Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leonard Siffleet was just closed today when I withdrew it — we could have an FP of the original photo, but the scan we're using has problems that disqualified it. Are nominations like this one considered disruptive at all? Nobody's accused me of being disruptive, but I know so little about FPC that I'm not sure what to think. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have a computer with a lot of memory and a copy of Hugin? I can provide a copy of the original scans and the more-or-less ready-to-run Hugin file. As it is, I've had to scale it down a bit, so it's "only" 8000 pixels wide. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So, this is, of course, quite premature to be nominated (both Ruddigore images were rather dirty, and will need a lot of cleanup), but is the key I made clear enough? (And if not, does a quick skim of Ruddigore make everything clear?) Adam Cuerden(talk)07:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, best to formally close everything, avoids confusion in the future if we find the abandoned nomiation that's not closed.... — raekyt03:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've created a delist nomination, but I'm apparently overlooking instructions about what to do with it. Where do I transclude it? And is there a template that I should place on the filepage to say "This is a candidate for removal"? Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No chance, in my opinion. Small size (less than 2Mp, according to guidelines) is not mitigated by quality or high EV. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Afraid I have to agree with Alvesgaspar, if this was much larger I'd say crop the bottom and the top slightly to reduce the distractions that add nothing to the subject and you'd have a fairly strong image but this is about 1000 pixels below minimum size per side as it is. Cat-fivetc ---- 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Given that the OP is saying he'll bug the source for a bigger image if it has potential, I'd assume that the image size isn't a relevant factor here. MChesterMC (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just had a nomination - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dustforce closed without having reached consensus to promote. There were no opposes, but it was one support short. Is there a relisting procedure at FPC? Is there some kind of time out period? I'd just stick it at the top again, but am wary of pissing the regulars off. - hahnchen23:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen, there is no procedure except to start a new nomination page, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dustforce 2. Don't reuse the old, to-be-archived nomination. It's kind to mention that it's a second nomination (including a link to the first) and it's okay to mention there were no opposes before. People have varying schedules and don't always look closely at every nomination. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I would wait a few months to give people a break. nominate some others. Also, realize that lack of supports often is a bit of a pocket veto as some people don't like to vote oppose (especially if the image is decent but not really star-worthy).TCO (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Agricola, 1500s father of mineralogy
There were a series of beautiful images made for Georgius Agricola's last and most famous work, De re Metallica. They delayed publication for a year (and the book came out after his death). They have a very draftmanlike quality (almost like some doing isometric drawings). Renaissance use of perspective, I guess. And lots of content (even at the time) in terms of the lettered labeling of apparatus. Plus, they just look sort of Escher or Durer like. Don't they?
Which do you like best? (See Commons category for more.)
SmeltingMining with fireGold panningOre processing
Also, any tips on getting a high enough res image?
I think these kinds of images would be very featureable. Most of the articles about the topics discussed in the work seem to have historical sections with contemporary (but presently low quality) illustrations; they would have obvious EV in those circumstances. Clearly a set of the images would be useful for the articles on De Re Metallic and Agricola himself. As for acquiring some higher resolution images, a google search reveals some freely available. A little bit more digging brings up this which has high resolution but GIF only images on a CD for £10. Another potential resource is here, but that also requires an apparently paid account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowtowner (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks man. Let's work together and get something done. I will go buy the CD. Might need a little help with cropping or tweaking. And selection. The first image, I use in Fluorine (a pretty high view article). And several are probably good for history sections of various mining/metallurgy articles.TCO (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Some of the articles I was looking at were Blast furnace, Smelting, and Minecart (which actually used a Agricola image, but for some reason and awful copy of one we have available, now replaced). There's likely a plethora of other topics out there that are worth integrating the engravings into. As for the CD, I suspect that the Bridgeart images would be a better option that the GIFs, but the Bridgeart ones are also prohibitively expensive. I don't have experience trying to get free images out of sources but if someone who does wants to get involved, that would be great. Cowtowner (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll start a Commons VP thread. For 10 bucks, it's a no brainer. Even just forgetting about FP, just to grab the images. (I feel a little ethically torn, since we limit their ability to go running around charging 10 bucks for more CDs. But I could really use those shots in a lot of articles...)TCO (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough; I wouldn't feel too badly about limiting their ability to sell more CDs. The site makes it pretty clear that they only ask for the 10 pound to cover the cost of the CD and mailing it out; if anything you'll have saved someone some future effort. Send them a mail after and let them know that they're uploaded to Wikipedia and maybe they'll just link to it directly. My real ethical qualm is the fact they're (read Bridgeart and similar sites) are profitting off of stuff that's long been PD and they didn't make. Cowtowner (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The first one's crop is very awkward, unfortunately - it cuts off parts of the artwork in ways that makes it unusable for reprinting. The second one clips the edge a little bit - wider borders would be better, and you should probably include the details of what letter means what, at least somewhere, but those fonts look awfully modern - so I'd consider cutting these particular captions, as being non-original, if that is true. Honestly, though, if you're getting new copies, all this is pretty academic outside of "what not to do when uploading".
For what I'd suggest doing with them? Put a gallery in De Re Metallic, include all the images, if at all possible; nominate them as a set. Completeness is valuable in and of itself. Add them to any other relevant articles, and document as Adam Cuerden(talk)21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could weigh in as an image restorer on the rather stark black and white quality of the images. I found a couple of contemporary woodcuts featured already in our gallery, and they have the same dichromatic quality to them. However on other sources there seems to be more nuance to the lines. What do you see as more valuable--a scan of the print, or what these amount to, a reproduction of the woodblock's intended form? Cowtowner (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Black and white isn't necessarily bad, but I'd prefer scans of the print where possible. However, one should try to avoid modern paper textures in older works, so if there's no attempt to match the old paper, I'd edit the paper texture out, to avoid misleading. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I ordered the CD. No brainer to pay for that, but I just had to do the hassle of making a Paypal acct and all that. Now to wait. The guy has to send it overseas too.
I'll let you know how it looks. It is supposed to be 300dpi scan (is that good?)
TBH, just uploading all the images and organizing them into book chapers, giving page notes, giving the ABC info, and relevant descriptions from the Hoover translation is like a worthy project in and of itself. But now it is just a total disorganized mess on Commons. They are worried I will delete their old versions, but I won't. I'm very tolerant of different image versions because I see all the time that different EV needs different crops and that when you have people from different language projects using same file, you should be very wary of uploading and changing their articles.
On the technical side, I wonder how they do a coffee-table book or even just a printed copy of the Hoover translation (maybe I will buy that on Amazon). Like do they recut the plates? Do the original plates (450 years old!) exist somewhere and are they printable with? Is there some electronic process that is used when a book is put out? I know that the resolution of printed material is much better than what displays on a laptop...so quality work needs to not look like someone Xeroxed the crap out of an old manuscript. But I don't know how they do it.
(update) I went to the library to look at a book copy. It looks better than what we have, but still you can definitely see defects. The one I have is hard cover and from 1950. I think there was a 1912 printing, don't know the quality of that. To really clean up all these prints and recut engravings or even the electronic versions of engravings would probably be a work of a year or two of a skilled graphic artist. We are talking 250 illustrations with significant detail. But maybe just getting the best scan up and organizing it would be good.
P.s. They are displayed half-page or full-page (and the book is about A4 sized paper). So that shows how people normally read this stuff. Not tiny embedded thumbs. (TCO)
I look forward to seeing the outcome. At 300dpi off of the described sizes (which I assume is the same kind of source that the CD has) they should be sufficient resolution for this kind of medium. There wouldn't be much to be gained by going bigger. For interest, there are two woodcuts currently featured in our gallery. This image dating from the 19th century and being of considerable detail. This one of trepanation is contemporary to the De Re Metallica. I think it is a pretty good baseline for what we would expect out of a featured woodcut as it serves a similar purpose (diagram) and is of a similar date. For interest, here is a woodcut by Dürer who was the preeminent artist in the medium at the time. I think at that size it would be a great candidate for being featured (though I think this version may be slightly cut off), especially if we had images of comparable quality for the other 14 cuts in the series. Also, I came across an .svg version of the image based on the .jpg (interesting it includes the whole image up to the borders, I'm not sure where the extra detail was acquired from). Cowtowner (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw those two when I was going through the gallery; I excluded them because they were using white line as well as black. I think the trepanation image would still more or less meet standards--slightly cleaner lines would be ideal. The reality is that for the size of the original images and the detail which was included in the block there's not much more to be seen. My suspicion is that the GIFs on the CD look a lot like that. Cowtowner (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I took the book home from the library. It is the 1950 Dover edition. I want to take a look at the 1912 Hoover printing which supposedly had higher quality. Not sure if this was just paper and binding or if related to the illos. I know that Hoover supposedly did work to get the woodcuts redone well. They don't look yellowed or like photocopies...but at least in the 1950 edition, they were not sharp. I might be just being too picky, not sure. At the end of the day, we are talking about mass printing, even in the time of Agricola, so the quality is not like a fresh painting. Is some wear on the blocks for instance as printed.
An interesting article, here: "The finished translation, replete with a learned but still charming scholarly apparatus, was printed and published privately by the Hoovers in 1912 while they were still living at the Red House in London. Great care was taken to use appropriate paper and type to give the feeling of the original De Re Metallica, and the woodblock prints were reproduced with precision. The Hoovers' close friend Edgar Rickard was entrusted with the task of supervising the publication because of his background in technical publishing. The printer and binder was Albert Frost, who selected a fine vellum for the binding. Three thousand copies were printed. Some were sold, but the majority were sent as gifts to the Hoovers' friends and associates."
Is a 'brary near me with the 1912 version. I will go take a look at it. Bring the 1950 version with me to compare.TCO (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I went and looked at the 1912 edition. (It was in Special Collections, but they brought it out. FYI, it costs 8,000 on ebay for a copy of this edition...and I think even at the time, was very much a luxury item because of the illos, size, low print run.) It is very similar to the Dover edition but a little nicer. The pages are more like 10 by 14 instead of A4 so the images are bigger. Slightly crisper look. The black borders of the cuts are sometimes a little spotty and they aren't completely clean cut (looks almost hand drawn but this may be intentional.) Engravings are not perfect in the very fine detail (may have been an issue even for the original, but I think hoover did get new plates made...am research this...may just be a limitation of the method). In the Dover, it seems like there is some graying where the fine marks are and this is cleaner in the 1912. Pages are slightly off color though (Dover quite white). The pagination is exactly the same in the main texts (so organizing the images by page number means someone referring to either edition does not get off.) There's a slight difference in the pagination of the preface text (Dover's fault), but that does not affect the woodcut organization as no pictures back there. The images look a little sharper in the 1912 (I think the 1950 may have been some sort of photographic reproduction...although it's "decent" for normal viewing).TCO (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want a comparison, the LoC has a scan of the original edition here, although it's a very black-and-white scan. There's a handful of others available if you search Agricola. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've looked at a bunch now and I find they all have some imperfections. (e.g. the process of printing itself being imperfect with fine lines). they are very functional and often very good. But you can still find little things that we would gig a photo for. They are quite artful though and you see them discussed in design classes and the like. There are some nice touches like the landscapes, costumes, managers hanging around while the workers work, dogs lying down, etc. At this point, I'm more interested in "the set" that you pushed me towards than the FP technical criteria. I will try to rack one of those up too, as a cherry on top. But I think just getting all the missing images up, organizing them in order, captioning the ABC and such would be most useful thing. Then someone can go to Commons and the stuff is all squared away...not the mess that is there now. BTW, I will just make it separate in case there are a few images that are better/worse/special crops/etc. And there is huge cross language usage.TCO (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Eliminating delist section (for real this time)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/President Barack Obama is a delist and replace that was listed in the main part of the FPC page, and nobody has objected to that so far. I think it is better to list delist nominations with the others, and I propose that we eliminate the delist section. I would ask someone who likes writing templates to write one that says "Delist" in some bright color (and not the red we use for expired noms--maybe green or something), and then make Template:FPCdel add it to delist noms. Obviously the webform for FPCdel will have to be moved someplace else, probably to the top, under the main nomination form. What else would need to be done?
To review:
Pros
More eyes on delist and delist and replace noms.
Cons
Can't think of any! It's not like there are so many delist noms that they will clutter the page.
100% Agree. I had been thinking of this same thing for a few days. We can easily incorporate the delist noms into the regular section. This will make the delist process much easier and accessible.
