Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

How many FPs can a subject accommodate?

A discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Il Signor Tambourossini brought up the following two questions:

  1. How many FPs can a subject accommodate, and under what circumstances?
  2. If a picture that only appears in a gallery would clearly be used inline if the article had sufficient text, does it have EV? For example: File:Common blue damselflies (Enallagma cyathigerum) mating composite.jpg in this old version of Enallagma cyathigerum (i.e. before I moved it out of the gallery).

My take:

  • There is no limit to the number of FPs for any given subject, as long as all FPs contain distinct information and add to articles. For example, the article black swan permits FPs of { a male, a female, in flight, cygnets, eggs, nesting environment, skeleton, anatomy diagram, specific works detailing its role in the history of Western Australia } because each conveys different information about the subject. This set of images cannot be contained within one FP set because it does not have a well-defined scope (the last item is open-ended).
  • Images in galleries do not have EV if the gallery is just a collection of images. An image in a gallery that has a specific encyclopedic purpose (i.e. has the potential to be a FP set) has EV.

Comments? MER-C 20:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally, we've followed those rules. Consider Aida (many FPs), and The Hunting of the Snark (gallery) for fairly clear examples of each of those. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've had pictures that haven't made it because of not being the top right image, being in a gallery or perhaps just apathy. e.g. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abyssinian black-and-white colobus and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marsh fritillaries mating We certainly could have VI scopes for animals like the black swan as described above, so why not FP? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The first one got featured on a renomination, and the second one is worthy of a renomination and should succeed given FPC is well attended on the week of nomination (it wasn't when you nominated it). Images ending up at 3-0 or 4-0 are definitely worth a renomination - the non-promotion is not a judgement of the EV or FP-worthiness of the image. (I'll add it to the list of pictures I want to nominate.) MER-C 12:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Regarding scope - that's still a little too restrictive. Imagine a butterfly with completely different markings on the top and underside of its wings. That's two images within the same scope having different information. We've had this concept from day one, though - images must add value to articles, and articles usually don't support more than one image with the same information. MER-C 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the established principle is that the image must have encyclopedic value to be included, and thus any second image of the same subject would not have encyclopedic value. In rare cases an article might have 2 featured pictures, for example a male and female of a dimorphic bird, or the interior and exterior of a cathedral. In these examples both have significant encyclopedic value, however in most cases one featured picture should satisfy the encyclopedic value. Mattximus (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A FP should not have to be the top image. The top image should be the most overall visual depiction of the subject, but it's not necessarily the most valuable image. Sometimes those are the most common, most boring images. EV, yes, but not the sole EV. Remember that part of the idea isn't just EV within the article, but also that it would make someone want to learn more about it. Let's take an arbitrary example -- a bird of some kind. And let's say it's a FA -- well developed, not cramming pictures in a "gallery" section. FP for male, FP for female (primarily if sexually dimorphic). FP for some weird mating dance they do. FP for the bird in flight. FP for hunting. FP for feeding chicks. FP for a close-up of a unique feature of the beak it has. Why not? Maybe some make sense to combine, but all of these are important elements of the subject, and all have the potential for a striking image that will draw people into the article.
As an aside, it is not the case that we have too many FPs on enwiki. One could make that argument on Commons, where POTD is almost always planned at least a year out, but here if anything we should have more, not fewer. Been a good upswing in the past few months, I think, but this is just to say I don't know why it would be a net positive to be very restrictive on FPs/article. Frankly, although I think it makes sense that they should be used in an article, I think it makes the most sense not to look at however the last person to edit the page left the image in the current version, but rather to evaluate the EV of the image in a hypothetical FA version of the article... but that's a whole separate conversation.— Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Judging old photos

