Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Suggestion about panoramas

I notice that in the "panorama" section there are a number of images which are "technically" panoramas (created by photo stitching), while others are panoramas in the traditional sense of the word: views over a wide area, such as a landscape or part of a city. I suggest this section be reserved for the second meaning, as it doesn't make much sense to have some "architecture" photos in "architecture", and others in "panorama", simply by dint of the technique used to create them. Stevage 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Query

Hasn't today's featured image been featured before? Rich Farmbrough 10:59 30 August 2006 (GMT).

It would apprear not, although we have featured two different diagrams of carbon nanontubes. Rich Farmbrough 15:29 30 August 2006 (GMT).

Colegio Cesar Chavez picture

I don't know if it's quite Featured Picture quality, but this picture, which I took of the Colegio Cesar Chavez was recently reprinted in the Statesman Journal (a Salem, Oregon newspaper). I was wondering if anyone knows of any template or tag that can be added to this picture to note that it was reproduced in the media. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 05:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Page getting unwieldy

With the large number of Featured Pictures we now have, this page is starting to get unwieldy, and WP:FPV is even worse. I offered on Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures visible to refactor that page along the lines of Commons:Featured pictures but as I started doing so, it occurred to me that that format could be used to replace both WP:FPV and WP:FP, in other words merging the two. I also wonder if that makes WP:FPT obsolete as well (although that one does serve a different purpose, making POTD generation a lot easier). Thoughts? howcheng {chat} 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no objections were raised, I revamped the whole page to resemble COM:FP. This was several days' worth of effort, so I really hope it's fine with everyone. I'd really rather not have to revisit this. :) howcheng {chat} 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks great! Much more inviting to browse. Thanks :) --Quiddity 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture move: png -> jpg

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Thomas More.png. Conscious 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FI?

• Shouldn't this be Featured Images? I know this is much too late, considering all other Wikis use Featured Picture also, but it would have been nice to have coherence with WP:IFD and Image:Example.xxx. NauticaShades 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You can draw a picture, you can render a picture, your can photograph a picture. I do not think picture refers exclusivly to photographs. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. As for coherence with wiki namespaces, that would be nice, but as you say too late. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Media

There was a link from Featured Sound to something here that I cannot find, so I'll suggest it anyway - should Featured Pictures be renamed Featured Media to encompass sound and video files etc? I think this is a good idea, because there are few sound and video files on wikipedia, and a merge would work quite well. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The criteria for judging pictures and sounds/video would be far different, for one thing. Besides, this discussion is moot until Wikipedia:Featured sounds actually becomes active. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, have different criteria, just on the same page. But you're right, the situation is moot until Featured Sounds becomes more active. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous Pictures?

I notice that some of the other features on the main page have 'previous' links at the bottom, letting users see what they've missed over the past few days. Would it be a good idea to add something like this to the Featured Pictures section?24.187.185.246 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Jon

You're thinking of Wikipedia:Picture of the day, which is how Featured Pictures are scheduled for display on the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Which of these images is better?

You people seem to be the experts on images, so I was wondering if you could suggest which of these two images of The Death of General Wolfe (1770) we should be using. Thanks.

• 
  Image 1
• Image 2
  Image 2

Image 1 has better detail, but Image 2 is more colourful and striking. --Arctic Gnome 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have never seen the actual painting so I don't know what the colors are supposed to look like, but the colors of "Image 1" seem to be a bit washed out while "Image 2" looks oversaturated. I think the original version of "Image 2" looks much better than the current edited version (which was uploaded on 21:42, 27 April 2005) but it is still not as detailed as "Image 1". --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:1944 NormandyLST.jpg lost featured picture template

The wikipedia version of the image was at Image:NormandyLST.jpeg, but it was uploaded to the commons under the name Image:1944 NormandyLST.jpg. The wikipedia version then got SD while lots of stuff were still linked to it, so someone reuploaded it at Image:NormandyLST.jpeg. Now neither version has the featured picture template. It was promoted at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/D-Day at Omaha Beach. I didn't see any delisting linked to either version, so I'm assuming it's still featured. --Aqua 08:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm just going to add the featured picture template to Image:1944 NormandyLST.jpg. Some of the featured pictures that have the template don't have the template tag in the source, like Image:Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Fire rings.jpg. I thought that maybe there was something special in how it got added. --Aqua 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured color - orange to blue?

