be reverted --Fir0002 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking for a discussion, you won't find one, because there have been no discussion, as it's not required while making changes (see WP:NOT). I made the change to enforce casual users to fill in practical data, and to create a more readable page, instead of a big chunk of text. If you don't want to use it, feel free not to. I took the idea from the commons nomination procedure, but adapted it to be more user friendly.

If you have any problem with the new style, please enlight me, so we can form a better procedure, but to revert and force straw polls is not the way of the wiki. _→AzaToth 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fir on this. Editing the nomination procedure is similar to editing one of Wikipedia's policies. Changes, even minor ones, should be discussed first (and they are; just look at nearly all of the discussions on this page!). A quick problem I've already found with the new procedure is that it doesn't mention the {{-}}, which is essential to dividing the transcluded nominations. A problem like that would have been brought up in a discussion. If you would like to change the nomination procedure, open a discussion and get the opinions of the voters. --Tewy 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I don't mention the {{-}} is that it's included in the template {{FPCnom}} _→AzaToth 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that changes to the procedure should first be discussed. (And the new nomination procedure does not link to {{FPCnom}}...). --Tewy 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't feel the need to explicit link to that template, as it's included in the form, but I understand that some links to the used templates could be useful. _→AzaToth 02:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In any case, I would appreciate it if you opened a discussion (or added to this one) that stated the changes you made to the procedure and that was open to other ideas as well. --Tewy 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One should feel free to be bold, if you believe it to be an uncontroversial decision. For future reference, almost nothing to do with FPC is uncontroversial. I often make potentially controversial changes with an edit summery along the lines of Just an idea, feel free to revert then discuss. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the old version better; it allows for adaption depending on the situation. Even though it's more complicated for new users to follow, it's easy to get used to it after a few times. In any case, it should still have the old method. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

A quick straw poll to see where people stand on the change in nomination process

For

• Good changes, AzaToth. I had been thinking of a similar change myself. It is really much more user friendly. We used to get a few incorrectly formed nominations, but it seems like all is well now. ♠ SG →Talk 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and WP:NOT a democracy and Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. ♠ SG →Talk 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Against

--Fir0002 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea, but needs tweaking and discussion. AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just until a discussion can get going. --Tewy 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I feel that an straw poll is totally wrong in this circumstance, it would be better if you could point out what was good with the old system, and what you feel is bad with the new system, so we could create an even better system, than have to go back to square one. I did make the new system to reduce the need of copying chunks of code and reduce the risk of someone missing the {{-}} template, also to help, especially new users to point out what information that should be entered. I still keep to my view that it's better it's easy for new users, than that it's the old same system for older users. _→AzaToth 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Question. What are all the changes you have made, specifically? --Tewy 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The changes I've noticed are the "create nomination" button and the way the information is entered. The button removes the need for copy/pasting text, but I don't like how the new text (reproduced below) creates headers for the information. It takes up a lot of vertical space with single words and isn't very easy to read (as opposed to a few sentences which cover everything).

{{subst:FPCnom
 | <!-- Please fill out this data and then click "Save Page" -->
 | title = title of the picture
 | image = image filename excluding "Image:"
 | caption = the caption of the image
 | articles = articles this image exist in
 | creator = creator if the image
 | reason =  reason for nominating the picture
}}

I prefer the old descriptive format (reproduced below) which allowed the nominator more freedom.

===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|ExampleName]]===

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|200px|Caption goes here]]

Add your reasons for nominating it here; 
What article it appears in
Who created the image

*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~ 
*

<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{-}}

In summary, I like the button for its simplicity, but I dislike the new text for its rigid format. --Tewy 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, WP is not a democracy, a straw poll is relly not very constructive. Besides I proposed that automated nomination thingie a couple of months ago and the reactions were fairly positive. The current solution is as good as it gets without the code changes I halfassedly tried to get through. Now If we take the prefilled form as a suggestion I think it is a good starting point. Nonetheless I agree with Fir and strongly perefer the freeform nominations. --Dschwen 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing, puppeting

Could some admin please have a look at this FPC candidate - it seems like there's some sockpuppeting, and also illegitimate inclusion of the image in PotD and FP. I removed the tags, but the image has been added to many pages... --Janke | Talk 12:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Daneil10 has been notified about the problems with what he is doing. He claims to be only 10 so unless he repeats this I don't think it's necessary to impose a temporary block on him. I'll give it a couple of days and unless anything new turns up I'll block the socks (unless another admin does it first) --Fir0002 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw I think User:Joshua dude might be related too and perhaps should be watched --Fir0002 11:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely obvious puppeting there. He's barely even tried to make the puppet accounts look like legitimate voters. Also, when dealing with him, please try to keep his age out of it as much as possible - even if he's 10 (and to be honest, a slightly immature and naive 10), we should try to treat him as much like a sensible adult as possible. A year ago, my age (then 14) was used as evidence against my integrity in a discussion, which I was quite offended at. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created an FPC process-related template, please flame me

Well hopefully not, because you might like the idea. It's {{badnom}}. I've written it to be used on a user's talk page if they nominate an image but screw up the procedure - inspired by this. It's been tested out on her talk page. It needs to be subst'd, like this:

{{subst:badnom|NAME OF FPC PAGE}} ~~~~

The parameter for the name of the FPC page MUST be just the last part - not the 'Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates/' before it, only the text after the / slash. So the message I left on the talk page of the nominator above was:

{{subst:badnom|Approach to Kata Tjuta}} ~~~~

Which gives:

== Your nomination of Approach to Kata Tjuta == Hello, Featured picture candidates, and thank you for nominating the image Approach to Kata Tjuta for voting on featured picture candidates. However, I notice that you did not follow all the instructions at the nomination procedure page. Depending on any discussion already there, you may want to remove your nomination and then re-submit it, this time following the instructions correctly. If you do not know how to remove the nomination, ask me (on my talk page) and I will do it for you, or advise you what to do next. Meanwhile, please take some time to learn more about our encyclopedia, and I hope you continue to contribute in the future. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you somehow forget to include the parameter (silly you) it'll just about save you by printing this:

== Your nomination of an image at FPC == Hello, Featured picture candidates, and thank you for nominating an image on featured picture candidates. However, I notice that you did not follow all the instructions at the nomination procedure page. Depending on any discussion already there, you may want to remove your nomination and then re-submit it, this time following the instructions correctly. If you do not know how to remove the nomination, ask me (on my talk page) and I will do it for you, or advise you what to do next. Meanwhile, please take some time to learn more about our encyclopedia, and I hope you continue to contribute in the future. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the headings work on the talk pages :D. I'll look forward to any improvements able to be made by other voters, but I will be watching the template like a hawk: anything breaks it and I'll revert without question. I only made the darn thing ten minutes ago, don't break it already! ;) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also had an idea for another one: very similar but with the message, 'Your image (link) does not adhere to the FPC criteria (link). Therefore it is very unlikely that the nomination will be successful. Please read the criteria (link) and if you have a version of the image that adheres to them, re-submit it.' etc. More elaboration later. And that'll be {{fpccrit}}. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed was how you included the link to "learn more about our encyclopedia", which assumes that the user is new to the project. This may not necessarily be true, as many first-time nominators have been around for a while, and it might offend them.

Next, saying, "you did not follow all the instructions at the nomination procedure page" makes it sound like they did it on purpose. Keeping with WP:AGF, I've revised the text.

Finally, "Depending on any discussion already on the nomination page" is a little vague to first-time nominators, so I've revised that as well.

So here's my revision of the text (to the first example), in full:

== Your nomination of Approach to Kata Tjuta == Hello, Featured picture candidates, and thank you for nominating the image Approach to Kata Tjuta for voting on featured picture candidates. However, I notice that your nomination does not follow all the instructions of the nomination procedure. Depending on how much discussion has already been left on the page by voters, you may want to remove your nomination, revise it so that it follows the procedure, and then re-submit it. If you do not know how to remove your nomination, or you need help with the instructions, ask me (on my talk page), and I can help you. I will be looking forward to seeing your future contributions to this project! Thanks. --Tewy 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a diff to show the changes here. --Tewy 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I think I was a bit heavy-handed when making that template... good job, Tewy. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New file format for an existing featured picture

Hello, Image:Ph_map_manila_large.png is a featured picture I created and was transferred to the Wikimedia Commons. I've created an SVG version: Image:Ph_map_manila.svg and also uploaded it to the Commons. Is the featured picture status transferable? Can I tag the SVG version as a featured picture also? I plan to phase out the PNG version with the SVG version just like we've done with flags of sovereign nations. --seav 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it if you phase out the old version. You can probably get one of the bot operators to help with that since find/replace from one image to another is an extremely simple operation though this is all assuming that other than format the two images are exactly the same and there is nothing else to complicate things. Cat-five - talk 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB can also be useful in this case. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of differences between the PNG and SVG versions - moved labels, no key, different shape of dock area, different area covered. These are very likely improvements (though I am curious about the missing key), but a re-nomination to replace might be desirable - I'm not sure this can be considered a simple like-for-like replacement, and the suggestions given during the FPC process often improve maps. TSP 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty sure the missing key would be the sticking point so I reintroduced it. The different shapes of areas in the map reflect more accurate data. --seav 09:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture Conversion FAQ/Request subpage

I was wondering what everyone thought of creating a subpage to FPC first of all laying out the different formats, maybe a few objective pros and cons (though most info should be on that format's main article) and suggested formats depending on the type of image whether it be a diagram, a standard photo... etc. It would make a good resource for those who are new to FPC and/or confused about our unofficial standards in regards to image formats. This is just a base idea and I have no idea where to begin thus I have no sample or anything else to show at the moment for it. Cat-five - talk 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean that you want to have the explanations on Wikipedia:Uploading images#Technical aspects and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format explained on the nominations page? --Tewy 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know there ware already right ups for that... maybe those should if nothing else be made more prominent so people read them. Cat-five - talk 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Defined guidelines for historical photos

I know that everyone (myself included) is against laying out too many guidelines on how to vote since that would interfere with a person's right/prvilege to vote their mind but on viewing several recent nominations and perusing the archives of nominations since I've been gone it seems that many people not only have differing views on how historical images should be treated as far as standard guidelines on quality and size go, as historical images many times have a lower maximum quality and size for various reasons, but also what even qualifies as a historical iamge. I think setting a hard breakoff point would be an awful idea and a bad way to go about it but we should see if there's a better way to figure out even broadly qualifies as historical as well as some broad guidelines on expectations and possible guideline alterations for them. Cat-five - talk 11:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

