Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Proposed change to policy

To make this less like a simple vote, and more like FAC, I propose that users be required to forego voting for a period of time (24-48 hrs?) after the image has been nominated. Instead, users would leave comments about what is good/bad about the image, or what can be changed. This would leave time for the submitter, or anyone else, to consider these comments and change the image accordingly (if possible), and prevent a simple pile-up of Oppose votes over something as simple as "image isn't cropped right". If such a situation happened currently (say, the image had 4 opposes for bad cropping), and the submitter fixed the cropping, the only thing he could do is hope that the original voters will visit the page and change their votes. This new policy would make voting much clearer, and easier for the person tallying the final votes (no more "Why should I include votes that Oppose an image that has since been fixed?"). --brian0918™ 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think that is a good idea. Another good actionable objection, would be if the image only illustrates a stub. The stub could then be expanded, or a better home found for the illustration.
• Whilst we are at it, lets re-write the introduction paragraph — I'm not too keen on the way the 'beautiful, striking, shocking...' phrase gets thrown around sometimes. I'm thinking along the lines of

  Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that:

   a) Illustrate their article exceptionally well.

   b) are intriguing enough to persuade a reader to read an article.

• My phrasing on b) isn't all that good. I'm thinking of images like Frogspawn closeup that when they appeared on Pic of the Day makes you say "what's that?". They should be like the lead images that catch your eye when you are leafing through a magazine and make you stop to read the article. -- Solipsist 15:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The first item sounds alright, but I'm worried that people will base their decisions solely on the second item, when diagrams can add greatly to an article but not pull in readers. --brian0918™ 16:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm all for that idea. But how will you enforce it? I mean when how will the 24/48 hrs be set? It would be cool to have a little javascript, but wiki obviously can't allow javascript. --Fir0002 21:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it won't be a strict enforcement, but if you see a vote before 48 hours from the nominator's signature timestamp, you can remove the vote, but leave any useful information. --brian0918™ 22:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Another bar could be added – right now there's a 14 day bar; just add another one for 2 days and don't let people put votes on nominations above the bar. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a good idea. --brian0918™ 18:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree leave the featured status more open. As it is it's a good incentive to improve image quality. Ericd 22:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your reply. --brian0918™ 22:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think what he's saying is that he wants to keep the bar high, to encourage people to take go for the really, really good (striking/shocking) pictures, instead of 'good enough' pictures that fit the new criteria. →Raul654 19:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• I think that is a good idea. Improves the quality of the content on Wiki. Shivu 04:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with policy change

It's minor, but outlawing voting for 48 hours to prevent fixable oppositions also prevents supporting, when it doesn't really need to, as the image will only ostensibly get better through comment. Does FAC also have such a restriction? It is sort of strange to say that you can't oppose for 48 hours though. Any suggestions? We also risk instruction creep by listing reasons for which you may not oppose. What may be best is to mandate that the voters specify, if they oppose, whether they think the image can be fixed so that they would support it. If so, the nominator can officiallystrike through the oppositions they have addressed and ask the editors on their talk pages if they've will support it, if enough time remains. Then opponents which don't think it can be fixed can still permanently oppose, and candidates won't be permanently opposed for silly reasons. Also that would fix the 2 day waiting thing. Does that put too much trust in the nominator? I just think the present system is silly, but maybe you've been through this before (I only skimmed the discussion above, so if I'm being redundant let me know). - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 28 June 2005 06:13 (UTC)

• It seems unfair to block opposers but allow supporters, because many people vote simply based on how others voted for the image, and a long list of "support" to start out seems biased. We're trying to prevent hit-and-run voters or other bias until all problems are corrected or at least acknowledged. --brian0918™ 28 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)

Change to Featured Pictures Visible

There is some new discussion about changing the layout of Featured Pictures Visible at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures visible.
Additional comments welcome. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

POTD on Main Page

Well here's a milestone. In case you hadn't noticed, Featured Pictures are making their debut on the Main Page today. There will probably be some bedding-in with adjustments to formatting and organisation, but its a start. You can find more discussion on the issues at Talk:Main_Page#Pic_Of_The_Day. -- Solipsist 08:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Media contest

A media contest to be completed at Wikimania in August is being held via pages at meta and the commons. Please nominate the best images that you've come across in each category, as long as they were uploaded within the past year. +sj + 18:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and added this comment as a 'new featured candidate'; hopefully people will enjoy the reverse nomination with good cheer. +sj +

Closing FPC template

As anyone who has tried it will know, promoting an FPC nomination can be quite involved and requires editing about half a dozen pages. To help a little, I've set up Template:CloseFPC to help with the formating of the wikicode for each page.

To use it, open the subpage for the nomination and add

{{subst:CloseFPC | Image:filename.jpg | ShortDescription | [[UsedOnPage]] | [[User:name|name]] }}

to the bottom of the nomination and save the page.

The template takes four parameters

1. the Image:filename
2. a short description of the image (typically something like the name of the nomination
3. a link to the main page where the image is used (if it is not mentioned in the nomination, it should be on the image description page)
4. a link to the Userpage or source for the image credit

Then edit the nomination again, and you will see the template has expanded into the wikicode formated for each page that needs updating. You can cut each line and paste it into the appropriate page of Going's On, Featured Pictures etc.