I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange(#FFF7E6), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) —Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian link

Please give the hungarian link to the left side: hu:Kiemelt képek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.97.18.134 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

• Done. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition

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.

The arrangements for the Commons Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting has opened today, Feb 1st. All Commons Commons:Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. --MichaelMaggs 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

The voting for the final has opened today! Bryan 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Marking featured pictures in articles

Is there some way of marking or highlighting featured images, when used in articles? I tried adding Image:LinkFA-star.png to the start of the image caption. (Looks like this: ). It would be better if the star could be made a link to Wikipedia:Featured pictures. --Petri Krohn 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RSS Feed?

Is there any possibility of getting the Featured Pictures as an RSS feed? 72.205.12.194 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Cal

Sorting and Categorization

I never noticed it before, but I am surprised to realize that the Featured Pictures are not sorted or categorized by country of origin, or by quite a number of other criteria. Another user recently asked here for a list of Japan-related featured pictures, but as these are divided between "History", "Culture, entertainment and lifestyle", "Artwork", "People", and "Places", it's not very easy to find such a list.

I realize it's a bit of an undertaking, but I should like to propose that new extra sub-categories be created so as to improve users' ability to find featured images relevant to a particular topic, and/or to simply satisfy people's curiosity as to what images, or how many images, are featured for a given subject. LordAmeth 09:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisting criteria debate

There is currently a discussion between different schools of thought on Delisting Featured Pictures. Central to the debate is the "burden of proof" for a delisting - whether to require a photo to justify being an FP, or conversely, justify being delisted. Please comment at: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria For Delisting

Featured picture cleaned up

Can anyone here deal with this? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The place to take it would be Talk:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_Picture_of_the_Day.2FToday.27s_featured_picture, but... is there really any point? A 1px dust spot is not really worth hassling an admin over, IMO, but it's your call (and/or Eric's). --YFB ¿ 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was yesterday's featured pic, so no. But featured pics are still used elsewhere and are browsed. Theoretically the image should be unprotected by now (or in a few days), so Eric could then upload it himself. Carcharoth 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a 4 pixels spot. Ericd 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That tells him. :-) Carcharoth 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, my bad. Well, in that case the simplest thing would be to wait for it to be unprotected, as Carcharoth suggests. --YFB ¿ 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain that's a defect in the image and not a variation the in feathers/down? If you look at the tail there are a few similar spots Nil Einne 10:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And when I look elsewhere there are other ones altougth smaller than the one I removed. I may be biased by my experience of removing dust spots on argentic pictures. I must confess that sometimes I can't make the difference between a dust spot and a real detail of the picture. Dust on the CCD should result in dark spot. What could be these clear spots if they're not the result of some problem in digital processing ?

- Real variations in the feathers should be under pixel size at least in one dimension and very brigth to look like this? I don't believe in this hypothesis.

- Maybe water droplets either on the feathers on somewhere between the camera and the bird ? With some ligth reflection this may produce something like this.

- A signiticative radioactivity. I've never experienced it but this may have some effect on a CCD. (It is not as silly as it sound heavy radioctive elements concentrate in rivers and marecages (An old Super Takumar works well too).

- Aliens. Well this one is just silly but who knows ?

My vote is for digital artifacts. But other hypothesis are welcome.

Ericd 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, are we still discussing this!? I think we might want to look at this over the metaphorical edge of Occam's Razor - this is a shorebird photographed in its natural habitat, which is... mud and sand flats. Any chance that, rather than a weird feather, flying droplets, slow neutrons or extraterrestrial interference, is it possible that the bird might not have been 100% spotlessly clean and that what's on it is a couple of small sand particles? I can't envisage a reason why the camera/software processing would introduce these dots and in all honesty, I'm sure there are plenty of images in much greater need of cleaning up than this one! --YFB ¿ 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I had a look, and the "dust spot" seems to have a shadow. I have to say, I agree that it probably is a grain of sand! LOL! How embarassing. Make that a new featured picture criteria: make sure all animals are thoroughly clean before photographing them! Carcharoth 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good list, Good picture?