FPC fails again

I keep testing the margins, but FPC voting is still typically failing to see the wood for the trees. I strongly suspect that the current guidelines have gone too far and are now discouraging, rather than encouraging good image contributions to Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems with the High Standards for the Featured Pictures as Featured Pics should be of the Highest quality on Wikipedia. But there is Quality images on Commons are a little bit easier to pass. — Arjun 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't like pictures like these FPs (from the French Wikipedia) to be our "best work". Although some are fine, others would never pass here. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Except for January 1, the fr-WP PsOTD are the same as Commons:Picture of the day. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do fear that FPC is becoming over-concerned with pure image quality, rather than with encyclopedic photos of difficult subjects. Without wishing to denigrate any photographer (I feel that both the following should be featured), I do find it hard to consider any photo of a perfectly ordinary walnut more featurable than a great concert shot of a notable current artist. If we place the image quality requirements such that they can only be achieved in a studio situation with hours of setting up and lighting, then we are effectively making it almost impossible that photos of a large proportion of encyclopedic subjects will ever be featured. I don't think it's a coincidence that there is only one Wikipedian-created featured image of a specific person or event (and that one was taken years before Wikipedia existed). We need to consider significance and rarity of the image subject as well as image quality. Wikipedia greatly needs, and greatly benefits from, great free-content images of notable subjects; FPC needs to have room for these - accounting for how notable people and events will generally provide reduced opportunities to precisely set-up lighting, shot duration and the like, compared with generic subjects - not just for immaculately-set-up photos of common subjects. FP candidates now are often being re-shot during the candidacy process; that's great, and we should require easily-reshootable photos of very common subjects to be exactly right; but we need to have room for unique and notable subjects where popping into the backyard and getting another shot of the item isn't possible. TSP 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point exactly. It is really rather more important that we encourage encyclopedic, interesting and rare images. There is still way, way, way, too much concern over pixel counts and minor image imperfections instead of actually looking at what the picture shows. Often times, the criticism is pretty dumb too - I've just scanned through some of the current delisting proposals and honestly, I laughed out loud at some if the things being said there. And yes, I wouldn't normally point fingers, but I'm surprised that walnut picture got through - it's got lots of pixels but its a poor image: poor lighting, skin of the kernel damaged, DoF too shallow, printed ink on the shell. It is not as if we don't have plenty of better pictures of fruit and nuts - there are even two better images already on the Walnut article itself - go figure.

The voting on Joseph Kittinger's skydive is more encouraging, although it seems that only one editor has noticed that its true resolution is below 1024. This is a picture I've worked on myself.

Now the correct response to this candidate should have been "Oh Wow! I'm amazed that we have a picture of that at all." - instead we get some wibbling about jpeg artefacts and although it exceeds the guidelines on pixel width, it seems that's not good enough. This was a very rare subject. You and I are never likely to be allowed to enter these caves, so its not easy to see how anyone expect to get a better photo in the next couple of years. And of course we don't actually have any other FPs of caves or caverns - the transport of equipment and lighting is way beyond what most Wikipedians can manage (where do you plug the lights in?)

Its time to get rid of most of the rules and guidelines for FPC and instead judge images and whether they are the best we have of any particular type. You want to feature your picture of a spider? Well it will have to be really good, we've already got plenty of impressive spiders pictures. Got a fair picture of a salamander - then you stand a better chance. Instead of trying to delist a picture of Rolling thunder clouds because you are worried about its size, go out a take a better one - it could be a while before you see one that good, but once you do and you manage to get a better picture, that would be the time to delist the existing one. -- Solipsist 09:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While I can freely admit that I strive for the highest resolution/most detailed images that I can (perhaps somewhat obsessively at times!), I do still endeavour to retain encyclopaedic value in the images and often, such images provide detail that would otherwise be invisible in a low resolution image. I don't think it is wrong to keep technical guidelines strict as the images we feature should also be reproducible in a variety of formats - web sized isn't much good for anything but the web. That said, I do concede your point that a rare and highly encyclopaedic two megapixel image is more valuable than a ten megapixel image of a mundane subject and that we should relax our judgements somewhat for such things. However, keeping poor images simply because no better image exists (yet) is counterproductive. ALL our FPs should be of a high quality, not just some of them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it stops at a 4 megapixel US cent :-)... Anyway I partially agree. Some voting has been a little inconsistent lately. It seems to me that rarity is mainly associated with the picture being black and white. But you have to agree, that an encyclopedia has to illustrate common subjects too. They receive much more attention than unusual subjects, so I cannot see anythin wronmg with featuring common stuff. --Dschwen 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noted, I've not been very active here lately - mainly because I feel it is rather pointless to vote anymore. In my own hobby (live steam), there are people who are derisively called "rivet counters", non-productive people, who criticise everything that is done, but could never do it themselves. The standard answer to rebut them is "So, show me what you have done". Here on FPC, I do agree that there has been a lot of pixel-counting lately, forgetting the enc over techical quibbles. Sure, 5000 px resolution is nice to have, but we do need more "WOW" - so I agree with TSP and Solipsist. Unfortunately, current guidelines, and especially the voting, does not promote new creative efforts - (other than by people like Fir and Diliff, but their input is rather limited in subject matter - animals and buildings...) We need new blood here! --Janke | Talk 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"So, show me what you have done" is a question I'd love to ask quite frequently here lately, but WP:CIVIL keeps me from going through with it. And yes I have noticed your absence with regret, but leaving doesn't improve the situation here. --Dschwen 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I agree with almost all the thoughts in this thread. I just wish I had a solution. Something to mull I guess. Debivort 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Animals and buildings" do cover quite a wide gamut in wikipedia, though. :-) In terms of actual physical things, they probably account for the majority of articles and as it is somewhat more difficult to photograph a concept than an object, it is only natural that we will have more of these kinds of pictures. That said, I do agree with you. We're also somewhat Australia/England centric in our featured pictures due to both Fir0002 and I being Australian and seemingly having the largest share of the FPs at the moment. I'd certainly welcome photographers from all over the world to contribute local, significant and high quality images for FP. It just doesn't seem to have happened so far, though. A lot of them tend to be casual snapshots, which CAN be FP worthy on occasion, but usually fall short in a few key areas. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it shouldn't be that surprising that we are Australia/England centric as this is the English Wikipedia - the only surprising part I suppose is the lack of America ;-). However I agree with most of what Diliff said above --Fir0002 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in some areas of Wikipedia, there are conscious efforts to try and overcome systematic geographic biases. And indeed we have had some good, even excellent, diverse, international contributors. At one time I used to make a point of trying to find and encourage them. But these days we would rather tell then to f*** off with excessive nitpicking. I mean some of them don't even have digital cameras.