Finally delete any remaining comment lines up to the {{FPCresult}} tag, add the voting tally and sign.

You still have to open the image page to change the {{FPC}} tag to a {{FeaturedPicture}} tag.

It is still not trivial, but it helps. -- Solipsist 22:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template standardization?

Since the template {{PromotedFPC}} is used only on Talk pages, it is likely that the members of Template standardizationwill try to make this template match all the other Talk page templates that use the "Coffee Roll" formatting. If you do not think that should happen, you should join the debate at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation on the scope of the Template standardization project. BlankVerse ∅ 04:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Old photographs?

Since there isn't a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Photos) page, I would like to ask this question of some of the photo experts here at WP:FPC. What should one do with old photographs that you are planning to upload to the Wikipedia? I've uploaded a few old photos from the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, like many of the pre-1923 public domain photos at the LOC, they were darkened and yellowed. Most of the photos I uploaded I have used "as is". For one of the photos, however, I cropped the image, and then converted the image to greyscale and lightened up the image, which I think gave a much better picture. I am wondering if there should be any sort of Wikipedia guidlines for this type of photo manipulation. BlankVerse ∅ 13:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You raise two interesting questions;

1) Should we have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Photos)? It seems like a good idea.

2) Should we modify old photos? I get the impression that the LOC and some other images archives take the curator's view that objects should be preserved in the conditions in which they were acquired. For researchers there is certainly information to be obtained from marks and blemishes preserved in the original.

However, for the use of old photos on an encyclopedia, I would have thought we should consider each case on its merits. In some cases, the photograph itself is the object of interest, such as Image:Adams The Tetons and the Snake River.jpg. Whilst that picture had a fair amount of retouching to remove scanning blemishes, the tonal contrast was only adjusted to try and present the picture as Adams might have printed it. However, it would be wrong to heavily crop the picture or otherwise distort it. Questions of authenticity became particularly relevant when considering different reproductions of the First Photograph and in truth there is not absolute right answer.

In other cases, such as Image:William Cranch.jpg the subject is primarily of interest, and in this case Postdlf (I think) spent considerable effort retouching the original from LOC.

In general I would have thought that it was often useful to correct significant flaws in an image to present it in its best light, whilst also preserving a link back to the original. Or better yet, upload the unmodified original, then overlay it with the corrected or retouched version. -- Solipsist 13:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I did find a page that would be a good beginning for a photo MOS, Wikipedia talk:Preparing images for upload, but it didn't discuss the issues that I've brought up here (another page that is sort of relevant is Wikipedia talk:Image use policy). There is also the Photography WikiProject, which seems to be mostly about taking new photos, but should be involved in the creation of a photo MOS. To give an idea of what I have been talking about, here are the images that I uploaded and used "as is": Image:Assyria - Portal Guardian from Nimroud. British Museum 04982r.jpg, Image:Roman Arch of Trajan at Thamugadi (Timgad), Algeria 04966r.jpg, and Image:Baalbek. General view 04956r.jpg. I think that especially the first image can probably be improved, although I haven't tried much with it yet. BlankVerse ∅ 15:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND

Hi, I thought since people here like voting for images, you may like to check out this. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Captions

Looking at the winning Featured Pictures, there are many spectacular images. One thing that's often lacking in many images is a good caption. Essential details, - like where the photo was taken, who took it, named features that are visible, or what the people in it are doing, were doing, or are about to do - are often missing. I would encourage people to ask questions about featured picture candidates that would lead to better captioning. It might also be interesting to make "good caption" one of the criteria for promotion. -- Beland 03:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about captions where the image appears in articles? I wouldn't like to see those clogged up with what I would consider inessential details like who took the picture. Mark¹ 03:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect Beland is meaning there should be a complete description on the image description page. In which case, I would agree. Featured Pictures should work to make illustrations as good as possible. We don't have to go overboard. Its nice to see camera detail information, but I wouldn't require it. But the basic what, where and when should be there. Pictures of plants and animals should correctly identify the species if possible. Again some leeway should be allowed - I was taken by this featured picture on the Commons, which was easily identified as a Herring Gull, but had some uncertainty over the precise species. -- Solipsist 08:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page. Thanks.--Pharos 04:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Banning self nominations

In the constant drive to improve FPC, I'm thinking about introducing a ban on self-nominations. This of course would be a disaster, because it is relatively uncommon for someone to nominated an image that they haven't uploaded. So this would rule out most images created by Wikipedians. Instead we would introduce a Pictures Peer Review page where you could place self-nominations and other pictures that you would like someone else to nominate, or do some work before nominating.

My thinking is that one of the most damaging effects of FPC is to nominate one of your own images, only to see it savagely rejected. This can be very dispiriting for a photographer or illustrator. If someone else had nominated an image of yours and it doesn't get promoted, it is much easier to shrug it off, because it wasn't your idea in the first place. The trouble is, that few people roam around Wikipedia nominating for FPC any good images they happen come across. A staging area gallery would then allow you to draw attention to a photo you had hopes for, and lessen the disappointment if no one chose to nominate it after a month or so when it drops off the bottom of Peer Review.