How come there's good article but not good list or picture? But all of them have featured section. OhanaUnited 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Try QI at Commons. J Are you green? 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shallow water waves.gif

I recently promoted this animation consistent with its FPC, but as an infrequent FP contributor I may have erred on two items. First, this is one of several featured .gifs that cannot be displayed other than at full size, and so its appearance at on the FP main page is exceedingly large. I don't see in the recent history our having dealt with a similar issue, and I wonder whether we should keep the rather large image as one of the three recent promotions in its category or should simply omit it from the FP main page altogether (there is a smaller version, Image:Shallow water waves 250px.gif, but its candidacy failed in favor of the larger image). Separately, I wonder if this is properly situated at the diagrams, drawings, and maps subpage or if it might be better placed in the sciences (or perhaps even the natural phenomena) category. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Joe 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do a screen capture so that you get a still frame, then use the syntax [[Image:Example.png|thumb=Thumb.png]]. See the very bottom of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena for an example. howcheng {chat} 06:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

screen-viewable versions of FPs (proposal)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include a downsampled version of featured pictures which (these days) are of such high resolution that you can't actually see them? I've just uploaded this version of a current FP candidate at the request of a reviewer and it was quite a revelation to see it at 1200 pixels. Even some macro, pano and landscape shots would benefit from being able to see the image slightly bigger than full-screen instead of three feet by four. At present, you click on a POD and find a measley 800x600 on the image page; click that and all you're likely to get is a screen full of pixels!
I may be wrong, but I think the 800x600 preview harks back to the days when the preview would fill a VGA monitor and hence be suitable for "wallpaper". Whereas VGA resolution is still a good preview, we need something between this and full-res to properly appreciate the pictorial (AOT technical) qualities of our FPs. In many respects, this would make the FP candidature selection quite a bit easier too. The image I just downsampled was very hard to view, let alone evaluate, either at full size or VGA size.
Just to be clear, I'm proposing this be recommended (but not obligatory) for all FP canditates, while normal procedure for all successful nominations would be creation of a DS viewable version as the default link on the image page, with the FS version available from a separate link beneath it, like this:

Full screen (724 × 1200 pixel, file size: 333 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Full resolution (1558 × 2581 pixel, file size: 685 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

I confess I was originally thinking of all hi-res images, but decided this should maybe just be a FP thing. mikaul^talk 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The preview image size can be set in Special:Preferences under the file tab. You can select 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and unlimited (10,000x10,000). So perhaps your suggestion is moot in this case... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not really my point, but isn't the same argument put forward for user-specific thumb sizes? The consensus for a new default in recognition of bigger monitors etc seems to be growing. The salient point from that debate it that even logged-on readers have no idea that you can change these defaults. The vast majority of casual visitors to the main page will experience the same thing I described above. I'm really not arguing to replace the default preview anyway, but to add an option to FPs. Your FPs are all around the 10MP mark - don't you see the value of an intermediate preview size? mikaul^talk 07:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do see the value of it but I see the image size as a user-defined preference rather than something that should be imposed on the FPs, since different people have different screen resolutions. The thing is, how could your suggestion be easily implemented? All existing FPs would have to have a downsampled version created and linked on the image page, along with all new ones. We might as well use the existing image page image preview since it is already in place. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I knew you'd invoke a techie objection next ;) I'm really not sure, but I'd imagine a code-generated display size – like 100% width – might easily be added to existing FP image pages. I'm not sure all FPs need this though. In some cases, like the one above, a downsampled and optimised version is a real improvement to the online viewing experience, but that's not true of thinks like maps, macro shots, etc. It would only be necessary for a number FPs and is easily linked-to beneath the existing preview image – although a coded "image size" link to the full-screen version above the full resolution link would be better. Making it a viewing option for new FPCs wass the main impetus behind my proposal. mikaul^talk 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, mikaul, you asked for my input here, so I came by to give it. I support this idea of yours — I’m a college student whose main computer is a Toshiba laptop with integrated video that maxes out at 1024×768 pixels. When I try to look at some FPCs in my browser — for example, the continually-featured photography of Diliff, Dschwen, and Fir0002 — all I’ll get is a window full of blue pixels, and after scrolling around a bit, I’ll realize that it’s just the sky. This isn’t to knock their contributions to Wikipedia...those images are all awesome, and as far as I’m concerned, the higher the resolution, the better (except if you’re reluctant to release ultra-high-res shots, Diliff, and I completely understand your viewpoint). And file size is not an issue for me...I have cable internet at home, and an even faster connection at school. But I feel like the majority of users (and this is not scientific by any means, it’s just a feeling) surf the web with monitors at resolutions like 1024×768 and 1280×1024 (and now that widescreen monitors have begun to proliferate, 1280×800 and 1440×900). So I think an “optimized for screen viewing” version of FPs would be very helpful. Just my two cents. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the featured picture count