In regards to the template, I would suggest that instead of something specific to delists, we standardize on placing DELIST:, CANDIDATE: and DELIST & REPLACE: (or something along those lines) at the beginning of every nomination. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅23:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the proposal is designed to make such issues obsolete. It may be that what I proposed in the swamphen case is not ideal, but I doubt it will actually happen, and anyway in that case it does seem to me inevitable that the old one will be delisted, by whatever means. Chick Bowen18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but the two have different voting periods: 9 days for promoting new featured pictures and 14 days for delisting/delisting and replacing a featured picture. ArmbrustTheHomunculus18:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
See my suggestion below. The switch would have to affect the vote period too, then. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I assume this means delists would/may pile up at the bottom of the TOC at any rate. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Support, if for no other reason than that it obviates the confusion that is evident in the section just above this one. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Support I agree with nom and Wingtip that delist/delist & replace should be mentioned in the nomination title, and this would require updating the template (another switch, I assume). I'm not sure if "Candidate" needs to be mentioned because the majority of nominations will be candidacies for FP promotion, and this would clutter up the Table of Contents. So I propose either of the following template form:
Old suggestion
Option 1
Option 2
{{subst:FPCnom
| <!-- Please fill out this data and then click "Save Page" -->
| type = one of { candidate, delist, replace }
| title = a title for the nomination
[...]
| previous nominations = <!--link(s) to the image's original FPC nomination and any previous delist noms-->
{{subst:FPCnom
| <!-- Please fill out this data and then click "Save Page" -->
| type = <!--leave blank for regular nomination, or type either { delist, replace }-->
| title = a title for the nomination
[...]
| previous nominations = <!--link(s) to the image's original FPC nomination and any previous delist noms-->
Option 1 would force nominators to write "candidate" every time. Option 2 would allow regular nominators to not worry about this field. Both options would result in one of these three, possibly:
Candidate image placed in the "candidate image" parameter. "Delist image" is left blank. = 9-day nomination.
Delist image placed in the "delist image" parameter. "Candidate image" is left blank. = 14-day delist nomination.
Both "candidate image" and "delist image" parameters have file names in them. = 14-day delist/replace nomination.
Depending on which parameters have image names in them, headers will appear like:
Title of nominated file
Delist: Title of nominated file
Delist & Replace: Title of nominated file
Note that "previous nominations" can actually be used for a candidate nomination's second attempt. I've seen this happen a few times. I also took the liberty of slightly re-phrasing some of the parameter definitions.
I think it's best to keep the templates as simple as possible; making FPC easy to use outweighs extra functionality.
In addition, keeping FPCdel has some major benefits: I presume we want to keep the separate archives, and with different templates, it's relatively simple to add code to alert users if something gets archived into the wrong one, using #titleparts and a simple #ifeq. It allows us to customise the template as much as is needed, without needing a lot of #if checks to see which template we're working with, and so on. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I do agree; and I hadn't thought of the archiving situation fully. (The lengthy template above popped into my head this morning, so I had to jot it down here.) But simplicity would allow newcomers to join the community and not feel intimidated or overwhelmed by having to familiarize themselves with an overabundance of template text, which is something we inspired to do at the Photography workshop a while ago, in trying to let newcomer editors feel welcome without a bunch of scary rules. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I will say up front I am not overly familiar with templates. To me the idea of a single template where you select what kind of nom you want sounds great for the sake of simplicity and maintenance. As far as Adam's comment, it is something to consider if now that we'll have all the noms in the same section of the page, we should continue to archive separately. Kerαunoςcoxies' suggestions are good, and have my support. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅18:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: even though there's been no opposition to this yet I'd like to get a couple more comments before actually doing it. However, I'm actually going to be traveling for quite a while after tomorrow, so I'd encourage someone else to take the lead on this (Keraunoscopia? regardless, thanks for the great work on the template question). Chick Bowen01:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This comment is a two parter. I wanted to break it up so that it wasn't just one large blob of text but please feel free to reply after the first part if the mood suits you. I'll sign and date this and both parts to avoid confusion. Cat-fivetc ---- 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Since more input was requested, I just want to say that I support this wholeheartedly as long as, as was suggested above, delist noms start with "Delist:" on the title for every nom and the template uses different colors or something else to very VERY VEEEEEERRRRRYYYYYY clearly differentiate delist listings from nomination listings. I'm not an expert by any means on templates but if you get a template mocked up and ready and want an extra set of eyes on it please feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to look, otherwise I look forward to seeing this implemented. Cat-fivetc ---- 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest Green for nominations, a dark yellow for delist/replace, and a red for delist. That would give three distinct colors that would immediately be clear and would fit with general cultural connotations in the English speaking world (which enwiki is geared towards) as to go, slow, stop. Also, as to the above suggestion by Wingtipvortex. I'm not sure how that could be done in one template except by using a single variable (type=[nomination|delist|delist-replace] which might confuse a lot of people. Giving people the delist instructions right below the listing instructions, along with it's own pre-fill button, like already exists for nominations, eliminates most of that possible confusion. Cat-fivetc ---- 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Cat-five, if you look at the collapsed bar above that says "Option 2 template", you'll see a mockup of a single template that could be used for three types of nominations (candidacy, delist, and delist/replace). The "type=" parameter I introduced even earlier would be a nuisance and not necessary. Finally, I too may be away over the next couple of days (or not on as frequently). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the option 2 template again and my only suggestion would be to break it into 2 or 3 sections,at least in the wiki-code, using html comments might be a good way to do that. The first being anything that's going to be common for all three types of listing, the second only for nominations, and the third for delist and delist/replace nominations. That way it makes it very clear to the person filling it out what sections they should be filling in and which ones should be left blank. Maybe also bold the ones that need to be filled for each one of a type of nom, for example previous nominations/delists would not be bolded since it is not needed if there was no previous nomination/delist.
Here is an example of what I was thinking of. Think of this as pseudo-code because this would require a bit of template rewriting to do, although mainly I just jumbled up the variable order so it wouldn't be too bad (in theory). Let me know what you think of this, I think it's easier to read and with a few exceptions like (articles, which may be good to have for both listing and delisting) pretty much all the variables would be cut and dry.
Option 2 template - v.c5
<!--
Placing an image in the 'delist image' parameter will automatically add "DELIST" to beginning of title. All delist nominations are listed for 14 days
-->
{{subst:FPCnom
| <!-- fill out form below -->
| <!-- SECTION 1: FILL OUT FOR ALL NOMINATIONS -->
| title = a title for the nomination
| reason = why image meets FPC criteria (check criteria first); or why image should be delisted</nowiki>
| previous nominations = link(s) to the image's original/first FPC nomination and any previous delist noms
| creator = the creator of the image, where possible using the format [[User:Wikiuser|]]
| <!-- SECTION 2: FILL OUT ONLY TO NOMINATE AN IMAGE FOR FEATURED STATUS OR REPLACEMENT, FOR DELIST NOMINATIONS SEE SECTION 3 -->
| candidate image = <!--(excluding "File:") For candidate and 'delist/replace'. Leave blank for delist-only nominations-->
| candidate format = one of { pano, portrait, landscape, square }
| caption = a caption for the candidate image, providing adequate context for voters on WP:FPC
| articles = links to the article(s) that use the image(s), in order of highest encyclopedic value
| category = link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
| <!-- SECTION 3: FILL OUT ONLY FOR DELISTING WITHOUT REPLACEMENT NOMINATIONS -->
| delist image = <!--(excluding "File:") For delist and 'delist/replace' nominations-->
| delist format = one of { pano, portrait, landscape, square }
Candidate image placed in the "candidate image" parameter. "Delist image" is left blank. = 9-day nomination.
Delist image placed in the "delist image" parameter. "Candidate image" is left blank. = 14-day delist nomination.
Both "candidate image" and "delist image" parameters have file names in them. = 14-day delist/replace nomination.
Depending on which parameters have image names in them, headers will appear like:
Title of nominated file
Delist: Title of nominated file
Delist & Replace: Title of nominated file
Note that "previous nominations" can actually be used for a candidate nomination's second attempt. I've seen this happen a few times. I also took the liberty of slightly re-phrasing some of the parameter definitions.
Please note that for this example I just used the {{color|yellow}} yellow, which is an ugly color that is not particularly friendly to readers with visual impairments. Presumably if we decided to go with the this type of color scheme, as I suggested above, we'd have to pick a better color. Also, I'm happy to take a first crack at trying to implement anything that the consensus is for when one is established if nobody else steps up to do it. I doubt I'm the most qualified person but using slow trial and error (in a Sandbox of course) I think I might be able to get a new template to work. I don't think there's any rush though and there should be a solid consensus before any change is put into place. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I too will be more or less gone for some time after tomorrow. Whichever way this is decided to be done, I think my full support is clear. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's in any rush. It might be nice to get a rough consensus at least so anyone who is interested can try to fiddle around with the code towards a workable solution on something (it looks like the option 2 template (the original, not necessarily my variation) has consensus right now) but otherwise it's not like anything is broken as is. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Retain two archives?
There's definite support for incorporating Delists with Nominations, so aside from pending comments from others, that seems to be where FP is headed. But there is no consensus on is how to handle the template. Adam Cuerdon made a point regarding archiving—and keeping two separate templates for two different archives. I'm still relatively new to FP workings, but it appears candidates are (for example) archived here and delists are archived here. Are there any pros and cons to having two separate archives? Also, currently archiving is done manually. Has there ever been any discussion about implementing a bot? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no objections in principle to keeping two archives, however if nominations are all going to be in the page format of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/[NOMINATION NAME] (even if the title on the page has delist in it), then that's going to make sorting them tricky and possibly confusing. That being said, as it is, often you have to go to what links here on an image page to see all the nominations and delists since they aren't all cross-linked to each other's pages so it can't make it much more confusing. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This may seem crude, but the most sensible way to go about this to me seems to simply taking the current Delist box and adding it to the end of the FPC header and putting a title in it. All images for delisting continue to go under a /delist/Nomination sort of format making it easy to separate the archives. I'd suggest altering it so that all nominations made out of that would start their title with "DELIST: Nomination name" or something similar so they can easily be distinguished in the list and we don't end up with a pile of confusion (though we would have some ugly names of /delist/Delistthisimage). Most (probably all) of the delist nominations are made by editors who are already familiar with the project (as opposed to the many new editors who propose candidates for promotion) so there's not much risk of confusion, particularly since it would come at the end of the rest of the project information. Again, crude, basic, but "keep it simple, stupid" seems sensible to me. Cowtowner (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not overly crude, and it's the simplest way to proceed—I think we were only waiting for a few more comments, but before this thing becomes stagnant, I'll create a quick FPCnom/sandbox and attempt at moving stuff around. There's also a delist redirect to worry about and I've been wondering if we can't put the Edit notice (very top of screen) to better use. But I have no idea how to access that! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies16:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by not knowing how/where to access it. In any case, my somewhat pointy plan was to let my current delist nomination go on for a week, if no one complained deleted the Delist section, move the head to the top and change the box so that DELIST: appears in the title by default (assuming the editor doesn't delete it) and then integrate whatever open delists there were into the queue and hoping no one objects. Cowtowner (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on it. I can access the other edit notices, I'm just not super smart with this stuff, but give me a bit longer. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
New header and edit notices
Please take a look at the following links and see what you guys think.
Along with one or two redirects I came across, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nomination procedure would have to be updated to reflect the delisting, plus the peer review page mention should probably be changed to this talk page, since PR seems to be dead. I'll happily work on this once I get a feeling if whether or not the above links are approved or not. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
This looks pretty good to me. The top header would obviously lose the "Candidates for delisting link". I think that the Delist/Delist and Replace box should have "Delist: or Replace:" written in it by default, if only to encourage users to distinguish between nominations in the title, streamline the table of contents and clarify the FPC page as a whole for browsing editors (actually, I think it's critical that we ensure the nominations are clearly labelled, this seems a simple way to facilitate it. There is part of me that thinks the delist box should be kept completely separate from the nomination to encourage (new) users to read the instructions on commenting. As it stands with the mixed instructions there seems to be potential for confusion or just ignoring the guidelines. Maybe I should trust editors more. Aesthetically, I have to say I'm not a big fan of the mustard yellow borders, but that's negligible. Good work. Cowtowner (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the redundant link! As for border colors, I've changed to blue (better? worse?) and then if I understood you correctly, I added a Delist and Replace option to the title parameter here (that's a live edit window). I don't think there was any consensus above for red "delete" and green "delete and replace" so I've just kept it red. I didn't add "or Replace" to the first color template, though I could use:
{{color|red|Delist<!-- and Relist-->: }}
The delist box originally had "delist" within the actual page name (...candidates/delist/DELIST: ) but that seemed really redundant and just looked messy to me. The Delist should appear in the actual title though, which it does.
As for mixing the instructions, this keeps the /Header page short (or as short as it can be). It may seem confusing at first, but really it's not. The /Header page has one paragraph introducing the FPC, then it goes into the nomination instructions, and then the delisting instructions. Same thing in the lower portion, with "how to comment" separated into Candidate nomination and Delisting nomination. I feel it's pretty tight. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You're spot on about what I meant for the title parameter. The only way I knew of making sure it showed up was literally writing it in the box, which was terribly unaesthetic. Your solution is elegant. Red or green or black I don't think it makes a big difference. The blue looks much better. To me the instructions are fine for my eyes, I was trying to see it through the eyes of someone new to the project. Looking at it again I think you're right it is pretty clear and the order makes more sense on a second view (instructions for comments on both kinds of nomination would logically come before editing candidates and monitor calibration). Again, good work. Cowtowner (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I'll wait for a few more comments (I know some people are out of town) to make sure all is settled. There should be no issues for the users who do the archiving. Also, like you said, once this is implemented, the current delist noms would be integrated up into the section above and the lower delist section removed. Hopefully no one will mind this jump, but it'd be impossible to avoid without having two delist sections overlapping. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it would be awkward without the integration. It has occurred to me, however, that the delists will eventually accumulate at the bottom of the nominations as they run for 14 days as opposed to 10. I don't see it being a major issue, ultimately, but should feedback pickup as a result of the change we may look at reducing the runtime to 10 days. Cowtowner (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, I mentioned the "settling" of delists above, but you bring up a good point—in fact, an aimed-at-anyone question, is that why delists are around for 14 days? If so, then we can hope this new change will make them require less time; 10 would seem fair. Obviously time will tell. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed your earlier comment. But that was the problem the 14 day period was intended to address--low participation. Let's hope this solves it. Cowtowner (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
:) Most of my lengthy jibber-jabber up above is irrelevant by now. I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered about the delists accumulating, though, but at least you came up with a very possible solution. I admit I've never really participated in delists (just a few) and that was because I never bothered to scroll down the ol' page. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick update, I've been tweaking another sandbox page (Nomination procedure), and then I'll go through all the text to make sure everything is up-to-date and consistent, including the removal of any WP:PRR mentions, etc. If there's no more comments, I'll probably go ahead and make everything "live" later this evening, which will include moving all current delists up—if I don't get to it, it's only because I'll be suddenly busy in real life. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone's wondering: it's slowly getting there, but it's a particularly spot-covered image, so, while I'm actively working on it regularly, I'm breaking to do things with a little more chance of getting finished in a day or two, because, well, one might wish it isn't so, but finishing things helps motivation.