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PetronasTowers (interesting to contrast this one with the comments on the original nomination, just a year earlier)
• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pangong Lake
• Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Korea_gyeongbokgung_delist

In addition to minimising concerns over size requirements, I would suggest ridiculing critisms based on slightly blown out highlights, jpeg artefacts, cut off subjects, etc. so long as the image is clearly a good illustration of the subject. -- Solipsist 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, agree that we should take into consideration the rarity and/or difficulty of an image when reviewing/commenting/voting on featured picture candidates. However, I do not think that we should simply ignore aesthetics (example) or image quality (example) just because a picture is somewhat rare. The two example pictures certainly help the articles where they appear, but I can't say that I believe them to be among the best of Wikipedia's images. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that a better approach was to delist the first on the basis that we now have a a better example of that subject. Mind you the newer image was actually nominated for illustrating nape makeup, rather than geisha. I dare say if it had been nominated for illustrating geisha, there would have been some wibbling about the subject being cut off.

The quality on the rolling thunder photograph doesn't worry me one bit. It still has significant WOW factor, and when it appears on POTD, I dare say it succeeds in pulling readers through to look at its article. That's the sort of thing we should be encouraging. -- Solipsist 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that delistings should be more restrained --Fir0002 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to weigh in really late here, I've been pretty busy IRL (final degree year, WP should probably be taking more of a back seat than it is already!). I agree with a lot of the comments here, but it's difficult to see how we can change voters' behaviour without encouraging floods of clearly substandard nominations, or lowering the technical quality requirements which are essential to ensuring that FPs can be properly reproduced in print. I suppose one way to fight our systematic GB/Aus bias would be to use some of the Wikimedia Foundation's $1m+ to pack Diliff and/or Fir off to some new destinations :-). When I've graduated and got some disposable income, I plan on buying a proper camera and doing some regional photographic tours in one of these, the results of which go straight to the Commons. On a side note, the example Solipsist gave of the Lechuguilla cave image didn't really ring true for me; what makes the Lechuguilla system so special is its immense size and the astounding beauty of its gypsum formations (like the Chandelier Ballroom - if you haven't seen the BBC's Planet Earth series then I heartily recommend it) neither of which are illustrated in that image. That sort of view could be found in any one of thousands of caves anywhere in the world, so there's nothing to mark it out as FP-worthy, even though it happens to have been taken in Lechuguilla. --YFB ¿ 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image edits are getting out of hand

I'd just like to remind everyone that editing a compressed JPEG and re-saving as a JPEG yields a more lossy result than the original. As such, I would like to suggest that use of edits be significantly curbed in all cases except those in which the edit would significantly increase the objective quality of the image. For example, the edit to the Edison photograph unquestionably improved the image because it was a restoration, and is therefore acceptable. On the other hand, aesthetic edits like this one created to suit the editor's tastes do so not only at the expense of dissolving consensus based upon highly subjective personal preferences but also re-compress the image, resulting in data loss and more visible compression (or larger file size). Noclip 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at this recompression test first: Image:Original crop.jpg Saved for Web 80 quality 5 times, Saved for Web 80 quality Saved for Web 60 quality 5 times, Saved for Web 60 quality. Of course there will be a loss, but generally it's not very visible, if you look at the file size differences we're talking bytes --Fir0002 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for FP merit-discipline-tagging

Some valid points have been raised about the capability (or lack there of) of FPC to motivate contributors from less illustrated corners of the world. Spectacular or rare pictures are easily shot down on technical grounds, leaving a less equipped contributor from with the potential to reach places never covered before for wikipedia with out a chance of getting some acknowledgement.

We could tag FPC nominations and consequently the FPs. Tag them with an FP-type which classifies the class of merit it competes in. This would be like

• originality/rarity
• technical merit
• scientific merit
• aethetics(?)

The tags can be optional and even omitted if you think a picture scores in all areas. --Dschwen 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty interesting, but I wonder how it will be implemented? I mean there will be clear cut cases but I'm not sure if it will be that easy to isolate the merit. Some images could be aesthetic and scientific, but not original - bit of a problem. I guess they can have multiple tags - anyway I would support something like this by and large --Fir0002 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think of making a case when you nominate, and generating some signal templates. I.e. the picture was assembled from 10 macro shots to increase DOF and add {{FPC/technical}} to the nomination page and picture, or rare picture of secluded amazon tribe village plus {{FPC/rare}}. Something along those lines. When voting people can make their points whether a particular merit is justified or not, ideally leading to a discussion with regular support, oppose votes in clear cut cases and disagree on technical, disagree on rarity etc. leading to a tag shuffeling before the vote is closed. The voters should keep in mind that additional burden on the closers should be avoided. --Dschwen 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think originality fits in well, and perhaps enc and hist tags should be available too. I think it's a good idea. Good thinking. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Expertise needed on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/American Buffalo Gold Coin

I closed this delisting as kept earlier today, but User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of the image hasn't been fully resolved. Could anyone here who knows about copyright please help in resolving this issue? Raven4x4x 12:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2006 election

The election of the best Commons Featured Picture of 2006 - Picture of the Year 2006 - is to take place soon in Commons.