The query.php bot framework currently lists 821 transclusions of the template {{FeaturedPicture}}, yet the featured picture count is only 811. (It should drop to 820 due to this deleted image). The list is up to date, which is showing the picture I promoted an hour ago. This is probably due to closers of delist nominations not removing the featured picture status correctly or people who suddenly decide that their image is featured. Unfortunately I don't have time to deal with this right now, so here we are. MER-C 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's extremely easy to forget to update the counter on the Featured Pictures page. I'm actually surprised we're only 1 out. A while ago I went through all the Featured Pictures pages and made sure they all added up. I guess I'll start doing that again. It doesn't take too long. Raven4x4x 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There, done. As far as I can tell we have 820 Featured Pictures. I went through WP:FP, WP:FPT and the list of transclusions for the FP template. I found a few images that were on one list but not the other, there were a few that had not had the FP tag removed after being delisted or replaced. There were even a couple where the image had been deleted from commons but the image page here was still showing the FP tag. I found only one where someone had arbitrarily added the FP tag on their own image. The majority of fixes I did were where someone moved the image to commons and deleted the image page here, not realising that this got rid of all the tags. Still, I think the greatest source of error is people forgetting to update the count when they promote pictures. I'm sure I've done it myself a few times. Raven4x4x 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What should the FP standards be for film stills?

Screenshot of Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed in the American film It's a Wonderful Life (1946). The film lapsed into the public domain in the United States due to the failure of National Telefilm Associates, the last copyright owner, to renew. See film article for details. (The child actress portrayed is Karolyn Grimes).

In the discussion of the FPC nomination of the It's A Wonderful Life film still, a few users raise important points. I quote:

• Oppose. The image fails criteria no. 1, 2 and 3.--Svetovid 11:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Film stills bring up various problems; the technical standards are completely different, leading to Svetovid's points above, and indeed, the composition is entirely different as well. If this is an iconic shot, it's because it reminds us of the film, not because it is particularly interesting or well-composed in itself. It is, in fact, deliberately soft-focused, which makes sense in the context of the film but not so much as a stand-alone image. So I oppose this one, and if film still are regularly nominated there may need to be some discussion of them as a group. Chick Bowen 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chick Bowen's central point is well-taken: should the same standards that apply to other featured picture candidates also apply to film stills? Should it matter what the film still is purporting to illustrate? It seems to me that in the case of a clip like the current nominee, the question is whether the still illustrates the article about the film or about the actor. On the other hand, I can envision a hypothetical situation where (if the film Pulp Fiction were PD), a still could be used to illustrate Mexican Standoff. Spikebrennan 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chick Bowen raises an excellent question: should film stills be subject to the same standards as other featured picture candidates, or to other standards? What do you think? Spikebrennan 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Error in today's featured picture

I'm not sure where the best place is to post this, but this is probably a reasonable choice. There appears to be an error in today's featured picture: Image:US states by date of statehood3.gif. The fifth state, Massachusetts, goes blue at the correct time, but Maine also goes blue at that frame. Maine shows up correctly in the sequence of dates and names, but merely adds the name as the state has been blue for many frames by that time. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now posted to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors as I realized that was the right place. Mike Christie (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from Commons?

Hey there! I'm wondering why you are not using pictures selected from Commons, like most of other wikis? They're goin' though a worlwide vote and everything... Anything wrong with that? THX Antaya 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Discontinuation of Featured Picture on Wikipedia

This may have been proposed before but I think that Featured Picture nominations and promotions should be discontinued on the English Wikipedia (and all Wikipedias) in favor of the permanent move to the Commons. I don't understand having a FP section here when most of the images that are promoted should, and in most cases are, on the Commons. The Commons has its own FP page. Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the main reasons is that our criteria are significantly different. While Commons focuses on the quality of the image, Wikipedia also factors whether a picture is encyclopedic or not. Also, if we had commons pictures for or POTD, we would eventually have pictures on the front of the page that were not in any articles on Wikipedia. Actually, the main reason that other languages use Commons is because they simply do not have the resources to maintain there own featured picture nomination process. NauticaShades 00:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons does take the encyclopedic thing into account too. They're just a little more open to what can be "encyclopedic". Rocket000 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8 and a proposed bot function

Somewhat related to the above, could those who understand the reason for the Featured Pic clauses at WP:CSD#I8 explain them at User talk:Betacommand/Commons#CSD I8. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