This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments
to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more
familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?
When I wrote the above, I assumed that since FPs are associated with the home page, the descriptions would be at least semi-protected.
Now that I've realized they're not, I've gone ahead and edited the ones I was concerned with. However, that was because I knew what
changes were needed. If I had had to post about a problem and ask someone else to fix it, then the conflict I described above would
have applied. --50.100.192.246 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
On this subject - is there any real reason we can't just shove the old WT:FP archives on here, and redirect WT:FP to here? I think everyone uses here anyway. Adam Cuerden(talk)14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any immediate problem doing that. I get frustrated when a specific talk page (e.g., {{cite book}}) is redirected to the talk page of a higher level of template coding ({{Citation Style 1}}) and there's no immediately eye-catching infobox to tell me I've just been redirected... makes for awkward and vague questions on my part. Going from FP to FPC isn't that big a jump. Still, maybe a bright banner explaining where you are and where you may have come from would help—something a bit more magnetic than the crusty 1970's-looking tan infoboxes that are ubiquitous to nearly every talk page around these parts. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies15:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
A lot of the current images are underreviewed. I'll try to keep FPC urgents updated, but it's worth keeping an eye on things for the next week or so. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's look at what we have. Government would overlap with political, and it's probably (usually) helpful to keep them separate - we can always double-categorize if we need to, such as Presidents Eisenhower and Grant. So, let's look at what we have in other, and judge the remainder.
I think we certainly have enough for Science and Religion. Business is a little harder to judge (insofar as I'd have to read a lot of biographies to find out who some of the people are. As a first step, though, I'd start by removing the obviously-shouldn't-be-there ones: the people in traditional dress (that's explicitly what Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional is for); the writers, poets and similar (Entertainment), and maybe consider expanding Entertainment to "Entertainers, Writers and Artists", to make it a little more explicit (or should it be split?)Adam Cuerden(talk)18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I think maybe Artists could encompass writers (and a whole spectrum of other things) and would be a the more natural split from Entertainers (mostly actors, musicians and other stage performers?). Cowtowner (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. Here's what I propose (based, of course, on the suggestions above):
Split Entertainment into "Entertainment" and "Artists and Writers"
Add "Science and Engineering", "Religion", and "Business".
I think that using the "and" names will help resolve ambiguity, and keep people from shoving things into "Other". If people are fine with this, I'll do it this weekend. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It has high EV, visually appealing, and every other criteria. Only the shorter length, is below 1500 meters, but I think it is minor and we can make a small exception for it. Think of it. 117.197.75.177 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You can certainly nominate it, but you will need a login name. However, there are too many who would consider 1,130 pixels in the shorter dimension to be too small. This is not an image that cannot realistically be retaken at higher resolution. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, the first two images there would almost certainly not pass today, and the third would likely struggle, too. Cowtowner (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominate it. I think this place way way WAY overemphasizes technical aspects and way way WAY underemphasizes encyclopedic importance and compositional impact. And then they threaten to ban you if you vote your heart instead of following some drone-like ruuule which itself did not come down from God but was edit warred in or voted on by some tiny group. But that's the Wiki way. Thank God there is a real world with American freedom. Still, kinda sorta.TCO (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've begun work on the People category. Note I'm only redistributing People/Others to the new categories at the moment; I'm sure that there's going to be a number of people in other categories better put in one of the new ones. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
And we're done dividing "Other". As I said, probably lots of people elsewhere that should be in the new categories. If there's a bot that can check for featured pictures not appearing in any category, please run it. I mean, I do try hard to make sure I don't screw up, but... Adam Cuerden(talk)22:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that while 5 support votes is usually fine, in some months - Christmas, and apparently Summer - participation is lowered. Would it be a good idea to go back to 4 supports minimum? Adam Cuerden(talk)23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think 5 supports is pretty much scraping the barrel as it is for the number of people who should agree out of a project as large as Wikipedia. 4 is just way to little imho, even if there are slow periods. — raekyt19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Raeky that 4 is not enough. I was ok with extending the voting periods during christmas, but I'm not overly sure we can do that for the whole summer... That said I do notice participation has been a bit lower than usual lately. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅21:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Part of it may be due to reviewer fatigue; FPC goes through its highs and dries, and the past few months feel like they've been one extended high. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be the same time. I guess before when we had a separate delist section it was justified as it was assumed we didn't scroll all the way down there as often, but fortunately that has been resolved. Honestly though, I am not overly concerned, so I'm good with either shortening it or leaving as is. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
While we're updating, should we add, say, 3 days to all noms started in the month of December, similar to last year? It'd be a trivial addition if it's part of the template itself. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments in the UK - Jury members sought
I'm posting this request on the basis that editors here will have photographic interests and that many will be skilled photographers in their own right.
As you will probably already know, Wiki Loves Monuments (http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org) is an annual international photography contest and crowdsourcing event in which participants photograph and upload images of historic monuments to Wikimedia Commons. These images are then available for free use on Wikipedia and beyond. More details about this year's annual competition can be found at Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. The competition takes place throughout the month of September each year.
The UK part of this year's contest will focus specifically on listed buildings. This will be the first time the UK has taken part in the international competition, and we are now seeking people to join the UK jury.
We need at least three jury members, more preferably five, who would be available to judge on a volunteer basis in October.
We should ideally have:
A wikimedian who is a high-quality amateur photographer, preferably specializing in the built environment
A professional photographer
A heritage specialist.
Does anyone have personal contacts who might be suitable, or who could put us in touch with possible candidates? Please feel free to put your own name forward, if you are interested.
Hmm, the only photographers here I know who specialise in architecture are all in the UK (and may participate). Godot13 has done some very good architectural pictures in Israel though, and Godot's an American (I think). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help out a bit. While my focus is, of course, more on historical media, if nothing else, it might be useful to have someone who can help with any incidental artworks photographed. And I do visit a lot of historic buildings, as that's my preferred holiday Adam Cuerden(talk)14:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Recently the JPG versions of PlayStation 2 and GameCube pictures got promoted to FP instead of the transparent PNG version. I compared both versions in full resolution but I didn't notice any difference. In a thumbnail JPG had artifacts, PNG did not, plus transparent PNG looks nicer on a dark coloured infobox. Could someone tell me why the JPG version was selected? --Mika1h (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we like to have both versions, because PNGs are largely unusable on Wikipedia due to the thumbnailer for them, and JPEGs are far less useful for most high-resolution usages off Wikipedia. As en-wiki featured pictures are meant to point out things used on Wikipedia, the JPEG is generally the one promoted, but the PNG linked from the JPEG adds to the JPEG's value.
If we could get the devs to let pictures have an "amount of sharpening" parameter on their file page that could be tweaked, it'd help out a lot in many cases. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there Logs for monthly successful promotions?
Hi. I'm looking for a list of the raw numbers of un/successful FPCs from January 2010 till now. Are there any automated logs of this, or am I stuck with searching each month-page for the string "Promoted File:" ? Thanks :) –Quiddity (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Stuck searching each archive page, I'm afraid. I used to do the Signpost's summary of yearly featured content promotions, and I was always loathe to do FPC (even though it's a fairly unbroken process) because of those archives and my slow connection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Crisco 1492, 'tis good to know for sure, so that I'm not wasting effort! Fwiw, my method was: open monthly archive in Opera (which allows one to turn off images easily), write down the number from the ToC for candidate-total, copy-paste the entire page into notepad, [replace] the text "promoted file:" with "asdf" which gives a replacement-count, go to next month and repeat. I'm not sure if this is completely accurate, but it was the fastest "close-enough" method for my needs. ttfn, –Quiddity (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to nominate a gallery of SVG of polyhedra models, or perhaps a gallery of rotating polyhedra? The images are technically sharp and have great EV (at least for the more common shapes). As an example with the Platonic Solids:
If there's support for promoting either set of images, I'll go look for the other polyhedra ones to add to the gallery. Quanyails (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
On the whole, I'd prefer the rotating ones. Polyhedra aren't the hardest thing to draw (though the SVGs look good), but the rotation lifts it to the next level. Only issue is the animations are rather small. If the source file, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poly.pov, can be undeleted, it should be relatively easy to scale them up a little. Adam Cuerden(talk)03:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need large animations? Animations have disproportionately large file sizes, and we have to think of our mobile users with slower connection speeds. For what it's worth, here is how the animations look cropped to 220x220 and slowed down to 10 fps. Ten animations on a single page seem a bit much for my old computer—the original animations, running at 20 fps, consume lots of cpu cycles and are causing all of the animations to be a bit jerky, especially with the virus scan running in the background... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also the issue where thumbnails of large animated GIFs frequently don't play properly on Wikipedia, even though they play perfectly well at full size. How large is "large"? According to the Village Pump, 12.5 megabyte GIFs do not scale well in thumbnails. In my own experience, however, a 2.37 megabyte version of File:Algol_AB_movie_imaged_with_the_CHARA_interferometer.gif did not play well as a thumbnail (scroll down to the file history). There are many other examples of large animated GIFs that, as thumbnails, play well in some browsers but badly in others. For example, see the red folding animations in Platonic solids on the Spanish Wikipedia. They are supposed to loop, but whether or not they do so for you will depend on your browser, the phase of the moon, whether you have sacrificed to the proper gods etc. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I downloaded POV-Ray for Windows, studied the documentation, and looked at File:Poly.pov. It will take a while before I can write the necessary scripts, perform the rendering, and assemble the images into the large animations that you desire. I don't want to commit myself to anything, so if somebody else has time, I'm perfectly willing to bow out of the project. As I've stated before, I think it would be better if large animations were in streaming video rather than gif due to Wikipedia's rendering issues with large animated gifs. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe the thumbnailing limit went up to 25MPx some months ago, but I don't have time track down the discussion. --99of9 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Testing an animated gif that I had problems with before
I like it, makes me want to look at and enjoy the gallery, as opposed to it being just a repository. I hope someday in the future, the galleries can be even more compelling, let people really immerse themselves into these images. Wikipedia is a little too "web" old-fashioned sometimes. I also didn't know there was an easy way to do that formatting; doing the math gets kind of frustrating.. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Compelling/engaging is right, and the current ones do get a bit repositiory-ish. Indeed if we did adopt the new style, we should think about doing more with them. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
One flaw I found, though, was that if I didn't set the heights parameter to make them a little larger, some of the captions took up a lot of vertical space. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The uploader reuploaded it after having enlarged it, and says so in the upload comments as well. In the image's second nomination, I questioned the enlargement at the time. I've since noticed the uploader/nominator has a habit of enlarging images to 1500 to meet the "requirements". – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Noticed that. The pixelation seems pretty bad at 1500px, though I forget why I didn't check when it was nominated. This isn't something we should be encouraging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I found out, that 1 image was 5 times in the category as "File:STS-132- Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis.ogv", "File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 720p.ogv", "File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 480i.ogv", "File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 1080i.ogv" and "File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis.ogv". The former four used the {{FPlowres}} template. ArmbrustTheHomunculus21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Also the higher number may come from files, which were renamed on Commons and than the new file tagged, but the old redirect still contains the template. ArmbrustTheHomunculus21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The difference is now 3, the following redirects were in the category "File:Chestnut-Teal-duckling.jpg", "File:Indischer version3.jpg", "File:Quentin Massys 008.jpg", "File:Pentagon crash site, Sept. 14 2001.jpg", "File:DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG", "File:Dead horse 2.jpg", "File:Lord Kitchener duty5.jpg" (the target of the redirect latter delisted too), "File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circuilar Quay.jpg", "File:Freiburg Schlossberturm Panorama 2010.jpg", "File:Solar eclips 1999 4 NR.jpg" and "File:Eritrean Railway - Tivedshambo 2008-11-04-edit1.jpg". ArmbrustTheHomunculus00:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Instead of sleeping I worked myself through this mess, where many file redirects were tagged with the FP template, just as the target file and also find many files which didn't contain the FP template (sometimes the local pages were deleted). Now every featured picture contains it and every one of the is also on one WP:FP subpage (some on more than one). Now I can say with confidence, that we have 3602 featured pictures. ArmbrustTheHomunculus09:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Jujutacular still edits; I'll just ask him to update with mine. In the meantime, I've added an html comment at the bottom that should catch uses of the unpatched script. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The Triple Crown's 2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible.