Here is the discussion to date from FPC

  • Charles, this is a process question, a good place for it is WT:FPC. In short, the FP criteria has some cues, it also links to here for examples. My personal take is in this nom in small print marked "sidenote". In it you see the words "integral", "purposeful-and-material", "historic integrity", which are somewhat subjective. Also looking at existing FPs is informative and shows some precedence. Bammesk (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The link above here indicates that historical photographs should be only known photograph or unique, which seems a reasonable test for me. So Niels Bohr? There seems to be a wide selection of images of him, many on Commons. There are even more of Helen Keller. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misreading it: it's saying a particularly unique photograph that would not normally be high enough quality to be featureable may pass anyway, giving as examples a few very early photos. That said, was that ever actually a guide? it's entirely the work of one person. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 18:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a reliable guide, I agree, but I tend to agree with it. Standards on modern photos are pretty well established. But my question is how do we judge historical photos - and restorations for that matter? We must be able to set some standards. My personal opinion that many old photos are VIC but should we be making them FP? I don't think they can be considered the finest images on Wikipedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
To step back a moment before dealing with your valid point: One of the biggest difference between Commons and en-wiki FPC is that Commons is a photo/art evaluation, whereas en-wiki also judges encyclopædic value, and that can trump the former. En-wiki does not have VIC.
So, we're kind of using both VIC and commons-FPC criteria at once. Now, some old photos shouldn't be FP. For example, File:Marble statue of three suffragists by Adelaide Johnson in the Capitol crypt, Washington, D.C..jpg isn't particularly bad, but a photo taken today wouldn't be THAT different. The statue's been moved, but... that's it.
However, in the case of photographs of historic figures, we can't replace them with a modern photo, so need to evaluate on their terms. Is it a good photo of that person? These can be substantially worse than a modern photograph, because they cannot reasonably be replaced. (I'd say photography hit its nadir around 1910-20, by the way. It was right after the need for long exposures was gotten past, but before the technology was good enough to fully make up for it, and it was also the era that brought back the fadeout. So File:Carrie Chapman Catt - National Woman's Party Records.jpg is somewhat worse than, say, File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg - but the latter wouldn't be a very good illustration of Catt, would it?
Similarly, an article on the history of a town - or even the town itself in most cases - would benefit from historic photos, and so a good quality historic photo should be featureable.
Basically, we need to balance the two requirements for en-wiki FPC: Quality and value. Quality is rarely not an issue - Trojan Room coffee pot has a particularly low-resolution FP, because nothing higher-resolution would accurately reflect what was actually being depicted. But if it's reasonable to expect better for a subject, we shouldn't promote. Claims we should accept a 400x600 px scan of a valuable historic photo should not fly. Claims that the film grain inherent to the era's photographs should.
The point of en-wiki FPC is, quite simply, to improve the way we illustrate Wikipedia by pushing for higher standards. Cutting out anything historical is counterproductive, it means a whole class of subjects lack any driving force to improve. For example, before I stepped in, this was the lead image of Carrie Chapman Catt: File:Carrie Chapman Catt.jpg. It's not even the highest resolution image available from its source, but there was nothing encouraging it to be replaced except FPC. The carrot of getting to share things you're interested in with the world is powerful. If en-wiki FPC decided to cut out historical imagery, honestly, I'd probably stop editing Wikipedia. And that's not meant to be a threat: But if a site makes it clear it doesn't want something, why spend 10 hours making things for it? I can do sound editing too, but I haven't really bothered since WP:FSC died, and it is all a motivation thing. You kind of need a strong motivation to put in that much effort for free.
Hell, there was a whole community of pianists recording for FSC, people making sure that limited-time releases from the US military bands were all uploaded.... I'm pretty sure that no-one's bothering to do anything like that for Wikipedia anymore. I'd hate to see historic images go the same way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 00:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, for comparison, every FP I have gotten on en-wiki since the start of the year is also featured on commons, and, in addition, two images that failed here for lack of quorum were featured there. I don't think I've had an image fail on commons since my return, although I haven't nominated I'm Signoir Tambourossini there yet due to speed throttling. So en-wiki is, if anything, more restrictive to historical FPs. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Lansdowne Heracles

Hi, Now we have a version with less background noise: File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum (retouched).jpg. Should we replace the FP: File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.jpg? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Run it through a Delist and Replace. Denoising can impact quality in other ways. --jjron (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on 35mm articles

You may be interested in Talk:35 mm film#RfC: 35mm articles, an RfC to overhaul the various articles related to the 35mm film format. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on List of Photographers

You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:

  • Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
  • Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
    • Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
  • Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
    • If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?

Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for editing candidates

After uploading an alternative image for an Edgar Allen Poe candidate, I was lightly (and perhaps rightly) chided by Bammesk and Adam_Cuerden for not crediting the contributions of previous retouchers and for using the wrong license on my uploaded alternative.

To clarify the proper procedure for future newbies, I propose a change to the "Editing candidate" section of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (additions in bold):

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. In the description of the new image that you upload, be sure to credit previous editors who contributed to the image that you altered, and make sure the license matches the license of the original image that you changed.

I think this would help clarify the procedure for proposing alternates, but welcome discussion and tweaks to this language. Qono (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Except in rare cases, files are hosted on Commons, and the guidelines and rules of that project should be respected. For example, Commons:Overwriting existing files is the guideline on editing files. And it states that unless the change is really minor and uncontroversial, another filename should be used. I agree that it is good to indicate in the filename that the file is edited (and thus no longer a faithful copy of the source file).
On Commons FP, we have a rule that alternatives should not be proposed without permission from the nominator. Adding an alternative disrupts the nomination and makes it harder to get consensus. So it is only fair on the nominator to check they are happy before adding an alt. Also be aware that alternatives have not had the benefit of being used on the article for 7 days, so there is a risk that editors involved in the article may object to having a different version of the image imposed on them by members of this forum.
Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and remains perpetually a work-in-progress, Commons is not. Commons is a repository of media that is ready-to-use, and its users do not expect changes to files they link to. Often it is best to work on a lossless original copy (such as a TIFF or PNG) than to make repeated edits to a lossy copy (JPG). For example, if you think the image would be improved in some way (more contrast, say) then it may be better to discuss this with the original restorer than to upload variants that exist purely for discussion on this forum, and which then end up cluttering Commons. Lots of minor variant files make it confusing for users to know which should be chosen. One option some people use on Commons FP is to upload your proposed edit to DropBox or similar, and provide a link. That way, if your proposal is found to be without much support, the file is not cluttering the Commons category.
An encyclopaedia should value honest and faithful reproductions of historical works, particularly for famous ones. While individuals may like an image with increased contrast or bolder colours, such edits might not be considered encyclopaedic or appropriate to our educational mission. -- Colin°Talk 10:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Perhaps adding a link to Commons:Overwriting existing files would be helpful in this section then? To be clear, I'm not disputing these guidelines—I think they make a lot of sense—I'm only proposing that they be made more clear and explicit on the front page in the "Editing candidate" section of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates to help newcomers. Qono (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the biggest thing to watch is attribution. I had thought I had seen your name around a lot more on Commons - it was probably actually a similar one - and so was actually rather upset at the failure to attribute and the licensing issue, because I mistook the mistake for a credit grab. I'm really glad I was smart enough to keep calm about it, because, y'know, you're obviously earnest and well-meaning.
I really don't mind a well-documented alt; Well... I might disagree with it being superior, but I won't be upset. Derailing a nomination is a much bigger deal on Commons, where there's a very strong bias against renominations. Here, eh... wait a month or so and it's fine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 15:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen at FPC, reviewers primarily vote and provide feedback. Editing images is a secondary thing, and is not as straight forward as editing article content. In regard to editing images, generally I try to yield to image creators and have them retain credit, and I try to follow Wikipedia and Commons norms on file creation and maintenance (verifiability, traceability, and such). Bammesk (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New Script