We need your opinion and help to organize the event. There are still some things to do: deciding the dates, tuning up the rules, preparing the project page, making announcements, etc.

To participate, please check Commons_talk:Picture of the Year/2006. -- Alvesgaspar 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Aerospike engine

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Aerospike engine could use some more votes. It has been listed for almost three weeks now and no consensus has emerged yet. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

April Fools picture.

Over on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page we've been trying to think of something we could do on April 1st's front page featured picture. Obviously we want something that's either funny or unexpected - but still worthy of the title "Front page featured picture".

I know we'd welcome any suggestions you folks might be able to come up with.

My current best suggestion is to pick one of the Greg William's Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia cartoons. Does that sound like something you guys could go with?

SteveBaker 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'll start if off with, sure! That guy is pretty darn good, and and the strips are hilarious (especially Redshirt, Hammerspace, and Pet Skunk). --Dschwen(A) 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• There's always this... :-D --Tewy 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we want to make all of the April 1st items be genuine featured articles/photos. The '42' image failed it's FPC - we have to find something that can pass the usual formal processes. The WikiWorld cartoons are actually well drawn cartoon - I think we could reasonably get one featured. Do you picture experts have suggestions as to which might have most visual merit? SteveBaker 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They're all very good. For the 'improbable but true' angle, I'd tend towards Thagomizer, or pet skunk, or molasses. A couple of issues: first, none of the comics is used in any article; this is an absolute requirement to be a featured picture, and in a sense these cartoons (given that they include chunks of a Wikipedia article) aren't really suitable to illustrate one. Second, people might have an issue with the self-referential nature of the cartoons. TSP 04:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Urgh! I'd forgotten that they were required to be used in an article. Thagomizer would probably be a good choice because there is actually something to see at thumbnail size. So if not those - then what? Any other suggestions? SteveBaker 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • People always seem to think that the Animated horse or Pirate aren't really FPs... howcheng {chat} 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • How about the WM/WP logo? If not, Thagomizer is my first choice. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The horse and the pirate have been kinda done-to-death - and the WM/WP logos are off-limits because of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. SteveBaker 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I thought it was the mad scientist and villain that been done to death. Regardless, the Thagomizer (I love that article BTW) picture is also self-referential. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the logos are not licensed under the GFDL. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a pretty good choice for April Fool's Day's PotD but it has failed twice at FPC. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed - and if had passed as an illustration of parody religion, it would seem to be about perfect for april 1. Ah well ... Debivort 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah - that's a shame. Of course if it were re-nominated, the additional exposure it would get as a result of a couple of dozen April Fool folks voting for it might make it pass - but that's not a good reason to promote a picture to Featured status. SteveBaker 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• While it fails WP:FPC resolution requirements, it would not be too hard for someone to create a new version of Image:Bristol Stool Chart.png which could pass WP:FPC. Alternately, perhaps if there was a little retouching of This contemporary illustration of the Feejee mermaid. —Dgies^t c 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep things friendly here

On three recent nominations I've noticed comments from various people that must be described as less than civil. Calling pictures 'crap' or 'ridiculous',making sarcastic references to April Fools Day, this is definately not what we need here. This is a gentle reminder to all who comment here to keep civility in mind. Raven4x4x 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Emphatically seconded. Whether you're an 'old hand' or an FPC virgin you have the same right to expect to be treated with civility and tact. On one hand we've had complaints here of an in-crowd and on the other we've had long-standing contributors feeling 'chased off' by snarky comments. In both cases, the rule is the same: don't bite the newbies, or anyone else. --YFB ¿ 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, comment on the image. Not the nominator. ~ Arjun 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More like, do not misinterpret the nominator's choice. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, assume good faith and stay objective, but don't beat around the bush either. --Dschwen(A) 10:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FSC