At the same time this could be used to replace the 2-day commenting period that brian0918 introduced - its a good idea that more or less works, but people still want to vote in the initial two days and those who comment forget to return when voting is open. Plus I'm not sure we have seen much action on any of the comments that have been made. Instead, fixable comments could be made on the peer review page. Then if you don't act on fixable comments, someone might still choose to nominate the suggestion, but then again they might not.

A further benefit might be helping solve the issue of having a great image that don't really illustrate any articles. Often times a photographic contributor will have a good photo of a plant or animal they don't know much about. Now that FPC requires that an image usefully illustrates an article, they typically write a minimal stub to support the picture. But as a rule, the photographer is not likely to be a botanist, so it is not likely to be more than a stub. Good pictures looking for a good home on an article could illicit the help of a writer who knew about the subject. -- Solipsist 20:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this idea. My main problem with it, is that will just have photographers create sockpuppet accounts so their images will get featured. Other than that, a dramatic change of this magnitude would have to be given a trial period with the peer review system before it is fully implemented. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons listed above as well as the fact that it pretty much instantly eliminate all submissions to FPD since most of the noms are by uploaders. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the rest of the proposal. I'm not sure that banning self-noms is a good idea, but the idea of a peer review process is more interesting. It works quite well for featured articles and lists, but here, the problem is that many images can't be improved. Sure, sometimes it's an alignment problem or whatever, but other times it's something drastic. In the case of FA peer review, there are always things that can be improved. I guess I'm just concerned that a peer review for images would only make things more complicated. I suppose it's less troubling to have people criticize your work when it's on a peer review page (i.e. where people aren't voting), but perhaps the better solution would be to have people be more courteous (i.e. instead of "This is a ridiculous picture that's nowhere close to FP status" say "Sorry, this isn't good enough. Try taking the picture from this angle instead" or whatever). --Spangineer (háblame) 18:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Autofellatio. Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 14:20, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Bot restored!

Kurando-san has returned to archive Featured picture candidates. The bot will be moving and updating the page for anything older than 2 days and anything older than 14 days. Under no circumstances should the following two lines be removed from the Featured picture candidates:

• <!-- Move nominations older than two days under this line -->
• <!--Move old nominations under this line -->

The bot will screw up if that happens. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. -- Solipsist 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Has the bot stopped working again? Enochlau 12:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Commons Featured Pictures

While voting for Image:Red_Panda.JPG, User:Zanimum raised a good point:

"Why don't things featured in the Commons become featured on each individual Wikipedia, automatically?"

So, uh, what's our answer? >_> Coffee 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• i've been woundering that one too. I was skimming the commons today and saw that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gray wolf looks to be featured on that branch of wikipedia. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To quote from the front side of this page, "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons."--Pharos 20:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As Pharos says, context is the crucial difference. There also tends to be more discussion here. The other major difference is simply a different voting population, each with a different cluster of biases. Overall, I think it is healthy if we are not targetting exactly the same material. However, I would actively encourage everyone to keep an eye on Commons:Feature picture candidates and Commons:Picture of the day, and look for articles on Wikipedia that could be illustrated using good pictures there. Or better still, create or translate an article to support the best pictures from Commons. -- Solipsist 22:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Realistically, if a picture is Featured at the Commons, it would probably gain consensus to be promoted as a Featured Picture here on the English Wikipedia, or any other Wikipedia for that matter. And if that picture isn't used on an English Wikipedia article, it probably should be. Coffee 07:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• I dissagree, images here must have some meaning and purpose in articles. A nice sunset picture isn't necessarily FPC material overhere. In fact, merging pictures the other way would make more sense (I don't think the commonsites would like that though). This link is Broken 14:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is partly what I was getting at with the idea of having a Peer Review for pictures. The only real point of FPC, is to encourage people to take photographs and draw diagrams to illustrate Wikipedia. However, it is not uncommon for us to see excellent photographs of a flower, that doesn't really have an article behind it (or worse isn't even identified). On the other hand there is no particular reason why any particular photographer contributing to Wikipedia should also be a botanist and feel able to write the article on what they've photographed. A Peer Review staging area would hopefully highlight these cases and encourage others to come and help write the necessary article.

Similarly, I've got a list of potential good pictures that I've spotted at random, but most need some work before they would be appropriate for nominating - finding the right article for them to illustrate, translating an article from the German Wiki and the like. I'm often slow at getting round to sorting them out, but a Peer Review section might get others to chip in, which would be good wiki. -- Solipsist 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The short no voting waiting period is supposed to act as a short peer review though. This link is Broken 04:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite so, and it is a good idea, although it often seems to confuse people who want to vote immediately. What I would like to see is a busier place for image and illustration work where people can collaborate in a more Wiki way - something along the lines of "I've got this, what can I do with it", or "this might be an FP, could someone help write an article". There is some incentive for people to write articles to go with possible FPs, since now POTD is gaining more attention, the article is likely to get some focus when picture gets highlighted. So ideally it would need to be a page that attracts article writers and translators as much photographers and illustrators. -- Solipsist 07:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What does it take to get promoted?