Editors may be interested in User:DannyS712/FPC voter, which makes it really easy to !vote for, against, neutrally, etc. regarding candidates. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

March had 38 promotions

...Which makes March the first time in quite some time that the number of new FPs equalled or exceeded the number of POTDs. This is, I think, a very good sign. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 21:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

By my count, January this year had 32 success3ful FPCs (and 51 images promoted). But before that, we have to go back to January 2016 which had 32 successful FPCs. We are also ahead of POTD for the year as well. MER-C 08:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a good sign if you're an ornithologist. – Sca (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Only 8 of them are birds... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Importing/uploading photos

Is there anyone who would be proficient at assessing and uploading a bunch of pictures that were posted to www.flickr.com? An editor ran across about 30 quality older images and posted a notification at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago#just_found_some_historic_drawings.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/#/ will help with the uploading. MER-C 17:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aline Duval

Hi, Seeing the time I spent on this, it is very disappointing. :( This is not encouraging me to restore and nominate more images... Yann (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Hi, The current File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg is in fact a cropped version. I found a version with a larger crop, and of quite good quality. Do you think it merits a delist and replace vote? Regards, Yann (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The larger crop (the new image) is a bit smaller than existing FP, I mean the number of pixels per photographed horizontal width. When enlarged to the same magnification, the new image has more detail (for example, in shadow areas), looks sharper, it has a minute grain everywhere which covers the soldier's clothing, and looks a bit too bright (over exposed). Overall, the new image looks like a better image. The wider crop of the new image makes it look unbalanced, the soldiers are bunched up to the right and not centered. Also, the new image can use a bit of touch up on the far left side (there are some bright patched), it can use a bit of grain removal (denoising), perhaps a bit of cropping to center the soldiers (horizontally and vertically), perhaps a bit of exposure adjustment (reducing the brightness). I volunteer to touch it up. Would be nice to get feedbacks to the contrary before I start touching it up. We can do a delist and replace afterwards. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The main point is to keep it as close as possible to the original print for an iconic image like this, i.e. not cropping it. What do you think? --Yann (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Yann, I understand. I will upload a full image, no cropping. The image can always be cropped later if consensus goes that way. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, fine. Yann (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I uploaded the edited image here. The touchups are primarily in the sky area, many are minute and not obvious. I adjusted the exposure slightly, only slightly, didn't want to loose details in the shadow areas. I uploaded the denoised version as a separate upload (so the non-denoised version is accessible if needed). Bammesk (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Now, in the Commons Delist and Replace nomination, several people criticized this version, so I am confused. Why Wikipedia and Commons can't agree on the same version? What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Bammesk suggested to revert File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg to the first version? Would it be OK? Regards, Yann (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The consensus on Commons seems to be for the original, without any restoration. If the image print was quite damaged (folds, stains, tears) then restoration could be valued higher, but here there isn't much wrong with the print. There isn't consensus that adjusting the exposure is desired either. I appreciate the attempt to improve it and the clear indication in the filename that the image is adjusted. I suspect that Wikipedia won't care about the minor differences (thumbnail usage anyway) and Commons will prefer the archival value of an original. -- Colin°Talk 08:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Commons FPC loss of sharpness critique here. I reverted to the original upload here, which retains the sharpness. I don't agree with Commons critiques on restoring defects though. The image is relatively well preseved, but not defect free. It has defects, some obvious and some not, bright patches which look abnormal and seem to be caused by storage under long term contact with another somewhat sticky surface. For example bright streaks around x,y=(2620,1420), minute but abnormal, and other abnormal patches annotated in the revision history here. Restoring defects of historic images, introduced over time, is a routine thing, not a novel concept, so I disagree with that portion of Commons FPC critiques. Also, the original scan here comes from a press article, so it is not necessarily an authoritative scan, it could very well have had post processing applied to it, such as nonoptimal sharpening and brightness adjustments. Treating it as an authoritative scan would be naive. Bammesk (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Would be great

If people paid attention to FPc needing feedback. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Debate on POTD of a notable photograph

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 05:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Grants:Project/National Film Registry

I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I ran a computer program to check whether all our featured pictures are used in articles, and found that the following 167 images weren't:

I've went through and pulled anything still undealt with, and hid the ones we have. I think I got this right; I suppose if I missed one, we can deal with that next time you run the program. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 21:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Files already dealt with
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
image has been restored to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/House sparrow and clouds Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect many of these have been superceded in articles or bumped by newbies so need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. MER-C 12:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of them may have been swapped out over the years by people trying to promote their own images or for various other reasons, and on inspection might turn out to still be much better than whatever's there now. Probably best to go through them with a fine-tooth comb and consider going through the FP replacement process for those that have a clearly better image used now...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I just booted two low resolution pictures from about 40 different articles in exchange for File:Pont du Gard BLS.jpg. If only replace nominations weren't as risky... MER-C 12:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Species

Documents

People


Minerals

Architecture and places

Vehicles

Space

Other

FPs with similar information

This is from a manual examination. I'm sure there are more, I didn't look too carefully. I think we should get into the habit of searching before nominating. MER-C 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Avian overload

As of Nov. 21, half of the current nominations were birds. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate something other. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's Featured Pictures - soliciting feedback on its purpose and whether it should be closed

I've written an essay of sorts and posted to VPI to solicit feedback. Note that there is no active proposal at this time. My hope is that participants here will ensure I have my facts right and share their thoughts: User:Rhododendrites/Reconsidering FPC on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This has been posted in multiple locations. To avoid parallel/redundant discussions, I'd like to encourage people to consolidate comments on the essay's talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidates for FP

Following the discussion above, I propose a vote on the following change to rules. Any image submitted for FP on English Wikipedia must first be featured on Commons. Voting should be on encyclopaedic value to articles(s) (as now), but not on image quality (composition, resolution, technical quality, artisitic impression) Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In favour

Against

  • Oppose

Neutral but with a point of view

  • Neutral add your comment here

proposal withdrawn as requested. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with Rhododendrites that this proposal is premature. I suggest withdrawing it for now, pending further discussion at User talk:Rhododendrites/Reconsidering FPC on the English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Presentation of photos in info Box (copy of entry on Commons FP page)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T159640

We have a dilemma that the artistic demands of a great photo - space for the subject to breath, rule of thirds etc., often a landscape layout - conflict with the needs of a close crop, often portrait, in a Wikipedia article info box. Most websites (even my own) have the capability to crop for thumbnails without messing up the photo. Can someone write that bit of software for Wikipedia. Where should we ask for it anyone? Charles (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This exists as w:Template:CSS image crop. Not sure if there are conflicts when used in an infobox, but I've seen it used a couple times in articles. — Rhododendrites
Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3.jpg

|  22:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The display requirements you listed would mean that any such photo should naturally be outside of an infobox. It's a pity that image handling in articles is so poor in general. Yomanganitalk 13:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how/if this templates works with user preferences for thumb size and with the MediaWiki feature for high-DPI displays that requests a higher resolution thumb. But mainly it is poor because it is a client-side CSS bodge on the already downloaded image, whereas a proper website would generate the crop server-side. I think that if you feel portrait close crops are beneficial to WP, then they may be beneficial to other sites, so you should use the Commons Crop tool to generate an alternative file with appropriate name. It is probably easier to do this than to figure out all the crop numbers for this template. -- Colin°Talk 15:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
That's basically what we did in this case: uploaded a separate file for the crop. Since dynamic cropping doesn't really work well on Wikipedia, that presents us with the following dilemma: Do we feature the original (more aesthetic) version of an image, or do we feature the version that is cropped for infobox use? Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: It looks like someone has already requested this feature: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T159640. Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominations by TheHistoryBuff101

TheHistoryBuff101 has flooded FPC with a large number of nominations which look to have little chance of passing. I'd suggest that these nominations be speedy closed. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Winston Churchill could well pass. Some of the other noms are plausible; the problem is, with so many of them, I think the usual reviewers are overwhelmed and don't even know where to start except in cases where there is a clear reason to say no. At least it's that way for me. In any case, I think the usual process of failure by lack of quorum will work well enough for most of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
TheHistoryBuff101 has not had the courtesy to reply to my post on the talk page. I think the multiple noms are stopping others making genuine votes. Any admins around? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

La bohème

The La bohème image seems oddly ignored. I know a "wall-of-text" discussion can sink a nom, but given the resolution of the discussion, I would hope we can move past that.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sándor Vay and La Esmeralda

These noms really could use some more eyes. They're almost, but not quite, at quorum. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page#POTD

Watchers of this page may be interested in the following discussion: Talk:Main Page#POTD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MacArthur?

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history § Photo of Douglas MacArthur?

What happened here that FP let this by ... this is obviously not MacArthur. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beulah Ream Allen receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I can find no source saying that the man in the photo is MacArthur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This has now been corrected in the article, on the mainpage at DYK, and in the Signpost. A commons admin needs to fix the faulty description on the actual image, which is now semi-protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
For what its worth I picked up on this a week ago but got no reply from Adam on the subject matter. If I had known this was going to be up on the main page I would have pursued it more vigorously, but I had a work week ahead of me and mistakenly thought I had time to borrow against before it went up on any page. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ha.[1] I am concerned, TomStar81, about what is going on lately at MilHist and how many "older" editors are no longer there? Do we really live in a world now where people don't recognize Douglas MacArthur? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I figured it out right away when the date was given as '46 but the rank was full bird; there's no &^%$ way MacAuthor would've been a full bird at that time and it should be common knowledge. The whole nomination ought to have been suspended until this was worked out, but apparently those who do promoting at FPC didn't bother to do any fact checking. I'm fairly certain the colonel is either with a cavalry unit or an artillery unit given the crossing insignia on his shoulder board and coat, but since this isn't a frontal image I'm not sure where exactly to go digging for the man's ID since MILHIST considers flag rank to be point at which your rank counts for an article's notability. Hair and facial features also don't match up. I'm uncertain as to what she's being awarded too, if anyone had bothered to read the article on the the Presidential Medal of Freedom they'd see it was established in 1963 by JFK, which means that her award information is also incorrect, it should be noted to be the Medal of Freedom (1945), which was the precursor to the current Presidential Medal of Freedom. Like I said, the whole thing is massively incorrect: the people, the award, the dates, all of it. How on earth this got by FPC people is beyond me, but if it had been at MILHIST or through the GA/FA process it'd been pounced on right quick since article reviews requiring reading the information present in an article. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It did go through GA-- in fact, was promoted within days of being created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Well thats disconcerting. Looks like the post will have an interesting if depressing bit of news to report next month. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A former FPC (that I withdrew) has been improved - does the new/improved image need a different file name or...?