It is no longer necessary to not include File: It'll work whether you include it or not. I have tested this, it should work fine; let me know if there's any problems, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)12:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the best course of action would be to leave a note on the talk pages of those users as a word of caution, and keep an eye out in the future. Jujutacular (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Considering that Yerevanci's only two FPC reviews since his/her support have been to oppose one of my noms and make a comment about another which is fairly negative, I think another person should leave the notices (note that I opposed the Hamidian refugee image owing to restoration issues, which makes me suspect this is payback [oppose for an oppose].) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently bought a Canon 60D and was hoping to participate in FPC with some of my own photographs, assuming I can get the quality right. I'm fairly pleased with the image at the right, though owing to stitching issues (fairly minor, but still) I'm not planning to nominate it at FPC. I was wondering, however, if anyone here could give me some feedback on (say) equipment to invest in, angles to work with, composition, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
In terms of composition, I think this captures pretty well the overall shape of the building and the surrounding pool, but could better emphasize the main entrance if just moved a couple of steps to the right. Otherwise with a wider angle lens and slightly higher point of view seems that is possible to capture the whole site. Of course nothing is like having a balloon :). --ELEKHHT08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, nothing beats a balloon alright. The old image in that article was taken from higher up (there is a ledge about 3 metres high about 5 metres back from where I was standing), but the powers that be (read: museum management) decided to open what they call "Taman Pelangi" in that general area (visible in your second picture) which makes that ledge unattractive for photography. I guess I could use the ramp which leads to that higher area, although the angle may not be as good. (I was standing at the corner visible here). I think 18/55 mm is wide enough (this turned out fairly nice, though I want to try for a clearer day to cut back on the noise), though you are much more experienced in that field than I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
As nominator of the second file (and accompanying set) would it be out of line for me to nominate the first file for delisting? The second file is higher resolution and part of a complete Smithsonian Institution set.-Godot13 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed[talk][majestic titan]02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Commons Photo Challenge December 2013
Commons:Photo challenge has been created and needs you! If you are interested please come to the talk page to discuss and help organise this new project.
Photographers on this forum may be interested in this new project on Commons. Based on the "photo challenge" contests run on other photography forums, we've started one on Commons. Similar to WLM, but regular and smaller and with multiple themes. Some themes will try to get new content for Commons (and thus Wikipedia) specifically in areas where it is lacking, other themes are just for the challenge or fun. Colin°Talk15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
New Focus
I've been reviewing photographs here for a little while now and although we are promoting many quality scans that improve the encyclopaedia, I also fear we are missing the forest for the trees. I wonder if we could have a little contest or something, and try to find/make featured pictures for the most commonly viewed wiki pages, or even for featured articles that currently lack quality photographs.
It’s all good to find a great scan photograph of some obscure little thing, but I wonder if we can focus some effort on places where it has the most impact (in addition to all the random esoteric stuff!). Maybe a rolling top 10 or something that we can try to find or take? I'm not sure if this exists on commons but the focus would be on encyclopaedic value over aesthetics of course. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean exactly... When you say scans, do you mean scanned historic documents, as opposed to modern photography? The vast majority of the photos are not scanned, they are taken with digital cameras, hence my confusion. Ðiliff «» (Talk)18:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I will give an example. Currently on our candidate list is a painting from Mıgırdiç Civanyan. This article gets 1 or 2 views per day. The article Go (game), which does not have a featured picture of a go board, gets about 1 million (!) views each month. Nothing against the obscure painting, but I wonder if our efforts could be focused a bit more on photos that have a higher impact. So this could be a find online, or someone who is a photographer can take a really nice picture of a go board. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Minor issue with delist and replace procedure
I recently had a delist and replace nomination succeed and saw an issue with the way it was processed. Namely, the old image was replaced by the new one in the article space, and in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures archive. However, the image did not go to the top of the relevant subsection as new FPs usually do, and merely replaced the entry of the existing FP which was second-from-the-bottom in the Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds subsection. I had a brief edit war with Armbrust until he pointed out to me that the delist procedures specifically say "Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.".
I feel this is mishandling the new FP. Yes, it has been nominated as a replacement of the old image, but it is also a new FP image and I think it should be treated as such. It's trivial whether it was nominated as a FP independently of the delist procedure or not, it's still a new FP, it is not the old FP. The only reason I nominated it as a delist and replace was to keep bureaucracy to a minimum (obviously it failed this time around!). Also, the delist and replace nomination itself was not added to the FPC archive for the current month. Even though was is a delist and replace nomination and the FPC archive is intended for regular nominations, I think it should still be archived there as it does involve a new image being promoted and a record of the promotion of a FP should be kept. Also, I never received a notification on my talk page that the image had been promoted. I readily admit that Armbrust seems to have made no real error here, as he/she was just following the procedures.
To avoid this situation where the replacement image of a delist and replace nomination effectively 'slips through the cracks' in a number of ways, I propose that any replacement images should be treated exactly the same way as a regular FP. There are two ways to effectively do this:
One is to prohibit delist and replace nominations when the proposed new image is effectively a brand new image by a different author, as opposed to merely an improved edit of an existing image (in which case there could be a strong case for just uploading over the top of the existing image rather than submitting a D&R nom, saving a lot of time and effort). If it were prohibited, then effectively we would just have to wait for the delist to succesd, then nominate the replacement image as a separate FPC nomination to the delist nomination. It's more time consuming and results in more paper pushing, but it does keep administration procedures fairly simple. This has been proposed a few times (including in my D&R nom) and I have tended to oppose it for those reasons of extra time and effort, but if it makes procedures easier to understand then I will support it.
The alternative to this is simply to adjust the delist and replace procedures to treat a replacement as a new FP image and following all procedures that are required for new FPs: add it to the top of the Featured Pictures subsection, advise the nominator of the nomination's success and add the D&R nomination to the FP archive for that month.
I'm happy with either option as I can see benefits and drawbacks to either approach. But either way, I feel the procedures need some improvement. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk)11:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If we modify the "delist & replace" part of delist closing procedures than it would look something like this:
New d&r part of the delist closure procedure
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:
Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
Add the replacement image to the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and remove the delisted image from the same page.
The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Replaced section of Archived removal requests and the bottom of the November archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}.
Also if we threat d&r nominations as nominations for a new FP image, than they need to be archived to the regular nominations, regardless of the result as failed nominations. (Therefore the text "If this was a delist&replace nomination, than add it also to the bottom of the November archive." to the "KEEP" and "DELIST" parts of the delist closing instructions. But there comes the problem, how should we treat delist nominations, where someone !voted for delisting&replacing the image? (In this delist two users had the opinion, that the then-current FP should be replaced.) Depending on the answer it would need a totally different closure procedure.
Therefore I think modifying the "delist&replace" part closing procedure would be too much hassle, as it would also affect the other two parts and it would make the procedure unnecessarily longer. Therefore I think it would be better to restrict d&r nominations, where the new image is just a better version of the current image. However, I would support the idea, that the delist nomination of the current FP and the nomination of the new image for FP status could run concurrently. (There was a similar case before, Full Moon FP nom & delist nom. The delist nomination was opened, while nomination was in progress.) ArmbrustTheHomunculus12:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really following what the problem would be if people voted for delisting and replacing the image... You could put the D&R nomination in the Featured Pictures archive as well as in the delist archive. There's no reason why it can't be in both, is there? That way there is a reference to the delisting and there is a reference to the new FP promotion and each refers back to the same nomination page. But I'm starting to think that it would be easier to go with separate noms. If we allow separate but concurrent delists and nominations of an 'effective replacement', then we eliminate half of drawbacks (the time wasting). The other drawback remains though - the extra administrative work required to process two nominations. As long as both the delist and the replacement noms are linked together and clearly stated as such, there shouldn't be any confusion. Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that could be made, but it would make the closing instructions even more complicated. This would need to be added to the "Keep" and "Delist" part of the delist closing procedure "If this was a delist&replace nomination, or somebody !voted for "delist & replace", than add it also to the bottom of the November archive." It's far more easier to run the two nominations concurrently and link them together. Fortunately now, that both have a 10-day voting period, they are closed at the same time too. ArmbrustTheHomunculus12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Creative Commons Licence Clarification
Creative Commons have recently clarified their licence wrt image resolution. Users who upload a small 640x480 JPG to Wikipedia/Commons under CC have in fact released the underlying "copyright work" under CC. So the licence applies to any other form of that "copyright work", including the 24MP JPG you may have thought was safely "All rights reserved" on your pro photo site. Even if your larger version must be purchased, there is nothing stopping someone uploading it here should they acquire it. This is a surprising development. It is unclear as yet how this affects other variants of a copyright work such as cropping an image, a short cut of a video or even a single frame from a movie. I know many photographers here donate large versions of their images anyway, but professional images are often donated downsized and this seems to kill that practice.
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Renomination process
What's the process to renominate a picture? The subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates with the same picture name already has the old discussion with the not promoted status because of low EV at the time. The top of that subpage has "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes." If the picture is now qualified with a very good EV due to new information. How do we renominate it without removing the old nomination? Z22 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Godot's excellent work, money likely has enough FPs - and a large number of potential FPs left - that it would be worth creating a sub-catgeory for it. I'd suggest we put it under "Culture and lifestyle". Thoughts? Supporting votes, and any objections? Adam Cuerden(talk)11:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Not opposed to the idea, but would prefer that we call it "currency". That allows for alternative or ancient forms that wouldn't necessarily be considered "money" today. Julia\talk11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This one could use a few more eyes. It closes rather soon, and - as the rather long list in the FPC urgents shows - we're in a bit of a reviewer shortage. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think part of it is owing to the large number of nominations. I personally wouldn't mind closing those which are clearly not going to pass. There are 3 or 4 pictures with 3+ opposes and fewer supports, which are going nowhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Aesthetics question
Tugu of Yogyakarta during the 2014 eruption of Mount KeludMan sweeping ash
Hi all. This isn't quite related to FPC, as I doubt I'd nominate these images ("avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" and all that), but can I have a second opinion about the aesthetics of pictures which use a partial bleach bypass? I think it gives a stark realism to the subject and, with all the (greyish white) ash, makes the subject stand out more, but I'd like a more experienced photographer's opinion. Two examples are thumbnailed here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, by "partial bleach bypass" I mean I duplicated the original image as a new layer, then used the bleach bypass filter on that layer, then reduced the opacity to 50–70%, to taste. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FPC urgents
How do people like these handled? I'm a little uncomfortable with how much of my stuff ended up in there - I had a very stressful day a week and a half ago, and tried to work through it by doing lots and lots of restorations, and it kind of shows; would I be better off cutting back a bit so that, say, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Armenian_illuminated_manuscript (1 vote away from passing, not mine) would have a better chance; or is it fair enough to leave mine in because I really, really hate close-call closures, which mean having to document things and hold them back for an appropriate length of time? (Also, not quite sure what to do with the astronomy images if I do hold back, since a complete set is impossible - the LoC only has a partial set in the first place.)
Hi all, just want to bring your attention to this: Input wanted: orphan works. I'm pretty sure the issue of unknown and un-contactable copyright holders is something we deal with fairly regularly - particularly for users who restore older works, such as Adam Cuerden and Crisco 1492. Our input may be valuable. Julia\talk18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The queue for POTD is years, the nomination period is 10 days. There doesn't seem to be much benefit from expediting promotions. On the other hand, there could be potential harms as more reviewers may find reasons not to feature the image, or improve it in the extra time. Speedy closes come up periodically, usually for nominations well outside of the criteria, or that are placed in violation of WP policy (e.g. POINTY) or with the intent to offend. Leaving nominations with a slim or no chance to pass in the queue allows nominators to get a sense of the standards, discuss them, look for potential alternatives. While not using speedy processes may lead to a longer and more crowded nominations page, underserved nominations can be highlighted in the needs more feedback box (often these images are ones which were unlikely to pass anyways). In short, allowing for the complete process has few drawbacks and offers potential benefits to the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Very valid points, but I must point out that some reviewers, seeing the large backlog, may not want to review (especially if they think they must review every one), and that regular reviewers are prone to fatigue when nominations with the same issues get brought out time and time again (and thus they may stop reviewing). Commons has speedy close criteria, and it's not stopped people from learning the general expectations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Allowing many below standard images creates another issue as we have seen on Commons. People see the quality of the images under nomination and start nominating anything of a similar type or quality. The longer term effect is a general lowering of the quality of images under review. FPX is one way to send a clear message early that the images of this level are well below community standards. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that while some users may find a wealth of nominations overwhelming, most will ultimately choose to review the ones which they find interesting or feel they can contribute to. The more selection available the more likely something will invite them to participate (though one could argue that they will have a tougher time finding these images as a result of the quantity, the project doesn't seem to be at that point yet). I can't speak to Commons, but I have a little more faith in editors to be able to use their discretion and learn the standards. New participants may nominate images well outside the standards, but they will adapt after a failure and some reasonable feedback. Speedily closing their nominations is exclusionary and discourages them from coming back and making productive contributions to the project. We may see some lame ducks-images from pet projects, people unfamiliar with criterion, or attention seekers- but waving a speedy hammer at them is not going to grow the community or benefit the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I though that was already an option. The FPC page states "If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case." --ELEKHHT13:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a problem in need of a solution. Historically if a nomination was utterly failing either the nominator would take the hint and withdraw it quickly or they'd be given the hint by someone commenting on the nomination at which point they'd fall in line, and if that sounds like coercion that's because it generally is. In the few cases where the nominator goes MIA or utterly doesn't get the hint, someone will do the honorable thing and give it an honorable death, an almost always non-controversial action at that point. It's a system that 99.99% of the time works well on its own so I don't see the impetus for a change. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
We had a period a few years ago with loads of nominations, and we introduced speedy closes then, but people went a little speedy close crazy (probably including me) and we ended up speedy closing some images that were probably not strong enough to pass, but didn't really warrant a speedy closure. As it's still in the rules, the way to bring it back would be to simply start saying "speedy close" and for regular closers to be willing to honour that. J Milburn (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Um, just wanted to check - is there something wrong with these images; is it just that people would rather I nominate the rest all at once, or did the nomination just get overlooked at present? Because there's a lot of images to work through, and, since we have an article on the book of star charts I'm trying to get up to FA in the long run, I would like to know of any issues before they end up compounded over 20 more images. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with them as far as I can see. I think it's just institutional bias against historical art to blame. I know my eyes tend to glaze over those kind of nominations, no offense intended. :-) But I've evaluated it as requested. Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Expertise can vary, I know. Just want to make sure everyone doesn't hate them, but is too polite to say, given there's 20 more in the set. =) Adam Cuerden(talk)02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Please consult the original author if an edit is needed
I participated in this DR recently and opposed the deletion per the prevailing policies. But after discussing with the original author (not much as he is not a native English speaker) and reading the relevant discussions, I see some communication problems that affected our decisions. The author is a subject expert and we didn't contact him. We didn't contact the relevant project too. I discussed this matter with my colleagues in the same stream, and they too raise a similar concern. Biopics seems very disappointed (not only due to this matter alone); and expressed that "New and more images moved to Flickr".