There's nothing on the main page that says what the vote has to be to be promoted; just says "consensus". So does that leave it up to the admin of the day deciding whether 68% support is enough? Elf | Talk 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all it doesn't take an admin to close an FPC, anyone can do it, and yes thus far it's been pretty much up to the discretion of whoever closes it, however if there is no clear consensus or there's a disagreement on whether there's a consensus or not an article can be relisted for an extension to try to get a consensus one way or another. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

We should have had a link to Wikipedia:Consensus (now fixed), which is the general mechanism for deciding things on Wikipedia. Absolute, fixed ratio voting doesn't work that well - for one thing you get problems with people trying to game the system. You tend to get a feal for consensus if you watch WP:VFD and other voting forums. We are typically looking for a 2/3rds majority, but you also look at comments and past voting history of editors. So for example, although it doesn't happen here that much, in other areas you often find people making a series of bad faith votes to prove some point and those votes often get discounted.

It is not so often that we see boarderline votes here, but it is usually best not to promote if the concensus isn't clear. The picture can always we renominated in a month or two. And even if a nomination has no oppose votes, there also has to be sufficient support votes to show that people are actually interested in the picture. -- Solipsist 06:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Access pictures from commons

hey,

I found a great picture on the commons that I would like to put in an article here and nominate for FPC. Is there anything special i need to so i can link the picture here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

From Wikimedia Commons to your door in under an hour, or your image's free!

Nope. Just link it like any other image. The Wikipedia's back-end takes care of the rest. Look right for an example. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 17:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. That's just of the sort of activity we like FPC to encourage. And to clarify, just use the same image name that you see on Commons as you would if it were already here. The image's virtual, stepping stone, description page will be automatically displayed with a link point back to its source on Commons. So effectively all images on Commons are immediately available under the same name on this and all other language Wikipedias. -- Solipsist 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

FP standards

I just created Wikipedia:What is a featured picture. I felt the need to establish standards for FPs so that everyone understands what they are voting on. The picture doesn't just have to be pritty it also must contribute to an article. Comments are welcome and after some time passes and some revisions are made I'll remove the proposed template and link to it from this page. This link is Broken 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Helping move a few...

Although I'm not a terribly experienced contributor to WP:FPC, I'm going to go ahead and follow the instructions to deal with a few of the non-controversial promotions to help clear the backlog. I'll leave untouched any where the consensus isn't clear, for more experienced editors to deal with, and I hope no-one minds ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 19:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There's meant to be a bot running? Has that stopped working? Enochlau 20:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it must be offline / asleep. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 20:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it was never completed. This link is Broken 21:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to cloud up this page with a particular article, but I am not sure I understand your criteria for not promoting the image I nominated - on the face of it, the conclusion appears to be error. Sorry for the intrusion, and please see the comment at [[1]]

See the heading "Bot Restored!" above. Enochlau 08:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Also Helping to Move a Few

I tried my hand at clearing a few of the FPCs, but this was my first time doing so, and in light of that could someone check and make sure I did this right? TomStar81 05:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I did one which was Athens 2004 Olympic Opening Ceremony (a nine-nil unanimous promotion, I thought that would be safe enough. One problem, on the candidates page the thumbnail does not load. I'm hoping it's not anything I did. Raven4x4x 05:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, seems to be working now. Good. 144.137.227.65 05:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The rest have been done. No more backlog!~ Enochlau 06:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lrotschildi.jpg

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lrotschildi.jpg has no signed date. --Kurando-san 04:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alexandrine parakeet date

Why do all the dates for comments on this picture say July? There is absolutely no way this has been around for two months (two days would be more like it). Also the first comment dates from before the nomination. Has there been a bug or error? Raven4x4x 08:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the subpage has been around for two months. (Check its history.) It wasn't listed on FPC until yesterday, however. —Cryptic (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise you could make a sub-page without appearing on FPC. How did that happen? I'd say that it shouldn't be listed as 'older than 14 days', as it has not appeared on the FPC page for 14 days or more. Is there any way to move it without the bot automatically putting it back? Raven4x4x 00:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The cause is when someone forgets to transinclude the page on to WP:FPC. The bot automatically reads for the first signed date that is placed. Sign a date before the original nomination, and you'll be fine. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Promotion Procedures

Whenever a picture is promoted, there a so many pages to update! Especially since Wikipedia is not as fast nowadays, it takes quite a bit of time and patience. I was wondering what other people think about reducing the number of pages to add newly promoted images to. Enochlau 03:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I've just cleared up a bit of the backlog that developed just now, and I did 11 non-promoted images in about the same time that 1 or 2 promoted images would have taken. Having said that I can't honestly think of a good solution. Raven4x4x 05:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

A bot is in the works (or was in the works) to aid in promotion. You would have to tell it the category, author, description and what picture is promoted and it did the rest. I don't know how far along the bot is. In the past I reccomended that we stop using the FP thumb page in favor of the category but few supported that. Promoting articles is much faster because they don't have several galleries to add it to. My current line of thinking is that we could dump WP:FP in favor of FP visible. Who actually looks at the non-visible page? This link is Broken 15:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we could probably just do with one gallery - FP visible. FP thumbs appears completely useless, not sorted as it's supposed to be... Enochlau 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate forum to raise this issue? Or should we raise it elsewhere so things actually happen? Enochlau 11:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks like the best place to hold this conversation. If you want to continue the discussion I'd reccomend asking some people who spend a lot of time in FP pages to comment here. Also you might want to anounce discussions on some community pages (if you intend to change the standard and get more input). I wouldn't however just do it as you might offend some people. Broken S 19:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at it soon. Enochlau 01:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a page that is set out the same as FP Thumbs (quicker to load etc) but ordered in the same manner as FP Visable? That would be the ideal solution to me. Raven4x4x 09:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean - have it categorised, but not having all categories on the same page as it is currently? If so that is a good idea. Enochlau 11:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:September 14 2001 Ground Zero 02.jpg