I am the original uploader of this image and put it up for FP a couple months ago. I withdrew it because of quality issues with the original image. Since then it's been improved as much as it can be so I'd like to put the improved version up and try for FP again. I'm thinking the new version needs a different file name with linkage to the original photo but can't find the instructions for all that... Help? Here's the editing history of the image over on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DeFord_Bailey.JPG&action=history. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don’t think it needs a new/different filename at all. (The old nominations page, however, can’t be reused). Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 23:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I bow to your expertise. Thank you. Oh yeah, I won't use the first nom page. I thought I remembered reading something about re-naming improved files somewhere in WP-land but I must have mis-remembered the particulars. Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of improvement...

Anyone see any problems with how I handle reporting featured picture candidates on Women in Red, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Early_november_Featured_Picture_update or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Featured_picture_report_for_Late_October. I think it's useful to announce high-quality images, but I don't want to allow it to become a canvassing tool, so I've been extremely cautious. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 21:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Was thinking about some films to nominate for Featured Pictures but I'm currently stumped. Anyone have any suggestions, whether they are already part of Commons and not? GamerPro64 02:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Signpost Featured content report

So, I've been in charge of this for a few months now. I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/Featured content and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-29/Featured content are good examples of how I intend to carry on if not directed otherwise.

How are people feeling about how I handle things? Any advice or feedback? Would people like to review my drafts? My plan for the future is to finish them as early as possible, so there's plenty of time for a review phase. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 19:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the nomination closure weirdness:

We always gave 13 days for noms in December to handle the Christmas period (10 the rest of the year), but this leads to the odd situation - relevant this year - that very late year noms can close days later than ones nominated at the very start of the year. I've set all nominations in the first three days of the year to close on January 4 at 0:00 hours (the equivalent of nominating a millisecond before the end of the year). This might lead to a few noms closing at the same time, but it should keep noms in order.

If everything breaks at the start of next year, though, uh, mea culpa? I did test it, though, and it looks like it works... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 06:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Page watchers here may have some input to give for the move request of the featured topic candidates page: Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates#Requested move 5 January 2021. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Delist" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Delist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Wikipedia:Delist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm out

If restorations are "unencyclopedic", then there's no point in me being here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I have seen many restorations that are not encyclopaedic Adam Cuerden, but all of yours that I've looked at have been an improvement and I have not seen any untoward cleaning-up, colour-enhancement or editing that would lead me to support the 'original'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Stub articles

Images submitted for FP have been opposed because they are in stub articles. There is currently no requirement for article length/quality. We should clarify the rules.
I would support the following addition to FPC Criteria:
An image cannot be opposed because of the quality of the article(s) Please do not contribute here, but on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion on POTD

At Commons, there has a been a change agreed to limit the number of POTD nominations from any one editor to two/month. This affects some editors like Adam Cuerden, Poco a poco and me. The reason I suggest this change is that Cwmhiraeth who is a very useful contributor to POTD has nominated three/month of Adam's restorations. TheFreeWorld Ivar Leidus Janke MER-C Bammesk Bruce1ee Vulp Shagil Kannur Sca DreamSparrow Basile Morin buidhe MA Javadi ©Geni Politicsfan4 Armbrust AllegedlyHuman Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why that would be beneficial at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Because an editor can nominate 4 of his own images every month which is selfish and is what happened on Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The POTDs are not nominated by anybody on this project, they are selected mostly by Cwmhiraeth (who AFAICT doesn’t create featured pictures at all). Armbrust The Homunculus 13:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
My point is that User:Cwmhiraeth has, for instance, nominated 3 restorations by User:Adam Cuerden for January 2022 which I think is one too many. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The three of Adam's images in January 2022 was because I was allotting them to the subject's dates of birth, and these three just happened to be in January. While working from the oldest nominations first, I try to schedule a balanced selection of featured pictures, and have not in the past paid any particular heed to who nominated them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Quite honestly, this seems to me like a solution looking for a problem. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

FPC relevant sockpuppet investigation

The accounts were blocked for spamming and sockpuppetry. It is also highly likely that they votestacked FPC nominations as well. MER-C 18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mydreamsparrow and Muhammad Mahdi Karim have both successfully appealed their blocks. Blacknclick remains blocked. MER-C 17:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde

Hi, I am quite surprised that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/L'Origine du monde received no comment at all. I know this is a controversial image, but I think it deserves the FP star. Did people refrain from commenting because of the nature of the image? For another reason? Is there a prohibition of nude images at FPC? I am thinking about nominating File:Georgia O'Keeffe—Torso MET DP232921.jpg, a nude portrait by Alfred Stieglitz. What do you think? Thanks for your input, Yann (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yann, there is no prohibition that I know of. I say just nominate it. I think nudes have a tougher time to pass though. In general noms aren't predictable, and sometimes participants aren't there for (or interested in) certain categories, for example the last math FP was in 2012. Bammesk (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

On renominations...