I think this matter needs our attention as a generic way (for future cases) and we need to consult relevant people in case of any doubts. Jee09:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Although this may be (and probably is) good practice, I don't quite feel comfortable with making it a prerequisite for nominations. The CC license essentially removes any requirement to get an author's permission before reusing an image, and thus there would be little license-based reasoning for requiring permission or notification for an FPC nomination. That being said, FAC does require permission be obtained, but there are fundamental differences between the two, not the least being that prose is constantly being polished, whereas many flaws with images cannot be fixed without retaking the image entirely (and thus, it is possible that an article writer is still working on something). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes; I agree with the legal side (and that is why I oppose the DR); but in COM:FPC also we faced similar situations. Usually the author has access to the raw files and his possibilities are unlimited compared to us just with a processed jpg. It is understood that JPG quality decreases on every save and a compressed JPG has several limitations. If the author is not available or not willing for an edit, we have no other options. In all other cases I prefer first contacting the original author.
I am not in favor of new regulations. But it is good to remember the unwritten rules of courtesy. Often a small prior message and a little patience to wait for the response, sufficient to avoid situtions, painful for all. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, a recommendation (i.e. non-binding) in the introduction template. Personally I've avoided informing photographers as I want to avoid the appearance of canvassing, but I understand why some would rather be told. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this is most sensible advice. Whether some regulation is needed I don't know. But it is clear from the WP:FP nom that a group of amateurs have ruined a scientifically correct picture and promoted the wrong one to FP status. That they didn't consult the creator just shows arrogance imo. Now the creator is upset that he can't remove the incorrect version because some people are putting rules in front of common-sense and has left the project. I think the first thing WP:FP should do is delist the incorrect one and consider replacement with the correct one. -- Colin°Talk13:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't support the way Bp handled it (edit warring on the file and try to get it deleted). See Commons can't delete a file when it is in use in another project. It seems he is very weak in communication. I had to dig all previous discussions to get a clue. He should have discuss it here. Anyway now it seems we are on the right track. Jee14:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are language issues and also not everyone knows the procedures. However, the DR treated the image like Commons was merely a repository of all free content so "unable" to delete a file that was derived legitimately from a CC licensed file. What Commons and Wikipedia forgot was the primary purpose is to be educational. Having a nicer-looking colour balance was irrelevant, and if the image is misleading when we have a perfectly good alternative image, it should certainly be deleted. And I think that should hold regardless of whether some Wikipedia uses it. The "In use so in scope" argument is overused. -- Colin°Talk12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we can delete it when removed from the article. Some people have a non hate to any adaptation that we can't encourage (not talking about this case). Jee15:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that consultation of the original photographer is good practice when issues of colour accuracy or similar are encountered (there have been a few situations where others have decided there was something 'wrong' with my images without really knowing for sure)... That being said, in my opinion there is a clear colour tint to the (original) image in question and I don't really think the wrong image was necessarily promoted. I don't claim to know what the animal looks like, but I can see that the reflections in the sand (?) have a particularly warm colour cast and this is a reflection (literally) of the light source, and has no bearing on the colour of the animal. We can't know for certain what colour the sand was, but I suspect it is close enough to neutral. Consider also the translucent 'feelers' at the front. From my (albeit limited) experience, these are usually also a neutral greyish colour. I'd certainly welcome a debate over the issue if the original author disagrees with the replacement, but there are so many factors that can influence one's opinion on colour on a computer screen and I suspect the photographer was perhaps unaware of the warm tint. Perhaps his screen is badly calibrated?! If the animal was lit with a particularly warmly lit light when he studied it, perhaps even the photographer's intuition of the true colour of the animal was skewed sufficiently? So many posibilities. I don't doubt that the author believes it looks more like the original image, I just have strong suspicions that with more balanced 'daylight' lighting conditions, it wouldn't look so red-shifted. Just my opinion. I don't think the deletion request was handled very well though - both sides seemed unprepared to discuss the real issue. The photographer insisted the image's colour was wrong, and the others insisted that Wikipedia had a right to make it whatever colour we wanted. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)18:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I too have a doubt; but the author made an update recently. Considering we provoked him, I see little chance for any further help from his side now. An author uses his "no attribution right" is an extreme case and we should avoid such circumstances if possible. :) Jee07:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
But the derivative work has two authors: the creator of the original image and the user making the derivative. Even if we accept the overwriting of the file by the author, in this the other authors consent would still be needed. ArmbrustTheHomunculus07:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The attempt to overwrite the "wrong colour" file and the deletion request both failed WP/Commons procedures and can be viewed as clumsy/inexperienced-with-proceedure. However, the edit war that resulted combined with literally hitting the expert over the head with the rulebook was no way to deal with it and I can see why he is pissed off. If instead someone had firstly stated our appreciation of expert opinion and secondly given the kind of reasoned argument Diliff made we might have come to some agreement. I think a lesson learned for WP and WP:FP is that the colours of a "photograph of a specimen" are important and shouldn't be changed merely because CC BY-SA lets one do what one likes with the image. Anyone who has edited contentious subjects in WP will know that we defer to published expert writing. For images we don't have that luxury with user-generated photos, but I'm quite happy to defer to this published expert when it comes to the colours of marine species. You know the old joke "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad". Too much wiki-knowledge and not enough wisdom and respect. -- Colin°Talk08:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused, because having researched the issue a little more, I noticed that the image that Jee linked to (the update on the original work) doesn't contain (in any of the image upload history) the version that Biopics disputes the accuracy of, and in fact he 'updated' the image with an identical copy. Also, we never, as far as I can see, uploaded the 'WB edit version' over the top of Biopic's original. In the FPC nomination, the WB edit was uploaded as a new image. So actually, Biopics was attempting to overwrite the derivative, not trying to 'correct the original file'. Also, I note that I commented on the warm tint back in 2010. ;-) I had completely forgotten that I even participated in the original nomination. In any case, this has nothing to do with which WB edit is most accurate, but it does put into perspective what happened here. I still think that we should have engaged with Biopics about what we believed was wrong with the colour balance and he probably should have engaged more with us also, but procedurally, I don't think we made any mistakes in handling it as a derivative... Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, I disagree with the way Bp handled it. He should have discuss it here or in the article talk page or boldly revert thosearticles. Instead, he tried to overwrite the existing FP that people reverted. Angrily he made a DR. Then only I noticed this issue and I opposed the DR. Then I saw he removed the attributions. I tried to understand the issue, reading all those fpcs.
My understanding is that his original work is a double VI as the best Alitta succinea image and Epitoky in in Polychaeta. We neglected that fact, made an adaption, and named it "colour balance version" which may provoked him. (He re named it recently.) As a biologist, his works are highly referenced even off wiki, and stating his version as a "wrong color balance" may be an insult to him. That said, I have a difficulty to understand what is in his mind, as he is not very talkative. :)
"but procedurally, I don't think we made any mistakes in handling it as a derivative..." - I think there is a mistake if we handle scientific matters unprofessionally. I remember a case where we promoted a shell picture as our best picture which was a "cut specimen". Invertzoo from WikiProject Gastropods made a complaint on our talk page that we neglected. He came back with a delist and we accepted it. After that I usually report on that project when a nomination seen here. Jee11:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, we probably should have consulted him when the initial colour balance issue was raised in the FPC nomination. But I think sometimes the problem is that being an expert in a particular scientific field doesn't also make you an expert on colour theory ;-). I have no doubt that he's more qualified to know what the true colour of this animal is, but that doesn't mean he's aware of the issues (already mentioned above) that could affect his perception of the image on a computer screen. Just as biologists cannot 'see' DNA, they have a body of knowledge and experiments that can prove that it exists and how it works. Likewise, we as photographers and 'image experts' (an exaggeration, but certainly more qualified than the average amateur photographer) have a body of knowledge and methods that can determine and intuit colour issues. In any case, there is no absolute right or wrong with colour balance as we can only ever approximate what our eyes see. Even our eyes can be deceived easily enough. And then there is the issue of whether we should strive for colour neutrality or for what our eyes see, even if it's not strictly 'neutral'. For example, if we take a photo of a grey object at sunset, should it be warm-tinted as our eyes would see it, or should it be corrected to be truly grey? These are artistic questions as much as scientific ones. Ðiliff «» (Talk)11:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any "probably" about whether WP should have consulted the author. In fact I find it quite rude that an image can get a nomination here without the author being informed and certainly when the image provokes any dispute the author should be alerted. I agree with Diliff that just because someone is talented at their scientific field doesn't mean they are talented at taking photographs accurately but that is certainly something that a conversation would have solved. And ultimately if we can't agree then we should respect expert opinion. But Diliff, I suspect very few participants at WP:FP have colour calibrated monitors, are aware that colours aren't rendered accurately in web browsers compared to professional tools like Photoshop or Lightroom, know the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB colourspaces and are aware what happens when a JPG lacks colourspace metadata or embedded colour profile. I should note that the original file had original camera EXIF data including colourspace information, whereas the edited one had virtually no EXIF data other than to show it was edited by Paint.NET -- a tool that in my opinion should only be used to edit screenshots and certainly not featured picture photographs. So the edited file actually was technically ill-formed wrt colour accuracy from a JPG point of view, never mind colour accuracy from the subject point of view. We screwed up a scientific image by amateur edits with an amateur tool. -- Colin°Talk18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The FPC urgents is currently full of things with 3 or 4 supports, no opposes, and which will likely fail if people don't vote. Adam Cuerden(talk)14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I really shouldn't say which one, outside that it's not one of mine, but I had honestly been hoping to use one of the images in FPC urgents as the lead for the signpost report on featured pictures in a couple weeks, to the point of not featuring another image, but it's hovering at just under the five vote minimum, with no opposes. Can people please have a look at the urgents? Adam Cuerden(talk)10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Picture for 4 April
I can't find any way to edit the associated text for this group of 4 pictures by William Russell Flint. This is necessary because the article until a few minutes ago had incorrect information about his education. According to Oxford Art Online, he studied at the Royal Institute of Art, Edinburgh, not the Royal Academy of Art(s) in London. (And beware, Royal Institute of Art should not be wikilinked because that article describes an institution in Stockholm.) Colonies Chris (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't use the template as there were four images in one. My apologies, it looks like the "add 1" comment was on my talk page, regarding the 30 March images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
FP and article text disagree
If a FP disagrees with the article text, it does not have Encyclopedic value, and either it or the article is not verifiable.
Why was rhe picture promoted while failing both 5 and 6 of the criteria?
5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
It confuses the reader to have a diagram that contradicts the text.
6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.
It is not supported by the facts in the article if it has different facts.
Why would a FP be promoted under these circumstances? Diagram of Jupiter is either using sources not used by the article or it is OR. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
For starters, "The core is often described as rocky, but its detailed composition is unknown, as are the properties of materials at the temperatures and pressures of those depths (see below).... A core may now be entirely absent, because gravitational measurements are not yet precise enough to rule that possibility out entirely.[31][34]" While the diagram shows a "rock and ice core."
The particulars can be discussed on the article talk page.