Anybody think this is godd enough for a FPC? I didn't want to list it if it wasn't going to receive any support. I know this is a little unorthodox, but I'm getting a little tired of pictures being nominated with the only support being from the nominator. Whatever. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, for what my opinion is worth. My reason is basically the same one I put on that pic of the transvestites currently nominated. I think that to get votes on FPC a pic has to be more than just a useful illustration of the subject: it has to be interesting enough in its own right to make people want to look at the article when they see it. I realise that the criteria for FP say that one OR the other of these is sufficient, but I think the latter is far more important. I guess a lot of people who vote here are the same people whose user pages appear on the 'what links here' section of the POTD. I have that template on my user page too, and I vote for what I like to see there, and what makes me want to read further. Yes, I read several Antarctica articles earlier today :-)

Image:September 14 2001 Ground Zero 02.jpg is grainy and lacking in detail and colour. It's badly composed and what it illustrates isn't at all apparent from looking at the picture itself. It may well be notable in the sense that it's a tough shot to get or in that what it illustrates is impressive, but the picture itself doesn't say any of that. I think you are right to doubt it'd get far on FPC. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 22:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Struck-through comment: this will teach me to keep my trap shut until I've read image description pages properly, but I was so sure I knew what the expression 'Ground zero' meant that I didn't, I just went straight to the max size image. I had no idea that this pic was related to 9/11 and I apologise for describing it's largest impact as 'impressive'. I'm too embarrassed to say what I thought it was a picture of. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 08:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say the picture won't make it (the emotional value alone would give it at least a fighting chance); however, I think that any picture dealing with 9/11 that comes through here would have to be of outstanding quality, and sadly, I don't think this one has that. TomStar81 07:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. At least I didn't waste my time. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

FPC time question

About how long should one wait before renominating an image demeed FPC worthy by a viewer, but failed on its first time through? TomStar81 07:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any policy on that - just not immediately afterwards I guess. However, it would be pointless unless the concerns previously raised had been rectified. Enochlau 10:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

several months seems good to me. Changes and a new rational would be good too. Broken S 14:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're uploading the same image for the same reason (i.e. you just think the people who opposed were wrong), a respectful gap of a few months would be good to give time for a bit of churn amongst the voters, and so as not to annoy people by making them duplicate their comments. I'd make an exception though for images that failed due to a specific fault that has been rectified, even if the rectified image was included in the failed nomination. For example, if I uploaded a portrait with a bad artifact, and someone uploaded a good edit with the artifact removed a couple of days before voting ended, but not enough people who had opposed the first time came back and supported the new version, I might relist after a week or so with this explanation. Provided you explain the specific reason behind the majority of opposes has been addressed, I don't think anyone would mind that would they? ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

two noms removed

I have removed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BurjDubai and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/genitalia from the page. The former being unsourced at best and a copyvio at worst, and thus inelligable for canidacy, the latter was an IP nom with no logged in user willing to support it, it was also a nomination who's sole purpose was to be a violation of WP:POINT. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Support" and "Oppose" should not have to be removed in the first two days

It's silly to go into other people's comments and remove the text "Support" and "Oppose". First of all, FPC is not and never was a simple voting page. Like most other similar pages on Wikipedia, it is built on forming consensus around reasoned arguments. The fact that a large component in the decision making process is subjective of course complicates things. As I understand it, the two day "no voting" period seeks to address this. But those comments which include reasoned arguments should not be classified as votes. In those comments, "Support" and "Oppose" is merely a qualifier of the expressed opinion.

I therefore would like to suggest to modify the instructions to state that, in the first two days, arguments or justifications with each comment should be provided, and that simple votes which do not include such arguments can be removed. This should reduce the "hit and run" problem, without requiring constant editing of existing comments (during the two-day period to remove it, and after it to restore it). Comments, objections?--Eloquence* 03:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The way I understand it, people shouldn't be giving an opinion towards consensus at all during the first two days. That time is set aside for highlighting things that can be improved with the pic before any opinions are recorded, to give the image time to become its best before anything is said which will count towards the consensus.