Remind me, is there a convention on renominating images that failed a previous FPC? I am talking about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Color SEM 4.jpg, which received only one critical comment [but not an explicit oppose] to which I responded ... but nothing afterwards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: there are no guidelines on renominations. Editors usually wait a couple of months (or more) before renominating. That's not a requirement though, just common practice. There are weeks or months when participation is low (December for example), and nominators try to gauge an increase in participation, example. We have had images that were nominated 3 times [2]. Also images can be nominated as a set [3], [4]. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Voting

How long does it take for a nomination to get votes usually. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Bold

Stub articles

Proposition to change FP nomination guidelines:
An image cannot be opposed because of the quality of the article(s) or because it/they are stub(s).

An image can be opposed because of the quality of the article(s) or because it/they are stub(s)

  • Weak support If I have to choose one, I guess my view is that, while the standards should be quite low, we need to have faith in the continued existence and improvement of the article and the continued inclusion of the image, and very poor or very stubby articles could easily be deleted, blown up and restarted, or upmerged. Perhaps not as big of an issue in your field: Species are inherently notable in their own right. But let's say the article is - to choose an obscure subject which, in fact, has a decent article so it's understandable the kind of thing I mean, even though that kind of makes it obvious that in this case it should probably stand - the obscure and barely published play The Realm of Joy? If that one was a superstub, would that be enough to promote an image off of it? What if I make a stub on F. C. Burnand's Ariel? I happen to know that Punch had a cartoon about it, so I could easily provide an image (and very, very little else on what was apparently a flash-in-the-pan Victorian parody of Shakespeare.
I don't think we should be the article police, but we should probably not block any consideration at all of the articles. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support please sign
  • Support please sign
@Adam Cuerden, Rhododendrites, Tomer T, MER-C, Janke, Armbrust, TheFreeWorld, Mydreamsparrow, Andrew J.Kurbiko, Bammesk, Vulphere, Buidhe,  and Sca:

Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - Since pinged, I'll just again say that the awkward relationships between photos and articles (the subjective value of the image in the article, subjective value of placement, how long it's been there, how it relates to other images, how an edit might change all of that in an instant), and the awkward relationship between enwp's FPC process and articles (based on idiosyncratic opinions of participants, and exacerbated by the increased weight of those participants in a process that gets little participation) are why I don't participate here myself. As such, while yes of course I agree it's a bad reason to oppose, I don't think it's appropriate for me to !vote on enwp FPC matters, short of, you know, "how should we adapt the output of Commons' FPC process for use on the main page of enwp so we can do away with this poorly functioning part of the project". But I know I'm in the minority with that view, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've said this before, but I don't think it's quite that simple (although it's close): An image needs to show Encyclopedic Value as used. Sometimes, a low-quality article will be enough to establish this. But we don't want to promote an image on the basis of an article doomed to be deleted or upmerged. So I think there's always going to be a subjective component.
I do think that it shouldn't matter beyond a certain point, but there's going to be a subjective element for a super-stub that might well be upmerged to the genus. The image disappearing from use is a waste of time for everyone. The inciting incident for this is probably an edge case. I'd have voted support since we probably will develop species articles for every common species eventually, but it's not in the realm of ridiculousness to say it's too short as-is.
Also, in the end, I don't see how we can stop people from voting however they want. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - About "main-page", my opinion is in diff 1, diff 2 in this nom. In short: FPs, featured articles, featured lists are not main-page content curation processes. The purpose of FP, FA, FL projects is to improve the encyclopedia, not to publish a daily "main-page". Just because the main-page draws its content from featured content projects doesn't make these projects a main-page content generation process.
About "stub articles", my opinion is in diff 3, diff 4 in this nom. In short, an article needs at least one or two paragraphs to establish whether or not a nom image meets FP criterion 5 (EV). An article that's entirely made of just one or two sentences is not sufficient IMO.
I am not against changing the FP guidelines/criteria. I like to know what others think. Bammesk (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Lawyers and judges

Lawyers and judges currently largely end up in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others. Do we have enough to spin off a new category, or, alternatively, would it be worth merging them with politics as "Politics and law"? I'm slightly inclined to think "Others" should be as small a category as is reasonable to have. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

It is customery on Commons FPC to click the 'thank you' button. This can be a slight nuisance. We all know we are grateful for a positive vote. Can I suggest we ONLY say thank you when a user makes a particulalry helpful contribution? We could add this to the FP Guidelines. 