Following this discussion, I've blundered wildly into the unknown and opened Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates for nominations, starting with that one. If it's a disaster we can always close it again, but I'd appreciate everyone's input to see if we can get the ball rolling. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to rename this page to "Featured media candidates". There's not nearly enough activity yet to sustain a separate page solely for featured audio candidates. If (when?) the different sub-categories of featured media start getting large they can be branched out into Featured pictures, Featured animations, and Featured audio, but until then, there should be one combined process. --Cyde Weys 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With separate criteria? Trebor 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How could there be activity if FSC wasn't even open? Is it any surprise that only a handfull of non graphic media was ever nominated on Freatured Picture Candidates? I don't think so. The argument goes the other way: Promote FSC and it will (might) attract further nominations. Feature sounds prominently (i.e. on the MainPage) and you will atract even more submissions. Let's keep FPC about pictures. I don't think the bickering, nitpicking and rivetcounting capacities can sustain further media types anyways ;-). --Dschwen(A) 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal. --Tewy 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the flag has been raised, lets wait and see if anyone salutes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a Featured Media Candidates system distinct from Featured Pictures, but I don't think the former should include the latter. For one thing, Featured Media (audio, video, perhaps animations) are likely to be less accessible to many users than pictures. If I'm using a library computer, for example, then I can't listen to audio and there's a good chance I won't have the required codecs for video, or permissions to install them. Featured pictures have become established on the front page and I think they work well - they catch the eye of the casual viewer in a way that a link to a sound or video file (which may or may not work on first click, depending on the user's PC) wouldn't be able to. I agree with Dschwen that we can never expect large volumes of media nominations if we don't provide a (widely promoted) process to handle them. I took the initiative with Featured Sounds because that was what was being discussed at the time, but I wouldn't be opposed to expanding its remit to include videos etc. and changing its name accordingly. --YFB ¿ 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Keep the projects seperate, especially featured pictures. If there's a calling for sound and video files, then those can be a seperate project, or projects of their own. There's no need to reestablish featured pictures just to throw a few sound and video nominations into the mix. A featured media page would only serve as a folder, if you will, to the files of featured pictures, featured sounds, etc., and Featured content already does that. --Tewy 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think visual media and audio media can only be judged by wildly different sets of criteria. The skill sets involved in media creation and function in an article are just totally unrelated. That's why I think a separate FS system is needed: to develop the divergent standards for audio, and to really let us build the still I think very unrealized potential that audio can have in our encyclopedia.--Pharos 04:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, Tewy/Pharos. I agree with both of those statements. --YFB ¿ 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 - permission asked

The arrangements for the Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are almost complete, and voting will take place between 1st and 28th Feb. The competition will be widely advertised throughout the Wiki community, the aim being to draw more users in to the Commons project and to encourage the posting of more top-quality images. A single Picture of the Year will be chosen from all the images promoted to Featured Picture status during 2006.

I hope English Wikipedia users will support this initiative by granting permission for the following templates to be added to the top of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page, during February. The template will change slightly on 14th to announce the final (but still keeping the depth at 3 lines), as shown below:

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

What is the best picture of 2006? The candidates have been chosen. Vote for your choice now in the final of the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Final voting to choose the 2006 Picture of the Year is open until 28th February.

Alvesgaspar 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Great idea :-). --Dschwen(A) 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Can't wait for give my 2 cents HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --Tewy 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcing Criterion #8

Hi, FPC regulars. I suggested an adjustment of the FP criteria several months ago, and Eloquence added it in July of last year without controversy. The new criterion is just that "The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page." Something just one short paragraph long, that the creators of images should find easy to hack together. Apparently, this requirement is not being followed, so I'd like to humbly ask FPC regulars (I hardly ever edit this page) to please raise the issue at nomination time. This should be an easy thing for any nominator to meet. Thanks very much.--Pharos 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point; I don't think it'll be too controversial. At present I get the impression that Howcheng gets lumped with the job of sorting out a caption a lot of the time. I'll take it into account in future. --YFB ¿ 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A late reply to this thread, but I'm not really looking for a whole POTD caption. Mostly, I'd like information about the image itself. If it's not long enough to fit a POTD blurb, I'll get more from the article the image represents. howcheng {chat} 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The motivation behind the change in criteria was just that the POTD blurb is often largely lifted straight from the article, making the Featured Picture box a clone of the Featured Article box, when it's supposed to represent something very different. I'm not blaming you for this, Howcheng (you certainly can't be expected to do everything), but I think it should be incumbent upon the nominators (who presumably are familiar with each image and topic) to write a decent extended caption at the time of nomination.--Pharos 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's especially true for wildlife shots -- oftentimes there's not much you can say about the photos themselves beyond, "A female such-and-such bird." I think I started emphasizing the photos themselves more sometime in mid-July 2006. It hasn't been a problem except for a few which needed further input from the nominator/photographer. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Can picture licensed under {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} be nominated? Thanks. - Darwinek 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, as long as the specified conditions are compatible with Wikipedia's copyright/image use policy. The conditions must not prevent commercial reuse or creation of derivative works. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, OK. How about this pic: Image:VysokePece1.jpg. Could it be nominated? I mean, is it FP material? - Darwinek 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have thought it'd be worth a try, although people may complain that they can't actually see anything of the blast furnace, just a lot of hot stuff. I'd probably support with an appropriate caption. --YFB ¿ 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • A better licence would be "Commons CC-BY-SA", since that specifies crediting. Basically, I think the licence could be changed to that. --Janke | Talk 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • No, the license could never be changed without the explicit permission of the copyright holder, Třinec Iron and Steel Works. However, Darwinek corresponded with them very recently, so that might not be a problem.--Pharos 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FP replacement notification

I have replaced Image:Sahara satellite.jpg with the very similar but higher resolution Image:Sahara satellite hires.jpg at WP:FP. As far as I know, the images are based on the same data but there are some minor differences. The hires version is not perfect but it still offers much more detail than the other one. Let me know if you disagree with the replacement. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 - End of Phase 1

Phase 1 of the POTY 2006 election is coming to its end.

If you didn’t participate yet or want to change your vote, you can still do it until 2400 Feb, 14 (today) at: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006.