There appears to be a serious problem with the meaning of consensus for promoting FPs, though. "Consensus" on en.Wikipedia does not mean "majority rules." --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
Old FPs
I recently discovered that File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg had been missed for POTD (images promoted in the same week were run in 2012) and have scheduled it. If contributors here are aware of any older FPs (i.e. those promoted before 2013) which have not run at POTD, please contact me. I might have to dredge the FP thumbs page to catch some of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've fixed delist nominations so that including or not including File: will not matter. The change is at Template:FPCdel, with a change to Template:FPCdel/init to remove the instruction to not use File: - but please tell me if you notice any problems, and revert my last change (and only my last change: the penultimate one is from last year, and I believe is important.) in the meantime. Cheers! Adam Cuerden(talk)19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to note, this nomination has changed into a much improved nomination since its start - higher resolution, text-free copy, and so on. It's probably worth looking again. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion which may interest editors of this page
I'm not sure, but I guess it depends largely on what the purpose the categorisation of FPs serves. Is it to make it easier to browse through FPs of a similar type, or to make different particular FPs easier to locate? If the former, I don't think we'd want to break the categories down too much, but I'm open minded. Ðiliff «» (Talk)08:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That's perfect! Yes, that's a good split. I only suggested "religious buildings" as that seems to be what the majority of our building images are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Can people check these? There's a few on there that I'm a bit shocked aren't passing, particularly [really shouldn't say]. Adam Cuerden(talk)06:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the excellent annelid diagram is passing now, but it would be good if some of the other ones were. Lots of three- and four-support FPCs with no opposes, which, as I know from experience, are extremely frustrating to the nominator. =) Adam Cuerden(talk)05:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. If you have Windows you can use the free tools cpicture or jpegtran. The cpicture tool has a GUI which lets you specify crop settings in a dialog box or to use the mouse to drag an area. Dragging with the mouse isn't so good for trimming 1px off the right/bottom, though, but it is great when combined with the lock-aspect-ratio feature for creating crops of your own pictures at various aspect ratios. It also has help grid lines for such things as the rule of thirds. The jpegtran tool is command line. They both product the same result in the end but the jpegtran tool has more options. I was initially puzzled that my crop produced a much larger file but I found that the -optimize option is needed to apply the (lossless) Huffman compression to the JPEG data and keep the filesize down. It seems that cpicture doesn't do that, resulting in bigger pictures. -- Colin°Talk11:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There are several grey lines that only really show up at 400px on my viewer but are clear when the image is on a white background. I've taken off another 6px. -- Colin°Talk15:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I commented about today's Featured Picture on Wikipedia's Main Page at Commons:Village pump/Copyright here (at 11. Faithful representation) and a respondent suggested I post in this forum.
Whatever the merits or demerits of this image it is a derivative work which should be deleted as a copyright violation. The editor has simply warmed the original Google image some 30% or so in Adobe Photoshop. He said himself in the nomination discussion that he doesn't know what the original looks like. The result, piss horrible in my opinion, is a travesty of Manet's intentions and an infringement of the original photographer's moral rights. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The author, Manet is dead for more than 100 years ago. It is not copyright violation. The artistic side might be discussed with our art experts Ceoil, Johnbod and Amandajm. If our experts agree with you then you maybe can ask that the picture should be replaced with your preference, right. Hafspajen (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright concerns aside (the Foundation has followed the US copyright line that faithful reproductions of 2D objects [like scans] do not attract their own copyright), I knew this was going to happen and was half-tempted to nominate this for delisting instead of running it. I seem to recall writing that I preferred Google's scan... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC) (I knew I did) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If experts agree that Pale alt is more faithful, than it could be possible to just go and replace it. The file is perfectly OK, | 5,876 × 3,976 pixels. Hafspajen (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is not that there are a number of images of varying qualities. That happens all the time with art images. When it comes to colour values the differences can be immense. But this was a Google Art Project image, images noted for their fidelity. The original comes from the gallery which owns it and the photograph was taken by a noted fine arts photographer. That Wikipedia can use it in US law depends directly on the image being a faithful representation. What an editor subsequently can't then do is to manipulate it in the way that has been done to produce an image which he personally thinks is superior (on his own admission he didn't even know what the original actually looked like, never having seen it). You don't have to be an expert to know that resulting warm cast is nothing like that of the original and that should matter in an encyclopaedia. The whole point about this painting was that the flesh tone was cold and cadaverous, described by critics of the time as "putrescent".
I've already replied at Commons; the project (and one would assume Wikipedia as well) does not recognize author's moral rights. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think, user Coat of Many Colours, that you should try to calm down. As I said, it is possible to replace it with the Alt. Hafspajen (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think one would have to show the image intended to alter the work for it to be "derivative", which I don't think is the case. I note that the 2nd warmer version that is now FP was made as a result of comments on the original nomination. I haven't seen the picture for years, but none of these images look quite right. I notice that the picture in the blog that Coat of Many Colours likes seems to have about as "cadaverous" flesh as the FP one, but a stronger pink in the maid's dress, a stronger contrast with the white, and generally looks more attractive. I share Coat's concern over images of paintings not checked to the original. Personally I question whether google art derived images should be allowed at FP, excellent though they often are. What does the community add? Other google art images of paintings I know well seem rather too restrained in colour. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If I compare these with the blog picture ( the one that Coat of Many Colours likes )- the blog picture sheets are light blue. Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are several works in art history that I only know by reproductions and photos, books, copies and webbsites. I really feel that this is a general problem, and I don't really know how this can be avoided entirely. And even if I only have seen an artwork in a book (or several), and go to see that artwork at the museum, it is often a surprize. So I really don't se how we can avoid it, when it is a general problem concerning practically all art books and publications. Unless we avoid artwork altogether, and that would be the worst possible solution. Hafspajen (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
@Johnbod. When I said I liked the blog photo, that's right. So I do, but it's just a snap and not a full blown repro and I only quoted it to indicate a general impression of the image. The original Google image was commissioned by the museum that own the work and executed by a noted photographer of the fine arts. The featured version is merely warmed in Adobe Photoshop to the editor's taste in pink, essentially trying to eroticise an image in a conventional way that was nevertheless conceived as odalisque i.e. exotic rather than erotic. It's really very patronising of the editor above to ask me to "calm down" (the "dear" lingering in the air ...) If an editor hasn't seen the original image, doesn't even bother to familiarise herself with the most basic critical comments about the image, then she shouldn't be editing its colour values in this way, and the community should be reigning her excesses in. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you better ask him why, before you speculate on the editor's taste in pink, essentially trying to eroticise an image. You don't know why, this is just reasoning based on inconclusive evidence. And yes, Wikipedia discussions should be conducted in a calm, polite way, not the way it is done here; without accusations and assuming this and that; and without irony like the "dear" lingering in the air kind of expressions. Not helpful. Wikipedia:Assume good faith & Wikipedia:Civility & Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. And both Armbrust and Crisco are men, and most trusted editors, and Crisco is a most trusted administrator too. So this kind of remarks and the community should be reigning her excesses is most unhelpful. Especially after Crisco's comments. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to ping. The second image, the rather dark one, is the most true to colour. The third one is too cream. The first is just ghastly. But the painting itself is notoriously hard to reproduce well because of the intensity of the overall contrast, and the fact that there is very little shading on the figure to give it three-dimensional form.
The dress on the servant is pink, of the delicate, baby-pink variety. It does not have a slightly "apricot" hue. The colour of the dress is a good guide to the colour of the flesh.
The colour of the flesh is touched with a paler tone of the same pink. If this isn't apparent, then the colour isn't right. Her nipples are slightly pinker than the surrounding flesh.
The shadow on every white area is grey, not blue. The lowest sheet is slightly yellower.
There should be a definite colour contrast between her pale pink flesh, the greyish cream of the silk shawl and the white of the bed linen.
The servants face and the body of the cat are almost invisible against the dark background.
The second image is the best, colourwise. But it is a bit dark, even when I turn the brightness on my screen right up. It could be adjusted, but only a little, to the point where the whitest part of the lower pillow becomes stark white, but without loosing the slight flush in her cheeks. It is going to look different depending on the brightness at which people set their screens so it probably needs to be optimised for a medium setting. Amandajm (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, then per Amandajm (thank God someone is keeping to topic) we need to replace the current with the one Amandajm called second (Pale alt.) [New the shadow wasn't blue...] Hafspajen (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. We can D&R as well (considering this is the FPC page rather than the main page, that's still on topic). Next time someone asks for an edit of a painting, and opposes if that edit is not done, I'll just withdraw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: the first is just ghastly. You should be happy to know then that Yorck Project scans are pretty much rejected on sight at FPC now, as they are so drastically unfaithful. A few years ago, however... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The second image is the original Google image copyright RMN (Musée d'Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski and can be seen on the museum site here. It is a very good representation of a painting I know well. Regarding the skin tone it is pale and sallow (absolutely not warm), controversial at the time: indeed the most controversial thing about it (although the impressionists handling of skin tone was much praised - thus Mary Cassatt (strongly influenced by Manet) was highly praised for her flesh tones at her first show at the Fourth Impressionist Exhibition 1879). I'm currently away from my reference works but shall make an edit when I return some time around August, at which point I trust the original Google image will be linked in the article, otherwise I shall make a WP:BOLD edit myself. A feature of Manet's work was his love of the colour black and of dark tones in general, as can be seen for example in his A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. The Yorck image reproduced here by Hafspajen, with a pointed comment for my benefit it would seem, is derisory in the circumstances. I replace these Yorck images with better whenever I notice them. Their time is past.
The French version of this article uses Google Art Project 2.jpg which looks to me a slightly more satuarated (but not warmed) version of the original Google image. I don't really see the need for that. Regarding the remarks about brightness, this is a problem compounded by modern LED screens. If you like to have your screen tilted up towards you i.e. to say its bottom edge closer to you, as I do, then the resulting image is darker than it should be, a constant source of irritation to me.
Needless to say I don't need nor require Hapjean's strictures about my behaviour at my age. I'm sure it was meant with the very best of intentions from someone I'm guessing is rather young (but I shan't be back to check, persuaded that the acquaintance is not one I should wish to further nor appropriate). I use "she" habitually and generically as pronoun. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
My name is not HAP-Jean, and age about like Crisco. And I wish we could stop being personal all the time. Those restrictions are Wikipedia guidelines and ALL editors shall follow them, I haven't invented them myself. There are no exceptions. Hafspajen (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, here are some images the other Wikis are using in their Manet articles...
Some Olympias from different Manet articles on different Wiki's
Sorry about the name. I'm not familiar with it and I have limited visual acuity at my age. Regarding "being personal", it was you who first made a "personal" remark to the effect that I didn't understand copyright law. Well I'm surely not an expert but I have made a determined effort to familiarise myself with it since starting to edit Wikipedia, so that was a pretty pointed remark, as was your challenging remark about the Yorck image you posted and a number of other remarks you make. Regarding the selection of images you post (and incidentally the French article does not use the Yorck image but rather Google 2 as I remarked above - it's their Manet article that uses the Yorck - as for the Dutch FA image it dates from 2008), I'm repeating myself but the issue is not at all that images of art works vary very widely in their fidelity, we do all know and understand that and we do the best with what's available. The issue is that a very fine image of this particular art work was tinkered with so gratuitously in the way it was, and in deference to Carl Lindberg posting at Commons I'll forbear from commenting further. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In the article's "External links" I've linked the SmartHistory (Brooklyn) video of the painting here. This is a conversation recorded in front of the painting and the video has the correct tonal values for the painting (but not the image on the web page below the video window). It discusses Manet's treatment of the flesh tones in some detail and notes the criticism of the time that the painting was that of a cadaver. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
But in this case at issue one of you, for no good reason I can fathom, felt dissatisfied with the best available and took it upon themselves to improve it to their own satisfaction without troubling themselves either with the artist's intentions or indeed with what the painting actually looked like. Now that's what I call self-entitlement and no brownie points for guessing whose side I'm on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Minimum image size
I was wondering... does anyone feel as if the minimum image size should be at least 1,500 pixels in either dimension, rather than in both dimensions? We currently ask for more than Commons, and some really nice FPs are below 1,500 pixels in one dimension (File:Hylobates lar - Kaeng Krachan WB.jpg, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's generally understood that our requirements are tougher than Commons (although Commons voters are more nit-picky and arbitrary in their critiques, IMO!). We discussed 1500px in either vs both dimensions back in 2012 and decided that 1500px on the shortest dimension is the minimum, and I agree with it, personally. However, an allowance was written into the guidelines so we can still make an exception in certain circumstances and I think JJ's image would probably be one of them. It's only 60 pixels short of 1500, and is pixel sharp as he always downsamples his images. Not that I necessarily think he should, but it's his choice. Anyway, his image is a case in point, it got promoted despite being slightly below the requirements, because it was fundamentally a very solid shot and was more detailed than many images over 1500px. But to lower the bar sends the wrong message IMO. Better to keep the bar high and make the occasional exception than to lower it... Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare COM:FPC and en:FP requirements; however, I will certainly agree that COM:FPC has become rather arbitrary. It has devolved into petty politics and mediocrity. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Diliff: Oh yes, that was passed after we started using the new criteria. Hmm... that's a valid point. Will have to think it over.