Admittedly, it doesn't seem to be working this way. Perhaps it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the thing if we went the other way though and removed anything which isn't a clear suggestion that can be acted upon. Or, better and simpler, just remove everything at the end of the two-day improvement period and start the discussion with a clean slate. ~ ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 15:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are not articles. The amount of possible editing is very limited. Very frequently, there is nothing that can be done to make a nomination worthwhile. Forcing people to make up suggestions in the first two days disrupts the workflow on this page. The guidelines already make it quite clear that objections should be actionable if at all possible and, as I said, we can remove early comments that do not include reasoning. Everything beyond that is overkill.--Eloquence* 17:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there should be votes at all. We work on consensus. A remark made in the peer review period saying, "I think it's ugly and has many artifacts" should be counted as a person disliking the picture when the nomination is closed. You opinion doesn't need to be explicitly written in bold. In my opinion voting (bold support or opposes) should be discouraged but not barred (or crossed out in the interim). I agree that not much can usually be done that's why the "peer review" period is integrated into FPC and is quite short. Broken S 20:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Having a specific "no voting" period is going to lead to more voting, not less -- because after that period, people will feel that they are participating in a public vote. If it is a public vote, its rules should be formalized, and the template should contain "Arguments for" and "Arguments against" sections which can be expanded during the no-voting period. If it is not meant to be voting, then it should be made clear that any comment should be accompanied by a reason. The current practice of removing the bold text "Support" and "Oppose" is neither here nor there.--Eloquence* 21:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I do see the merit in having the two day commenting period. In the past, it was not uncommon for people to oppose on something that was actionable; the picture was then change, but their oppose vote remained because they couldn't be bothered checking it again. This two-day period stops this kind of voting. However, if an oppose is based on the grounds of something that isn't fixable, such as "bad angle", then let the oppose stand; supports will be allowed to stand, because presumably any changes would be improvements. An alternative, if you find this too complex, would be to scrap the two-day period, but ignore any oppose votes that opposed for reasons that have since been rectified. Enochlau 05:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Eloquence - this isn't how we work on Wikipedia. I also don't see that there was consensus prior to implementing this rule. Rhobite 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Eloquence. The part about removing votes added by other users is particularly disturbing. Some users may thing it's a good idea to wait with adding votes for a couple of days — they're free to do that. Having a guideline about forcibly removing other users' votes appears to admit that there is no consensus about the waiting period. So, I have WP:BOLDly updated the procedure section. — David Remahl 23:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Berkelah falls

As this image was deleted, I've removed the sub-page and put it in the archive. Raven4x4x 11:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Diagrams

I'm just throwing this out there to gauge the interest...but would anyone else be interested in a Featured Diagrams type of listing. As you'd see from looking at the way I vote, I just can't stand diagams as featured pictures and thought this might be an idea for getting more diagrams featured. I don't know...just an idea. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, I don't mind either way. I personally don't have a problem with diagrams being featured pictures, but I can see the logic in a separate catagory for featuring them. However, I don't feel it's right for you to keep on opposing diagrams simply because they are diagrams. To oppose a diagram, no matter what the content, without even taking the content into consideration, doesn't seem fair on the nominator to me. Asking for comment on talk pages like this seems a better way of doing things. Raven4x4x 09:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well that's kind of why I'm making the suggestion. I feel bad ALWAYS voting no for them, but I truely don't feel diagrams should be featured pictures no matter how well they illustrate their subjects. And please don't assume I oppose without taking the content into consideration because that couldn't be further from the truth. I simply don't think charts/diagrams are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, incredible, or in short just brilliant, that's why I vote no for them --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Still from the way you worded the complaint suggestion above, if your going to vote no on the soul reason its a diagram, without having any other reason, then just save your time and don't vote. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well...that defeats the purpose of having a vote then. That's like asking not to vote on something because you oppose something that someone else supports. I'll vote no as long as I think it's not FP worthy. And to clarify, I'm not only voting no becasue its a diagram, I vote no for them because I don't believe they stand out as some of the finest imagery on wikipedia. None of the charts/diagrams that have been nominated to me stand out and as long as they don't, i'll have to stick to my guns. I'm not saying there are absolutely NO interesting graphs out there, but to me they fall far short of the FP criteria. That's why I made the suggestion that there be a Featured Diagrams sort of index so they have their own area to shine. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think this is a bad idea. The only point of having FPC is to stimulate activity in illustrating Wikipedia articles, just as FAC stimulates editors to write better articles. Diagrams are an important part of illustrating many articles and so should be on an equal footing with photographs, animations and any other illustration. Having a separate featuring mechanism for diagrams would cause complications with organising Picture of the Day and in any case should be unnecessary.