@Adam Cuerden, Rhododendrites, Tomer T, MER-C, Janke, Armbrust, TheFreeWorld, Mydreamsparrow, Andrew J.Kurbiko, Bammesk, Vulphere, Buidhe, Sca, Tagooty, Ham II,  and CactiStaccingCrane:Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll be honest: I've never noticed that on Commons, but... I dunno. I can be quite ignorant of such things, especially as I tend to work in weird subsets of Wikipedia, and have been around here at least fifteen years so a lot of the stuff never existed back when I joined. I, for one, would say that it's nice if you want to do it, but never required. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 20:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
We always knew you were a weirdo, Adam. ;-) – Sca (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I try! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_15#Template:Original

Of likely interest to FPC, as it directly affects a lot of FPs. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 04:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reaper (Van Gogh series)

I recently moved this article to main space and the three paintings in the series would make a nice FP set. But I haven't nominated an FP in a while and I am forgetting the standards. Can anyone take a quick look and see if the three paintings would qualify? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: They are of wildly different scan resolution, which makes for a slightly awkward set. I think at least the two larger ones would pass on their own merits of nominated individually. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 04:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

POTD

So, I've been asked to take over running of POTD. Bit of a learning curve to step up, I must say, but I'll do my best.

My plan is:

  1. Insofar as is reasonable, images appear oldest to newest.
  2. Anyone may suggest an exception for holidays, anniversaries, and so on.
  3. I shan't undo any claims I've already made for dates, but shall severely limit myself for the future, giving others a chance to step in first
  4. To avoid runs of very similar images, some rearrangement may be necessary. This will be done in such a way that maintains order as much as is reasonable. For example, once a set starts, it might be scheduled once a month for the next X months. If this causes problems (like if it fills the schedule up with nothing but sets), I'll deal with it ad hoc.
  5. While some sets might get combined into one day (for example, the current one of dry season and rainy season in Ghat needs both images) I'd rather not do that trick of setting up a randomised page where one of X images appears, changing every time the main page is reloaded. I'm still upset about a couple times that was done to me, trivialising months of work. (Though I think I might need to make an exception for money if we're going to get through it in less than 10 years)
  6. I'm not going to censor POTD any more than absolutely necessary.
  7. Schedule any stuff you want on particular dates ASAP; I'm going to work ahead as much as possible.

How's that sound? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the statement "I'm not going to censor POTD any more than absolutely necessary", especially after the Michell Merkin / Guano / Indecency etc. images (for the unaware, I'm referring to this discussion). Even if you become coordinator, you do not hold any authority or power on what is censored on the main page. Wikipedia is formed on consensus and collaboration, no single opinion of an editor can dictate how a project operates. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential candidates

I am listing potential candidates. If you want to nominate any of these, go ahead. Some need restoration, better article placement, etc. Some were nominated previously and are worth renominating. Feel free to modify the list. Bammesk (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Good suggestions. And we do have a slight problem that we've been falling slightly behind the POTD schedule for some time now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

POTD

FP has become moribund as there are too few voters. For me, it is now a waste of my time.

I suggested that we should add: "Pictures of the Day are chosen from Wikipedia's Featured Pictures. Wikipedia editors vote on candidates here", at the end of every POTD description.

Please see discussion copied here for further input:

Hi. We have a shortage of voters for Featured Pictures and Adam Cuerden and I thought we should try to encourage others. Without voters, we will have fewer FPs from which to select POTD. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Certainly – I don't object in principle to including some sort of occasional statement at the end of blurbs to solicit FPC voting, but it would perhaps be better if this were first discussed somewhere. I've kept the appeal you included at the end of the 14 July blurb (with slight tweaks to the wording). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I'd like to nominate this historical portrait of Elizabeth II, which I've recently restored, for Featured Picture status. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through the nomination process. I hope someone else is willing to do that. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 18:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s bellow the size requirements and it’s also not used in any articles. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 10:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Would like to nominate but am unsure about procedure

Anthotroche myoporoides

Greetings, I just happened to find the enclosed image in a new article, and wanted to nominate it for Feature Picture on the Main Page. But I'm unsure how to do it exactly, so I wanted to ask here. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII:, read the instructions on top of the WP:FPC page. outlined in the instructions is a 3 step process for creating nominations. Bammesk (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy Inauguration Speech

I was interested in nominating the Inauguration of JFK for Featured Pictures but found that its "currently" a Featured Sound. Would it be able to become a Featured Picture even though its part of a defunct Featured Content?

GamerPro64 05:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see why that would be a problem. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

A question

Can an image be nominated here after it has been nominated at commons? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The two FP nominations are independent. If an image has been promoted as FP at Commons, it usually helps in the Wikipedia nomination. The Wiki nomination looks for encyclopedic value while Commons looks for visual impact and quality, so a Commons FP may not make it in Wiki and vice versa. Tagooty (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Tagooty. I just want to know, does "encyclopedic value" simply mean it is used in an article? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 17:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It must contribute significantly to the article. Usually, it is the Infobox image or one of the leading images. The article itself should be a sufficient quality, e.g. not a Stub article. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria for more guidelines. Tagooty (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
That's useful information, thanks. Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
It can also be used to illustrate a subsection, if it does the job there well. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes images that have been voted FP on Commons are rejected here on purely technical grounds which is crazy. Voting on FPs here should be on EV. One exception: I will vote oppose on technical grounds if I have opposed at Commons FP. I would suggest adding this to the rules/guidelines. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I think there's a certain intersection, though. Like, Commons FP doesn't really consider if we have ten other images of a subject which may be better, and there's also that rather distinct type of Commons image which is technically really impressive, but also kind of misleading because of the manipulation (that "lightbulb being broken" POTY from a while back that edited out the power cables is a good example there). And, y'know, Commons isn't perfect, so I don't think Commons should have the absolute final word on technical quality, though it is a strong guide. Commons, as of this year, seems to absolutely love me, but if someone here said that, say, a poster was a bit too low dpi (presuming that's at all reasonable of an objection), I'd honestly be more inclined to say "that's fair", not "Commons said it was fine". Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 03:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to reduce the number of votes to promote to four?