@Saffron: I was hoping that technical aspects (rather than aesthetics vs. illustrative value, which I agree is extremely different in the two venues) would be at least somewhat comparable. They are, after all, about objective aspects of the imagery (though perhaps not determined in an entirely objective manner). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
My comment was in response to Diliff's assessment of en:FP being "tougher". If it is, it is because of the EV requirement not technical standards. However, if things continue to slide over there we might as well merge QI and COM:FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, true, it is mainly the EV requirements that makes it tougher here. I would say that our technical standards are about the same as Commons, but as mentioned above, Commons is full of people who will analyse an image for the smallest details and faults, whereas I think (as mostly a community of Wikipedia contributors first and photographers second) we have a more holistic view of images. Another way of putting it: we tend to see an image for what it is, Commons FPC contributors see an image for what it isn't. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually Diliff, I don't think you are correct there. See recent two delists which are just examples of people finding faults and non-holistic thinking, rather than appreciating the "image for what it is". -- Colin°Talk12:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
But I'm talking about the FPC community (well, what's left of it still actively participating), not one individual with an axe to grind. Having said that, I don't think the nominated images for delisting are particularly good and I'm not necessarily sentimental about old FPs that were promoted back in the day when almost anything that wasn't complete rubbish was promoted. I'd happily nominate some of my old images for delisting, some of which were praised lavishly at the time but would no longer stand out. Ðiliff «» (Talk)13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree they aren't the best images to make a stand on: I'm more upset by the misguided arguments put forward by the two supporters. We really have better things to do with our time that revisit old noms and take pot shots at old FPs. I'd happily support a rule that requires the image to have been superseded or disused. But really, there are people on all forums who can comment on the pixels of an image at 100% but not on an image as a whole. -- Colin°Talk20:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I afraid whether JJ stopped contributing to Commons after the "license applicable to all resolution files" issue. He didn't upload anything after December 2013; may be due to some other reason. Jee06:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think it's more the fact that he's busy and not photographing many birds. I've sent him a message to find out why he's been quiet though. Ðiliff «» (Talk)19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I'd prefer to have the higher resolution (with sensible exceptions, like video game images at their maximum supported resolution), as it encourages the release of higher-resolution images. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I think a high basic resolution standard with flexibility for obvious exceptions is the right way to go. Ðiliff «» (Talk)19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Some eyes on this would be helpful too. It's going to fail due to insufficient votes. Please don't let the (extensive) discussion put you off. And If you want to oppose, please do so, I will say no more on the matter. ;-) It's better to know for sure what the consensus is than let it flounder under the minimum required votes. Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey—I'm new to FPC, but I have a collection of images at commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar that I believe has a few good candidates. I'm looking for advice on potential candidates from the several hundred uploads, perhaps a good set or two? Let me know what you think? I'm particularly curious about what videos and GIFs would work best. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll check back later this week. (@Sven Manguard and GamerPro64, I know you've expressed an interest before.) czar ♔03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, since you nominated one from Solipskier, perhaps you can take a look at the rest of the category, if you have a moment? I'm fine with doing the nomination cleanup and legwork—I'd just like some advice on worthy candidates czar ♔08:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I just read that the 25 min movie has been replaced with a longer version. I'm wondering if reviewers are expected to have watched each version in full, or if we're generally willing to trust uploaders (for instance, that quality is consistent throughout). Samsara (FA • FP) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just want to add that it crashed my computer twice, is this just me or is this our security, that is too high, or what? Actually both videos did, so I don't know how they look like. I mean, I can't really vote - because I can't check them. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What browser did you use? I have to change from Safari to Chrome to watch videos here so it could be the reason for it. GamerPro6418:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not a security problem but a codec problem related to the webm format, which I used because it is royalty free: Safari is not natively compatible with the new html5 standard. It should not be too difficult to find the needed add-on for Safari, depending on your browser version (see www.iskysoft.com/convert-webm/play-webm-mac.html for example). Chrome, Firefox and many other browsers support webm natively. Please note webm and ogv are recommanded formats on Commons. I used to transcode the videos in webm to ogv (not sure it would help for the Safari browser) but was strongly suggested to stick to webm in the case of files downloaded from YouTube, where this format is native. Hope I made myself clear. Cheers, — Racconish ✉20:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I find it quite often that noms have nice captions, but when you go to the pic's page the description is let's say limited. Can this be more strictly enforced? Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm of the opposite opinion actually, I don't really see the point of nomination captions. They don't usually add much to the nomination as we can work out what the image is about by visiting the articles and by reading the nomination reason. A detailed caption is not really necessary for the image to have EV either. It often helps, but is not required on every occasion IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk)17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Nergaal's arguing for a full description on the file description page, Diliff. There have been cases where, for example, the article captiob identifies the year and subject of a photo, but the file page doesn't. (I don't believe I've seen that at FP, mind, but I have seen it.) Adam Cuerden(talk)02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I think I remember seeing some noms with lots of extra details (which are really nice btw) but if you went to the pic page it would contain only the licensing info and a meager description. I would prefer if FPCs would encourage more expansive descriptions on the actual pages of the pic. For example, TFPs have a nice short paragraph, and personally I would prefer something like to be on the actual FP pages. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, remember TFP is a summary of the related article. Picture descriptions probably shouldn't have quite as much detail about the subject as an article on the subject, though they must clearly identify it and so on. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And, again, POTD is a different process, with its own standards. The person who schedules the POTD (and writes the blurb, me since 2013) generally looks at the bolded article, although other information may be drawn upon (such as the background on the painting of A Midsummer Night's Dream which is due next month). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I think possibly the most important point to this discussion is that if a picture is used on one article with its original caption, and on a second article with a less expansive caption or without a caption, then if the first article gets deleted, most editors will not be able to access the deleted content, and without this additional information, may find it harder to place the image in appropriate contexts on the remaining article, or in other future article where it may be relevant. So I think all relevant information about an image belongs in the image description page, whether it be used in captions elsewhere or not. Also consider the inter-wiki aspect. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
While that's certainly true, the examples being brought up aren't about the image, but about the subject of the image. A photograph of Franklin Pierce will benefit from information on where it was taken, who it was taken by, when it was taken, and the like. It won't benefit much from a three-paragraph summary of Franklin Pierce's career, which, arguably, would hide the more relevant information. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Were you replying to me specifically? Because I don't see the examples or how they relate to what I wrote. Slightly puzzled. Cheers, Samsara (FA • FP) 00:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal was talking about Today's Featured Picture blurbs, which are generally more-or-less summaries of a relevant article. I think that's far more detail than would be appropriate, since it's mainly not information related to the image itself. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If you believe (like I do!), that W.O. Reeds' quality panoramic photograph of the Monroe Street Bridge under construction deserves and can achieve featured status, then I would encourage you to nominate it for me so it can be recognized as an excellent image.
This restored version of the image is already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia (nomination page here) and the unaltered original is featured on the Wikipedia Commons [here Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg]. I see no reason why this cant easily achieve featured status on English wikipedia as well. It is far more relevant and would get more recognition and exposure there. This picture is most relevant to the Monroe Street Bridge article and the deck arch bridge articles.
This picture deserves to be nominated because the image has very high historic value; the picture was taken in 1911 and captures the construction of the historic (NRHP listed in 1975) Monroe Street Bridge in Spokane, WA. As you can see from the article, it would become the largest concrete deck arch bridge in the United States at the time of its completion and the third longest in the world. The image itself contains dimension and specifications info. of the bridge to further enhance its historic, technical, and encyclopedic value. This image also has a high resolution (3617 × 735 = 2,658,495) and was cleaned up nicely, especially for a photo that is over 100 years old! If the historical and interest value and quality of the image wasnt enough to justify a nomination, I personally think it is a beautiful image of beautiful bridge emerging. I find the falsework centering in the center of the image drawing my eyes to it in a mesmerizing way. It looks like a vortex.
Thank you for reading through case for someone taking the time to nominate this image as a featured picture candidate! 75.106.229.140 (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, slightly bigger. I can get it to around 800px high, but that's still actually considered relatively low resolution for a panorama. Great image, though. I'll upload the bigger copy. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to decrease the minimum number of supports from 5 to 4
We've had a number of nominations fail recently due to insufficient votes rather than any real opposition. I can't find the original discussion, but a number of years ago, I recall that we discussed this and decided to stick with five votes as we felt that contributions to FPC were on the rise and we could expect five votes for a worthy image. I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case currently as most nominations are struggling to get five votes. The biggest problem that I see is that we have mostly the same small group of voters who contribute to most of the nominations, and a few others that contribute sporadically. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be (the health of FPC would suffer even more without them), but the end result is that nominations pass or fail on the basis of a couple of regulars. Obviously, reducing the voting numbers isn't going to change this, but at least it gives a nomination a fair chance of succeeding. Looking at the current list of nominations, about half will fail not because there is significant opposition, but because of insufficient votes. It's been rightly argued in the past that this is often due to indifference and as such, the nomination probably deserves not to pass, but I'm not sure this is always the case. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk)17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just gotten interested in Featured Pictures lately and I will agree that there is a struggle for images to reach five supports. I'm all for decreasing the minimum to four. GamerPro6402:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just two months ago the supports were flowing free. I think it may be because people are going back to school, or the regular seasonal ebbs and flows. If this continues into October, I might agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the votes were flowing freely mainly because of that small group of regulars. For example, Coat of many colours and Hafspajen were recently voting on nearly every nomination and are now conspicuously absent. As Colin mentioned above, we are dangerously close to not having sufficient members to really be seen to be a broad community. Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's important to balance the desire to the desire to promote as many worthy candidates as possible with the need to ensure that a candidate receives broad enough support before succeeding. If changed to only 4 supports, it can have 2 opposes against it and still pass - which is too many in my opinion. Something I would be in favor of is the notion of net votes: supports minus opposes. We could make the threshold 4 net votes, so a candidate would pass with 4 supports against 0 opposes but fail with 5 supports against 2 opposes. (The threshold can be lowered if necessary.) Alternatively, or in conjunction, we could allow for relisting of candidates that have received few votes (the details of which could be worked out if people like this idea). -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be keen to lower the quorum requirements and think this is partly a summer lull combined with a general trend towards lower participation levels on wiki. There comes a point when the opinion of so few people really doesn't represent a community decision wrt the "best on Wikipedia". And lowering the quorum makes personal and wikiproject bias even more likely to influence outcomes. If it becomes a regular situation that great images can't get five people to review them, then this forum should be suspended, sadly. -- Colin°Talk07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually fine with the current system as well. Just saying that I would prefer what I have suggested to reducing raw supports to 4. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Give it another month and see what happens. If the numbers remain the same I could support this but agree that, at the moment this doesn't seem to be a priority ...yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Happy to wait and see. I do appreciate that some of the slowdown can be attributed to summer holidays, but on the other hand, it's a dysfunctional project when it fails to function properly for 3-4 months of the year (summer and Christmas-New Year periods). Every year we have the same slow down and every year, nominations fade into the void without any real consensus. An alternative arrangement could be that (as is documented for the Christmas period) if a nomination does not have a greater than 1:2 oppose ratio (ie is not looking like failing due to opposition) but does not have the required 5 votes, it could be left open for an additional x days. I know this adds another layer of complexity for closers and I'd much prefer to keep the system as simple as possible, but it would certainly assist in getting the 'right' decision in periods of low participation. Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
May I point out that I am merely absent because off Coat's vigourous opposing off my nominations? And harrasment and uncivility. He is not doing any good to this project, it is just a lot of disturbance and not many good points. Maybe Sagaciousphil, if we ask her nicely or Belle, will be a replacement.Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it's disappointing that you feel that way about Coat. I caught bits and pieces of it but didn't really know enough of what was going on to get involved. Rather than stopping, perhaps we can somehow sort the issue out? Agree not to comment on each other's nominations perhaps? I don't think any of us should tolerate harassment but without going back and reading through it all (I'd rather not), I can't say who was to blame and I'd rather find a solution than a scapegoat. ;-) But problem noted and I hope we can sort it out without you disappearing for good. Would be nice to keep Belle around too. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That they not comment on each others' nominations seems like a fair solution to me; I don't think Haf is interested in commenting on Coat's nominations seems clear. But this isn't maybe the best place for that: should these problems return it's probably best addressed on WP:AN, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am disappointed, too. And I did asked several times him to not to comment on my nominations, or stopp doing it - but it was unstoppable. And I NEVER commented on his, by the way, just mentioning it. No, you didn't understod, because you were not the target, Diliff. It was pretty violent harrasment, and not only here but at different talkpages, that you probably don't watch. Also possible different depths to it, that it would take time to explain... Not possible so sort out, sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can't sort out the original source of the harrassment or stop it from happening on all pages (although there are certainly avenues to pursue that), but we can at least try to make your contributions at FPC comfortable and ensure we don't tolerate it there. Ðiliff «» (Talk)18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Diliff. If he retuns, than I would suggest that nothing more than a simple support or oppose should be added by him to MY nominations, that would be a big help. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with those who want to wait and see what happens in a month or two. If the situation does not improve, I would be more supportive of the extended time (up to 4 additional days as we have done during the end of year holidays) per Diliff versus lowering the number of supporting votes required.--Godot13 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I will participate - if these conditions above are imposed - a simple yes or no from Coat, but nothing more - so I don't have to feel like sitting in the lion's den with each and every nomination... Hafspajen (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
I think that while we decide on an consensus for this proposal, some of us should probably look at the nominations in Template:FPC urgents. With six currently in need of reviewing its no wonder this thread was made. GamerPro6419:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be opposed. Truly exceptional images are getting plenty of support, which indicates those not getting enough support may have more to do with their content than the number of reviewers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That old argument is easy to make, but I disagree slightly with it. Firstly, 'exceptional' is very subjective and not necessarily a requirement for FP. If you mean something that truly makes your eyes pop then yes those images are quite rare and rightly so, at least for me. And yes when they do come around, they do generally get good support. But there are a lot of images that I would consider at or above the standard of similar FPs, but not necessarily 'wow' material for a lot of people. And for those people, they're inclined to pass over them rather than oppose, which is a normal response. But this is where the problem lies. In effect, a decision to not vote results in the same thing as voting oppose in many cases, but it's not a fair way of dealing with a nomination and it also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the criteria. It's just personal interest. I'm not suggesting we should become criteria-automatons, but I think it's important that we vote on as many nominations as possible, not just the ones that interest or wow us. Nobody is going to argue against a well reasoned oppose, but when silence is essentially an 'it's not interesting to me' oppose vote, then it's not particularly well reasoned vote, and nor is it helpful feedback to the nominator. If we reduce the number of votes required for an image to pass, it may also have the knock-on effect of pushing those lurking members to vote. If they genuinely believe it should not pass, then they may be more inclined to oppose when it's 'live'. And if they aren't interested in it but can't summon a legitimate reason to oppose, then perhaps rightfully they don't deserve the aforementioned silent oppose vote. ;-) Perhaps, or perhaps not, but as things stand, there's not much incentive for these people to vote. Silence gives them the desired result but the nominator is left frustrated. Ðiliff «» (Talk)22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not as bad here as on Commons, but people routinely argue opposes, reasoned or not. People and cultures that try to avoid open confrontation would much rather pass than vote oppose in that environment. As such, I think it is just as easy to say that failed nominations are the result of low participation. I've looked at the current list of urgents and went meh. Nothing there is bad, yet I don't care enough about them to vote either way. I am not suggesting they need to be spectacular either, just something more than good and/or adequate EV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
In principle I am in favor of this, though King of Hearts makes a valid point. But these are !votes ("not votes") anyway, right? So if there's four in favor and no significant opposition (that is, just one against, or not much of an argument) it can pass--and I imagine that if you, in the current system, have one good "for" argument, four "per nom", and two well-argued "against" votes, it already doesn't pass. Is that so? I mean, don't tell me that at the end of the day you simply count votes here. In other words, if the vote is 4-2 (KoH's scenario), then it will depend on the arguments and the quality thereof. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No, these are actually votes, and the 2/3 rule is a strict cutoff unless there are exceptional circumstances. What makes FPC different from other things like AfD is that it is an inherently subjective process. Ultimately it's a tradeoff. With consensus-based discussions, we allow for one person (the closer) to have a much greater voice than any of the participants because 1) we trust them not to abuse that authority, and 2) there are a lot of !votes that are made for invalid reasons, and need to be discounted. But with FPC, it's much harder to say that a reason is invalid, even someone just doesn't like an image, that's a perfectly fine reason to oppose (though explaining the specific objections is strongly recommended). Also it's difficult for one person to say whether an image with 10 supports and 5 opposes should pass.