• By all means, discuss using different criteria to evaluate diagrams. Oh and for that matter, ScottyBoy900Q you should note that you are out of date with the beautiful, striking, shocking... metric — we ditched that several months ago in favour of add significantly emphasis. -- Solipsist 18:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Solipsist, I don't know where you're getting your information, but you may want to look then at Wikipedia:Featured pictures at the top of the page where it says that is EXACTLY what FP's are supposed to represent. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Mainly the discussion at the top of this page, culimating in this change, although it looks like no one thought to update the Wikipedia:Featured pictures page. -- Solipsist 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think it's a good idea. FP nomations of diagrams are quite rare, partly because in practice they are expected to match the most beautiful photos. But diagrams can be of excellent quality without being eye-catching, and there should be room for all kinds of content to be featured if it is only of sufficient quality. Diagrams are currently shadowed by photos; a separate list and nomination page might encourage more work on them. Fredrik | talk 18:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fredrik, That's exactly why I made this suggestion. I'm not saying I think there should be no way for a diagram to be recognized as exceptional, I think there are some great diagrams, they just need their own way to be recognized. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Beauty in and of itself isn't sufficient for a FP. Being informative is the primary issue. I encourage everyone to read WP:WIAFP, which I recently progressed from proposed policy and added to the FP template. Stop trying to argue that striking images are the only ones that can pass through here. Images which illustrate picture effectively are the ones we are looking for. If they also happen to be pritty, all the better. I am strongly opposed to this suggestion. Or else, how about we create a Featured diagrams but include them here on the FP page with an identical voting process (except people wouldn't oppose if they felt it wasn't "striking"). Broken S 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If we had a Featured Diagram kind of thing, even if it were run on this page with the same voting, I feel that that would totally ignore the reason why I brought this up. I said I don't like diagrams as FP's, not that I don't like diagrams. If there were a similar process (if not the same process) for diagrams as there are for regular pictures, I think more people would be apt to list a diagram for a featured status. Keeping diagrams in with other pictures, to me at least, takes away from the diagram. Why not give it its own title and let it compete against other images of the same type. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how a diagram is not a picture, as a diagram is an illustration like any other. Some photographs are less attractive than others, just as diagrams may or may not be. But to dispute the validity of a diagram as a 'featured picture' seems to border on the absurd; in some cases a diagram can add far more to an article than a photograph ever could. If a diagram has more value than a photo, why not compare them? Also - you began this discussion saying we should consider a Featured Diagrams section, and now you're saying if we were to have one it would ignore the reason you brought it up? I'm confused. Maybe you could diagram your thought process on this. ;) -ericg ✈ 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to get smart. I was saying that if we had a Featured Diagram category run on the same page as the Featured Pictures it would defeat the purpose of me bringing it up. And I see a big difference between a diagram and a photograph. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        • As long as a person makes a conscious effort to say, "all right, this isn't the most flashy picture (Especialy compared to the nice panorama below it), but what I'm looking for here is it's neatness and ability to convey information" then a seperate page isn't necessary. Broken S 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to this idea. I don't see any criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture that diagrams are unable to fulfill. — ceejayoz ^★ 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I never said they were unable to meet the criteria, I was just saying it might be a good idea to get them into their own category so more could be nominated and compared to each other. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see how separating them from featured pictures is going to encourage it - I'd imagine the opposite effect would occur. I don't see why they have to be compared with each other, either - they stand on their own merits. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• I guess I'll drop this for now. I was only suggesting the idea in the hopes that charts/diagrams might be able to find their own home and get a little bit more credit. I think some people naturally are deterred from nominating diagrams because they see all the vivid photographs and think a diagram won't stand up against them. Regardless of what everyone has said about only taking pictures for what they do for the article and not what the image looks like...it STILL lists the following words on the FP page as criteria for what FP's should be: beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, incredible, or in short just brilliant. For me...its a rare occurance that a chart/diagram does any of these things. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A few diagrams I created are in the list of featured pictures, but I feel bad about them being there because they generally aren't as impressive as the photos. And making new nominations doesn't seem like a good idea. If there was a featured diagrams list, I'd feel more easy about nominating (and likely also creating new pictures for that purpose). Fredrik | talk 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that because you don't like seeing diagrams amongst photos in the lists of Featured Pictures, like FP thumbs, or because you don't like diagrams being voted on in FPC besides other photos? I think ScottyBoy has raised an interesting question and also wants the best for diagrams, but he is having trouble arguing the case since it more or less started from a point of 'I won't vote for diagrams'. Nevertheless, if we are not doing the best thing to encourage diagrams, we should consider a change. -- Solipsist 09:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't like applying the same standards to diagrams and photos. Even if the wording of the FP criteria is changed, comparison is inevitable in practice. And if you have separate criteria then you may as well have separate pages. But the problem is partially that there are too few good diagrams on Wikipedia overall, and a specialized review might encourage harder work. Fredrik | talk 12:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• From a practical point of view, having a separate Featured diagrams section, I think, would just create additional unnecessary work and duplication. Perhaps what we should do instead, is while keeping photographs/animations/diagrams all here, have separate criteria, or clarifying remarks made about each type. Enochlau 05:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Gee I wish I'd seen this discussion earlier. ScottyBoy is saying exactly what I've wanted to bring up for ages. I agree with everything he's said. I mean a diagram just doesn't do it for me as one of Wikipedia's finest pictures. To me a picture is a photo, a diagram is something seperate. A Featured Diagram section would be much more appropriate in my opinion. Sure a diagram is really nice and all, but it's not special like a photo is. Even though a diagram might take more work than a lucky photo, it can easily be reproduced nearly identically. And then what you get is a diagram of Hong Kong being featured and then another diagram in the same format of Melbourne being featured as well even though they are both nearly identical. Because you can't say one is worse than the other because they are in the same format. Whereas two photos of the cities will never look the same. --Fir0002 09:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Eiderstedt marshland, promote or not?

I've been promoting/not promoting a lot of images recently, but I honestly cannot decide whether Eiderstedt marshland should be promoted or not. It's right on the borderline; one more vote would have pushed it either way, but as it is I have no idea. I suppose if a more experienced user than myself makes a decision, that will help me next time a similar situation comes up. Raven4x4x 10:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would err on the side of going with not—the uploader has promised to get another version that would satisfy some conserns soon (related to size etc). We can reconsider it then. Perhaps when you place a note on his page, you can remind him about that? Regards encephalon 11:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Tour sister project

I've started a proposal page for a sister project called "Wikitour" that would lend itself directly to Wikipedia. Whereas Commons hosts individual images of places/things that have articles on Wikipedia, Wikitour would host "virtual tours" of these places/things.