I look at the featured picture almost daily, and the scope of the subject matter seems too limited. Today marks the second day in the past several months that I've seen a Bezier Curve as the featured picture. That's great, but given the near-infinite number of pictures in the world, it should be many years before two are even similar. Also, look in the archives for the past few weeks and the next few days, and you'll find that a disproportionate number of pictures are of two things: buildings or insects. I know these are good things for featured pictures, but there should be more different things between two pictures with similar subjects, given, as I mentioned before, the near-infinite number of subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Hemp Necktie (talk • contribs) 23:15:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

There are several reasons for the lack of "true diversity": Pictures of the Day are selected form a pool of Featured pictures, which is a finite, incomplete and unrepresentative (of all WP images) set of pictures. There's a recognised bias in favour of highly photogenic subjects, which, although there are frequent exceptions, is a natural consequence of the quest for "outstanding images". This all depends in turn on the subject choice of some highly-skilled regular contributors that has the effect of increasing the likelihood of that subject matter appearing on the main page. All thing considered, I think the selections are about as diverse as they could be, really. mikaul^talk 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mess with USS Shaw

Well, for the moment we have two almost duplicate featured pictures Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg and Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png. It looks like the former was promoted, then uploaded to Commons in different (and I would say unsuitable) format, with all links changed like this (and it looks like it was retouched in the process). The PNG has even been the Picture of the Day. I noticed it because WP:CSD#I8 deletion has been requested for the JPEG (which I refused). Now, if I get it right, all links should be changed back to the JPEG. You cannot just convert a featured picture to PNG and say it's featured, can you? Conscious 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg on 17:51, 2 January 2007 not knowing that the same photo existed at Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png which was uploaded three months earlier on 02:14, 4 September 2006. Since Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg was uploaded it received a Featured Picture status on 08:46, 31 May 2007. Then while migrating other pictures to the wikicommons I found the Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png image. It was not converted by me into a PNG nor is it likely that someone else did as it was uploaded three months before the JPEG image was uploaded. When I found the other Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png I decided that since the PNG image had more articles using the image and a more descriptive picture title that it should be the main picture and the JPEG I uploaded erased. I then, as talked about above, changed the few instances where the JPEG Shaw was used to the PNG Shaw image.

As for the apparent retouches I actually didn't notice them but there is just as much chance that the PNG is the original and the JPEG is a duplicate that was damaged while being developed as the other way around. In fact looking at this cropped version from the US archives there doesn't appear to be any blemishes. -- Esemono 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The featured picture status has been given to the JPEG, so I'm going to change all links back to it. Given that the PNG is probably of higher quality (lossless format, no blemishes), it's probably better to have it as a featured picture, but I'd suggest starting a FPC discussion about it. Conscious 10:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary? What is the point of having two pictures that are the same? Seems like a waster of space -- Esemono 10:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not exactly the same. I may agree with you, but if you want to (a) transfer FP status from one image to another, and (b) delete the old image, you need to get community approval for this, via WP:FPC and WP:IFD. Conscious 10:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg was never Picture of the day by the way, that was Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png. Please revert this mistake so I can put the image up for deletion. -- Esemono 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it has been selected for tomorrow. Conscious 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On Sept 11 Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png was put up for Picture of the day then on Sept User:Conscious mistakenly changed the file to Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg. Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg was never nominated Picture of the day. Change your error and revert the edits. Change the the file to Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png. -- Esemono 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made a nomination to transfer the featured status. Conscious 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, forget it, comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/USS Shaw exploding. Conscious 11:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Chicago related FPs

How can I determine all current and former WP:FPs related to WP:CHICAGO? I have gone through all the monthly archives at WP:POTD searching for "Chicago". Are there other images that should be included at WP:CHIFC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:FPCArchiveBar has links to monthly archives of closed FPC noms. MER-C 05:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That helps a bit, but I still have to recognize all Chicago pictures on sight. I guess there is no other way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

outer space

THERE?S NO OUTER SPACE FP PICS SECTION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.233.85 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

SRSLY!?! We better go steal some from Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy! Rocket000 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Interviews preserved on You Tube

OK, for us newbies, is it possible to pin down the veracity of the statements made on pages about people when the only found interviews are on You Tube? If so, how? Thanks---leahtwosaints (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've really no idea, but I'd say not. Try posing the question at Wikipedia:village pump.--mikaul^talk 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

move to portal namespace

See Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace. —Ruud 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)