Phase 2, to elect the winner and 2 runners-up, will start February 17 at: Picture_of_the_Year/2006/final. Alvesgaspar 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

nominations getting stale

Hi All, I'd like to offer a gentle reminder that we should not forget to comment on nominations that have slid lower on the main FPC page. Often, important edits come up after the initial burst of comments, but then there is no further discussion before the nomination reaches the judgement phase. If we kept our eyes on all the nominations a bit more uniformly, it might also reduce the number of noms that need further discussion to clarify which edit will be promoted. PS - please take a look at the Starry Night nomination (about half way down the page now) - I think it's a good nomination that deserves promotion either in its original form or as an edit. Debivort 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Skip to candidates link

Could we add a skip to candidates link at the top of the page like is sometimes implemented on talk pages to jump to the TOC? Basar 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I was bold and put one in. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Basar 07:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :o) tiZom_(2¢) 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! Meniscus 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition: results announced

Commons Picture of the Year 2006: Results

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

User Nelro

Someone is voting with the signature Nelro, but it does not link to a user page and there is no page at User:Nelro. Will their votes be counted and how should they be advised? Pstuart84 Talk 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a User:Nelro (see Special:Contributions/Nelro) and he/she has participated at FPC in the past, but some of the votes and comments signed "Nelro" have been made by anonymous IP's (see [2], [3] and [4]). --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked about the anonymous comments at User talk:Nelro. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New FP Criterion

Hello All - here is a discussion topic: Should non-redundancy with previously existing FPs be a criterion? I feel that many people treat this as a non-explicit criterion, often in inconsistent ways.

• For example, I would bet that the turgor pressure nomination was basically ignored because of the blood cell osmosis nomination. And yet, the redundancy was never used as the justification.
• Yet in the case of the new lemon, the redundancy was explicitly given as a reason to oppose (among others such as page stability).

Is it time to get consistent and resolve this? Debivort 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redundancy with respect to an existing FP is going to be quite subjective and, IMO, something best to be assessed as part of a nomination. It would be a shame if people were discouraged from nominating pictures that potentially improved on an existing FP, simply because it was their (mistaken) belief that the existing FP made their nomination redundant. Pstuart84 Talk 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I tend to agree. Too many instructions and rules will obviate the need to present a compelling argument on a case by case basis. --Dschwen 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoting FPs

It seems to me that there are a number of articles that should be passed, but that no one wants to do it because it is a lot of work. Would it be possible for us to cut down the work needed to pass an article or perhaps to automate it with a bot. I did it once, and I found that most of the tasks were simple enough to be automated. Basar 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if someone stepped up to do it but from my observations and my reading on how it is done (For various reasons I don't go within 100 blue links of it) it is a tedious and many times (depending on the number of pending listings) long job that is thankless for the most part and many times will elicit angry messages on your talk page from someone who disagrees with your decision. Cat-five - talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Veledan created a mostly automated program awhile back. IIRC, you basically decided if the image should be promoted or not and a few other options and then the bot handled the rest of the steps automatically. More discussion here. I have no idea what happened beyond that or if it all the bugs were squashed as I took quite a break from WP shortly after the bot's creation. I think I was got some kind of error message that Veledan wasn't able to solve. Someone might want to drop Veledan an e-mail. I also might have the code around someplace if we aren't able to get into contact with him. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the backlog is about halfway cleared now. I'll look at the rest tomorrow if I find time. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I had the bad experience of promoting 7 FPs in one go. It took me two hours. It's just too tedious. MER-C 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a "Featured picture set"

I think we should consider what a featured set is, since we had a couple of those recently. In my not-fully-fleshed-out opinion, a featured set should be:

1. a sequence of images that illustrate the same subject
2. in the same article(s)
3. provide more information than a single image could, and
4. be of the same format (also by the same creator??)
5. not contain multiple versions of the same image
6. be complete (comprehensive)

Also, a featured set should have a clear "lead" image which will be designated the featured picture and appear on the front page as PotD. It should be mentioned that the lead image is part of the set, and the set should be depicted in full on the image page. All other images of the set are given "part of a featured set" status, but not "featured picture" status.

Does this sound reasonable? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Here is an example of an existing set of featured pictures - each image page contains a gallery of the other pictures in the set but currently only the first image is tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the prime example I was thinking of. The current Bézier curve nomination would be another one. ~ trialsanderrors 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

oppose rule 2 These rules are well thought out. I'm not sure about them all having to be in the same article though, but on the same subject is important. e.g. you might have a set of 10 whale pictures that go on different whale species articles, but do not appear together in any of them. Rule 1 already covers them being on the same subject. —Pengo 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

added rule 5 Also I'd like to add a rule that the sets should be not include multiple versions of the same image. E.g. one of the "current proposed picture sets" includes both this and this. The set should include only one of these if it is to be featured as a set... (or Image:Human skull side simplified (bones).svg, which i think is better... but I digress). —Pengo 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible rule 6: The set of images should be a complete when this is possible. E.g. a set of images of the zodiac should not be missing Leo, and a set of face cards should not be missing the queen of hearts. Of course no complete set of mandelbrot zooms is possible, but a set of increasing zooms should not be missing a step. —Pengo 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose rule 2: If it's a big set of for example 10 images, it's nearly impossible to fit them in same article. It just doesn't make sens. I agree with others. --Arad 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed on all comments. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• All in all it is a pretty neat idea. Are the sets going to be presented on a special subpage of the FP collection? Maybe we should involve wikiprojects when nominating sets. I.e. the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Especially with sets that are not peer reviewed by appearing in an article as a set we will have to be careful and get external input on the accuracy and enc. --Dschwen 09:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the "lead" image needs to be found in an article, while the others can be excluded? Also, I feel we should have a "featured set member" template for use on the images that aren't the leader. They would have a customizable field to direct to the lead image.--HereToHelp 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is Template:FeaturedPictureSet. It's incomplete, feel free to edit it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; will do. (edit conflicted) I also want to highly stress that the sets need to "feel" complete. The ones with infinite possible images (Mandelbrot, Bezier Curves) should not skip images and if possible, end at a non-arbitrary place (Mandelbrot ended at the Julia set). Those with non-infinite images (codons and amino acids, and [5], which I'd nominate if they all were SVGscommons:Electron shell, which I'll nominate as soon the procedure gets ironed out) should be complete. Also, they should use common stylistic elements. That seems obvious, since the Mandelbrot set used the same color scheme throughout, which is precisely what I mean by "common stylistic elements".--HereToHelp 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, how are we describing this in the criteria? First attempt:

A featured picture can be part of a featured set if the set of pictures is comprehensive, in the same format, and adds significantly to the understanding of the subject. Pictures in the featured set are marked with {{FeaturedPictureSet}} linking to the promoted featured picture. The whole set should be depicted on the featured picture site.

Comments? Opinions? ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the numbered list would be better than an overstuffed sentence at encapsulating this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Removing backlog tag

I removed the backlog tag because: There really isn't a backlog long or otherwise. The large sets of .svg s are basicly closed and so there is no reason for such a tag. -Fcb981 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added before the SVG part, so it has nothing to do with it. --Arad 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog tag or not, we need closers. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on older noms

Please comment on the older nominations, especially the ones in Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Older_nominations_requiring_additional_input_from_voters. Thanks, --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotion bot testing

In case anything goes haywire, here's a heads up. I am testing User:Veledan's promotion bot that he put together almost a year ago. I am using my User:PS2pcGAMERtest account. If anything goes bad, I'll quickly revert myself. For anyone who doesn't recognize my name, I was quite active on FPC about a year ago. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A new voting template

Copied from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sausage biscuit. --Tewy 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose E4T4A2 I realize the fact that this thing looks extremely unappetizing actually enhances the enc of the picture, but still, yuck. ~ trialsanderrors 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So about this new template...a little too black and white, don't you think? It reminds me of a straw poll. --Tewy 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, it helps focus on the key dimensions of picture quality, at least for me. And it also allows that pictures don't have to be perfect in all dimensions if they have other qualities that make up for it. Considering gradations in quality and multiple dimensions is the opposite of b&w, no? ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, although it initially struck me as taking a sentence and condensing it a few numbers, much like a straw poll condenses lengthy reasons into a single vote. I suppose it's fine if you supplement with good reasons. --Tewy 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea how the closing works here, but I hope it's by arguments and not by numbers or bolded opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The closing is supposed to be based on consensus. And with that in mind, I actually begin to wonder if pointing out the specific qualities of the image is really necessary. Wouldn't a number system actually divide the votes into those who think the encyclopedic value is very high and those who think it is somewhat high (and simultaneously for the technical and artistic values), as opposed to an overall agreement that the encyclopedic value is high? As far as I can see, the number system merely quantifies the voter's opinion, but doesn't actually provide any more information than is already described in words. --Tewy 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means different things in different areas of WP. Not sure what the rest means, but I think it helps quickly conveying a comprehensive opinion so the written argument can focus on a specific aspect, e.g. something that hasn't been brought up yet. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of voting, I view consensus as the general trend the discussion leans, which usually occurs when a moderately sized majority agrees on a point. But if the two sides are equally clashing, consensus has not been reached. My thoughts were that the number system would make opinions so specific that no one would be able to agree on anything. --Tewy 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Other opinions? --Tewy 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a general comment, I devised the scheme as a decision aid for myself. I certainly won't mind if others put it to use as well, but my reason for putting it in the template space are mostly of convenience. As to its general usefulness, I think it helps the discussion as long as it's used as a decision aid, and not a tool. So the closer should still look for bolded opinions and backing by arguments. ~ trialsanderrors 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Trialsanderrors, I'm not sure I see the point in rating images on Commons according to whether or not they're encyclopedic (the "E"). Especially, the template states that the encyclopedic score counts double. That would be useful for rating candidates for featured picture on any of the Wikipedias, but an important part of the identity of Commons is that it is not an encyclopedia; it is a repository of media for all Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews and several more. As an individual you're most welcome to rate photos any way you like, so if it helps you organize your thoughts by all means use it. But in my opinion it's important to avoid restricting featured-picture status to encyclopedia illustrations. Fg2 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a template (or scoring system) for Commons. Here at en.wiki Enc is the primary criterion. Perfectly fine to transfer the idea to Commons but of course the scoring system should be adapted to Commons requirements. ~ trialsanderrors 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Trialsanderrors, I apologize! I thought I was at Commons:Featured picture candidates. You're absolutely right, and as I wrote, your criteria are entirely appropriate for the Wikipedias. Please accept my apology. Fg2 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Still a good objection, but of course not applicable here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks yuck and doesn't really show anything. You're either supporting or opposing. The rest should be put into your comment. --Fir0002 06:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a quorum. I can post in my comments what I want. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm who said anything about a quorum? As per discussion heading I'm stating that I'm opposing the new templates. You can use them if you want, but as I learnt myself there's no need to make them into an official template --Fir0002 07:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This falls under I-didn't-read-any-of-the-discussion-here-but-I'm-opining-anyway bracket. There is no proposal on the table to make this into an official template. If others use it, that's fine with me, if not that's fine too. ~ trialsanderrors 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Adding it to the Template namespace is making it an official template. Userfy and subst it is my advice, but if you don't want to listen I'm sure that in a few weeks the TfD people will be banging at your door... --Fir0002 08:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)