The basic idea is as follows: a user submits numerous photos of a notable place, which are organized into pages/subpages to create a navigable environment similar to that in Myst, Riven, or the graphical Zork games; the navigation system would be on Wikitour, while the files themselves would be on Commons, with a link in the respective article on WP; examples include castles, museums, caverns, mountains, college campuses, typical mosques or churches, archaeological sites, etc. Basically, any topic that has an article on Wikipedia has the possibility of its own entry in Wikitour. Users could also submit photos of an object from various sides/angles/distances, rather than a place. For art galleries, this could instead consist of previously uploaded images of paintings/sculptures, which are organized into a single page, representing the contents of a specific art gallery.

I would like to hear from the FPC crowd about the interest in this. Please leave your impressions/suggestions at Talk:Wikitour. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-21 20:10

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glacial lakes

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glacial lakes has no signed date. --Kurando-san 01:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Aww isn't that cute - bots can talk! Enochlau 01:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling on regular contributors to the page for image manipulation advice

Since Wikipedians knowledgeable about photography may gravitate towards this page, this seems a good place to ask. What parts of GIMP do you often reach for when correcting newly taken images?

I hear a lot about white balance and adjusting the colour, but I don't really understand how these are used to improve iamges. I often tweak things, but not usually for fidelity of the image, I just play with the dials and decide something looks better to me. I'm keen to learn more about tools that automate solving common problems associated with freshly taken images. Can any of you point me at a good online guide for this sort of thing?

In particular I often find my indoor pics begin by having a strange tint, and I get the impression white balance has something to do with it, but I can;t seem to find anything in GIMP that seems directly related to that. --bodnotbod 11:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• It has something to do with the overall white and black levels in the image, and balancing them. All I know is that in Photoshop, you just go to "Auto Level" and it makes the image look perfect. Besides white levels, there's also Shadow/Highlight to deal with in new photos, but I have no clue how to do it in GIMP. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 11:21

• If your outdoor pictures have a strange blueish tinge, you may have your camera's white-balance configured for tungsten lighting (which is a bit orangey, and so the camera makes things a bit bluer to compensate). If your outdoor images are a bit orangey, you may have the camera set for fluorescent lighting, which is slightly bluish. The converse (in both cases) is true for weird indoor tints. In practice most digital cameras' auto-white-balance is good enough, so you should make sure you have that setting. To try to improve dismal Scottish photos, I generally up the brightness a bit (which usually means I have to up contrast a bit too, otherwise everything gets too bleached). Then I up the saturation (one has to be careful with this - too much and it looks like a late 1970s top-of-the-pops). Often one use of the sharpen filter helps too. I'm afraid I use Photoshop rather than GIMP, but I'm sure the GIMP options will be much the same. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about working in GIMP, but one thing you can probably do in GIMP is open the levels dialogue and use the "set white point" function to click on a white area and change the overall color tone. If you give us a copy of the photo we can try to enhance it for you. Or I could. I love working in Photoshop. :)PiccoloNamek 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Hey pic.. just as a side note, setting the grey point is a better way to adjust the colour balance. White on a digital camera isn't that trustworthy since it will generally turn twhite the instant the object is overexposed, even if it doesn't correspond to white in the photo. If you select a point that ISN'T 255/255/255 (ie, white), then you're likely to mess with the luminosity levels more than the colour balance, as it will make anything brighter than that point 255/255/255, do you see what I mean? Unless the photo is also underexposed as well as unbalanced in colour and you actually WANT that point to be white, its just not a good idea. Grey point doesn't adjust the overall luminosity levels. You could select something almost black or something almost white and it will still leave the black and white points alone. It will just adjust the colour balance. Hope that clears things up a bit. Diliff 22:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll admit, I don't often set the white balance that way in the first place, so I wasn't quite sure, nor am I sure if that's even possible in GIMP.PiccoloNamek 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • It looks like this is something where I'd have to give a proper example before I really grasp what everyone's telling me, so particular thanks to Piccolo for offer of help: I'll take you up on that. I don't have anything to hand as an example right now, but I'll come back when I do. Thanks for the input everyone. --bodnotbod 17:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't tried editing any photos on Wikipedia, but for my own personal photos, I tend to use the following functions in Photoshop: arbitrary rotation (i have a horrible perception of horizontal!), auto balance/color/contrast. Very rarely would I have to tinker with the settings manually... Enochlau 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• One of the best ways to achieve correct rotation is to turn the rulers on, and then drag guides out of them to ensure you're rotating the picture to level. You can also use the measure tool to draw a line across something you want to be horizontal, and the proper settings will automatically be entered into the arbitrary rotation dialogue. Another tool I use often is Photokit Sharpener from PixelGenius. This is only for hardcore sharpeners, but it delivers awesome results. The sea turtle was sharpened with PK Sharpener. Photokit Color is also very useful, especially the RSA Neutralize tool. I also have a large amount of useful actions from The Light's Right studio. There are other techniques, such as overlay layers (which is what I used to lighten the bird in the bird picture nomination). I could literally go on all day long!PiccoloNamek 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)