Perhaps I'm getting a bit philosophical here, but in general you want a balance between objectivity and subjectivity. If something is too objective, it can produce clearly unsuitable results if a case comes up that the writers of the rules didn't foresee. If something is too subjective, it introduces too much variability and puts too much control in the hands of people who may find it difficult to act in a neutral capacity. Since AfD is more objective, we use a more subjective evaluation process, and for FPC vice versa. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally believe that the reason for some of the lack of interest in participating is not due to apathy or disinterest. I too experienced some of the negative rise in atmospheric pressure over the summer, especially with one nominator. I have voted on some photos and paintings, but mostly 'support' because I do not have the technical background to back up an 'oppose' with a good reason, which is fair. Twice, I did vote 'oppose' and was badly wounded in long arguments and demands to strike my vote. There was argument and mockery against others as well, as Hafspajen has said above. I echo Saffron Blaze just above that some nominators argue opposes, even without good reason. It was just too unhappy an experience for me to continue, after I was mocked and talked about to other contributers in the thread in an attacking way. I have no personal preference over four or five 'supports', I don't suppose. I would love to continue to stop in and vote in favour of an awesome painting from time to time. I do have an artsy background of sorts...Fylbecatuloustalk19:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I'm certainly not trying to discourage you from contributing to FPC, I have to say, if you don't feel comfortable opposing, then that's a problem. We should all be able to express opposition without being intimidated into changing our mind (or into avoiding the project completely). I have from time to time fought my corner against what I saw to be irrational or unfair criticism, but I'd like to think I never made anyone feel too uncomfortable. Ultimately, it isn't about egos or being right at all costs, it's just about highlighting the best images and if we can't do that fairly and with the right checks and balances, then we're not really suceeding as a project. Ðiliff «» (Talk)01:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't voted on a nomination in a long while, making this a little hypocritical (sorry to be part of the problem), but I'm in favor of this proposal. The community is shrinking and the number of members in the community willing to put up with sometimes obscure (often unwritten) rules of these processes and the above mentioned issues of harassment and challenged opinions doubly so. The process won't be hurt by having fewer nominations failed by default IMO. Cat-fivetc ---- 03:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone who currently has a large set nominated that has taken six months of work (on and off) and created a featured list to explain the set, I have to disagree. The notion stated above that “the process won’t be hurt by having fewer nominations failed by default” is (IMO, and said respectfully) wrong. If satisfaction is not achieved with four votes required then what? Maybe there needs to be “Good Picture” criteria, or perhaps (drawing on what has been suggested above by KoH) four supporting votes with no opposition. My concern is that the term “Featured Picture” will mean less if the criteria is changed/eased. Believe me Adam, I’m frustrated too…--Godot13 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we get enough reviews if we make notifications on the article or project talk pages. I prefer such reviews (from the subject experts) than mere technical reviews from the regulars (Commons is for that). Jee05:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not visit WP:FPC that often, as I do not feel entirely comfortable evaluating the EV of nominations (as I am not an encyclopedian, but a media contributor), and quite frankly because when I do, it is because I try to self-nominate a picture. I also add my comments to a few noms if I feel I have something to add. I do notice though that it is now a much less active community here (as compared to commons:COM:FPC), than it was a few years ago. It appears to be dying. Almost nothing is happening and very peacefull. Maybe old reviewers should come out of their rabbit holes? I think the idea Jee had to actively recruit new active members by engaging regular editors on the talk pages of the pages nominations are used in would also be a good idea. At least for evaluating the EV side of things. The more technical aspects could then be the focal point of the few regulars here, and along the way, some more editors could get an eye for what makes an FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I could see that working as a notification-after-the-fact, otherwise it will just have the effect of drawing ill-considered supports of the "I like that bridge so I support the nom regardless of quality" kind. I'm also not sure if we're still actively nominating images contributed by Wikipedians, in which case, I believe we used to notify them when the image passed. WikiProjects dying has been a general phenomenon for some time now, unfortunately, not something unique to FPC. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at many of the talk archives to see why many of the regulars are gone and never coming back. I'm reluctant to name particular names but there were a few who had hundreds (possibly over a thousand in one or two cases) of successfully featured pictures but just couldn't deal with the drama, backbiting, and overall nastiness that often occurs both in relation to specific noms and about the whole process here on this talk page. Some of them moved to Commons but for the rest, it is IMO a great loss to Wikipedia that they were driven away. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I used to be a regular here and see no drama in what's happening now. Projects are born, grow and die quite naturally without a special reason, other than the boredom of its participants and the lack of new blood. Maybe the initial enthusiasm of those editors (including myself) could be revived through some new challenging initiative, but I can't see how. As for the proposal of David, I would keep things as they are. PS to @Cat-five:: there are no authors with thousands of FP. The one with more promotions is maybe Diliff himself! Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect JJ Harrison or Fir0002 have more featured pictures than me (high 100s, low 200s I think). I'm only on 168 currently. But slow and steady wins the race, eh? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)19:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing Fir has more than that, he used to be a prolific nominator to the point that people asked him not to nominate so much so others would have a chance. My memory may be faulty but I remember most of his noms succeeding too. The other person I was thinking of was GMaxwell, who had fewer noms, but also had a very high success rate. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I don't think Fir0002 has more than the low 200s. Actually if this is accurate and up to date, he has 162 featured pictures, or 190 if former FPs are included. Gmaxwell wouldn't have more than 10-15 FPs at most, I would say. I recall a few of them but not many. Ðiliff «» (Talk)20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it's actually me, Durova, or Godot13 then. I have over two hundred and fifty; not sure of the exact number because I know my list before 2013 is very, very incomplete; Durova claims 288, but I think she claims a lot of things I don't claim, like nominations without restoration work put in. Godot probably has over 200 this year alone, albeit mostly in large sets. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't participated here for quite some time. I look in from time to time, but don't see much to catch my eye or worth investing my time in. There are some great photographs but most of those have been through Commons FP. There are a lot of historical photos, paintings, diagrams, etc, which is great and encouraging for that aspect of Wikipedia. But as a photographer, those aren't images that I have much interest in reviewing in my limited spare time. Currently we have some photos of "frozen fog". I'm sure there are lots of nice pictures of frost and fog and it is hard to think why any one should be held up as special for the articles. Where are the photographers? I don't buy the argument that people have left due to bad atmosphere or harassment: that always has and always will flare up on forums. I think Alvesgaspar is right that we're at some natural low but combined with lower participation on WP overall, perhaps the forum is in terminal decline. What's the attraction for a photographer to take and nominate his/her images here rather than at Commons? On Commons, you don't have the hassle/stress of having to take a "lead image" and there is currently a much more active community to get advice/encouragement. Considering Commons is the picture repository for WP, what really is the purpose of this forum? Is the emphasis on encyclopaedic value a bonus or a handicap? -- Colin°Talk13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
All good points, and a subject worth discussing... My thoughts are that it still serves a purpose in that it provides a source of images for POTD, which is a significant part of the main page and valuable for Wikipedia. Apart from that though, and in terms of highlighting good images for the sake of it, I also question what it is that the images should achieve here. Colin is right that for a photographer, Commons is a far better FP project because there are less restrictions on what is considered to be featureable, and more emphasis on a compelling photo regardless of its ability to illustrate a given article. And there are also many more participants and more robust critique. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to abandon this project either, because I do take many of my photos primarily for their encyclopaedic value, and not just because they're 'pretty'. I do wonder where the photographers are. Interest seems to be low and has been for many years. In terms of regular quality photographers, I could count on one hand (or perhaps generously, two) the number of photographers who have participated here since I've been involved (2005), but at least back then we had a large volume of interested contributors. Consider my first featured picture. Ignoring the fact that back then, good photography was rarer and people were more easily impressed. ;-) At least we had a lot of people involved. Unless we can somehow encourage more photographers, or at least more contributors that have an interest in photography, all this will not amount to much more than naval gazing. Unfortunately getting that kind of contribution is beyond the scope of this project. It's a huge job to turn things around. Ðiliff «» (Talk)14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup
As a warning to others: If you work primarily on images, stay well away from the WikiCup. The entire competition has been one long complaint from three or four entitled people about how dare anyone who work on pictures look like they might win or do well. Six months of abuse, because some of the people who work on articles apparently do not appreciate images, and think their contributions should be the only ones that matter.
Something seems to be broken with the archiving of this page. Just now I was looking for an item I thought† I'd posted here in mid-2014 from a different IP address, I found that the latest archive link was to Archive 34, but there was a gap of over a year between that and the oldest section now on the page. I then looked to see if there was an Archive 34, and there was, but it was not linked.
I further noticed that Archives 1 through 31 were each identified by a range of pair of dates, while the most recent archives were only identified by number. I decided to manually edit the archive links to add the missing one and convert the latest ones to that style. However, when I did this, I realized that the closing date shown for Archive 31 is wrong, while Archive 32 overlaps with both Archives 31 and 33 in date. Specifically:
Archive Earliest section started Last section started
31 2 August 2010 25 January 2012
32 10 March 2011 24 April 2012
33 13 April 2012 9 January 2013
The overlap between 32 and 33 is minor, but not for 31 and 32. Just checking section titles I don't see any duplicated section titles between these three sections, so it's not that something was
somehow archived without being removed from the talk page itself. I haven't looked to see if there's a pattern of how the sections in the different archives interleave.
Hi all,
While surfing and scrolling down the featured images, I came across many old FPs which were far below the current requirements of a features picture. Some are unaffected by the quality problem, but they are below the minimum resolution. File:Flying mallard duck - female.jpg and File:St Vitus stained glass.jpg are some of the stunning images which we have, but are far below the required requirements. So what I have in my mind is some kind of Delist and Replace drive where the images which are below the resolution requirements can be delisted/delisted and replaced with a higher resolution version. Of course there are some occasional Delist nominations, where Godot13 and Crisco does it (mainly), but we can have a united nomination where all the such images are first classified into some page, like say, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/D&R drive and then go for the consensus individually. This will increase the speed and reaction time for the FP contributors and voters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Herald (talk • contribs) 15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Done --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Armbrust The Homunculus 09:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Pale alt
Main page
Hafspajen (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The Dutch :Featured article is using this.
The French
English - the pic of day...
.jpg){kind=link}
-$0.05-Fr.1231.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=118086257){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=117448963&oldid=95911100){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg#Summary){kind=link}