It's clear participation is much reduced from a couple years ago, and that's a problem for the process. If we're not able to promote things for nothing more than number of voters available, we are not going to hit the 30-31 promotions a month we need to make POTD viable, and if POTD ever runs into problems, we could spiral into irrelevancy rather easily. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I could only agree with this if a nomination with 4 supports can’t have more than 1 oppose (which essentially means a nomination with 4 fails at 66%). Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Armbrust's point, it makes sense. Bammesk (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
So, what d'ye need to do to make this official? Top of page notice to let others comment? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. IMO Armbrust The Homunculus 23:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose. I wasn't around back when such changes were made. Bammesk (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
In general I'm opposed to weakening standards or criteria, but I could accept Armbrust 's suggestion that four supports would be OK only with the proviso that a nom. can’t have more than one oppose vote. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Armbrust: Shall we implement this on, say, the 9th, if there's no objections? That's a week for comments. And also means that most current FPC will have cleared off, making it a little fairer. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 19:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This has not been a suitably democratic process so I strongly object. I just came here by chance. Regular contributors should have been consulted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
That doesn’t make any sense. There is a large banner on WP:FPC to inform regular contributors about this discussion. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes of course it makes sense. My bookmark takes me to current nominations. The banner was placed in the wrong place. In any event, regulars should have been pinged. If you think this was democratic, then you need to think again. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Democracy Now why would you want to provoke me Armbrust? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, Charles. I placed the banner where I thought it would be seen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 02:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's not argue, mes amis. -- Sca (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I suppose it's time to close this, one way or another. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I was curiously following the discussion. I also think the reducing number of votes from 5 to 4 would be a better suggestion. Apart from that, I feel, there may be an option for exemption for promoting the rare photographs. I mean not to be too technical but still keeping the standard DreamSparrow Chat 17:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've just discovered the existence of FPs, so my opinion may not be valuable but... instead of lowering our standards here, shouldn't we rely more on Commons:Featured_pictures? What are the differences between Commons FP and WP EN FP? Could we say something like "If the picture is already FP on Commons, then you need 4 votes, otherwise you need 5"? A455bcd9 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: Commons has somewhat different requirements. Most notably, encyclopedic value is very important here, and not at all there. It's a good quality check, but it's not entirely a complete check. Of course, the reason for the change is participation issues. If we get enough new people, we don't need the change. But last month we had 12 images promoted, a lot of images failing by one vote short of quorum. POTD will eventually run into real trouble if we're not making 30 FPs a month, which we used to do. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 08:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. That's why if Commons FP is "a good quality check" I thought these images could be promoted with only four votes, without lowering our standards here too much. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: Seems reasonable. If there's issues for En-Wiki, well, as I'm afraid you discovered, you will find out. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the entire procedure here - and rather vehemently! The notice has been invisible to regular users who use a bookmark to find new candidates, as I do. The procedure has been on from 11 October, and only today did I see it for the first time! I suggest starting a new process that can be seen via a bookmark. Janke | Talk 14:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional suggestion

I suggest we also add the following wording to the FPC instructions:

"Unopposed nominations which are at least 5 days old and have sufficient votes to pass can be moved to the bottom of the queue; except for nominations where an alternate image is being voted on."

This would move up the noms that are most in need of review, it would de-clutter the queue, and it would open up the top portion of the queue for new nominations. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as above. Not democratic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - see my comment in the previous section.Janke | Talk 14:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know of anyone with more than 600 FPs on here?

Better to check before doing self-promotion, right? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 03:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Reply function in FPC voting

... messes up the formatting, puts answer below "!-- additional votes go above this line --"... Janke | Talk 18:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Concurrent open nomination limit?

17 of 25 currently outstanding nominations were created by the same two users. I don't think I can justify warning or blocking for this - but yes, it is disruptive. So many visually similar images tends to make participation rapidly fall.

Commons has a limit of two concurrent open nominations. I think this is too low for our FPC given the shortage of FPs but the current flood of very similar nominations suggests a limit is justified. I recommend three or four. MER-C 10:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

True. I also feel it somewhat discourages votes when the pictures all look so similar... — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Noting that the limit should be four - I nominate two per week, which means four concurrent nominations at time. MER-C 19:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Are some people trying to upstage Adam? ;-) Seriously, the plethora of paintings, all much alike, has bothered me, too. Four concurrent per user sounds just about right. Janke | Talk 09:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Three or four maximum. Also, there should be a guideline (not instruction) to vote on as many nominations as you nominate yourself. I suspect the current excesses are not intended to be disruptive; just inexperience. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this suggestion. Tagooty (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea, and it should be four concurrent nominations. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely fond of it, as there have been periods when I can restore an image a day, and it's really not much encouragement to press on and do more when you have to wait days after finishing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 02:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This will fix the lack of variety, but not disruption. There are 19 categories, so if someone wanted to be disruptive they still could. Bammesk (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The pass rate wasn’t bad. 8 of the 17 nominations passed. That's close to our long term pass rate of 50%. I agree that the lack of variety is bad. But I am not convinced that this happens often. It happened once a few years ago and then last month. Bammesk (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Only cave painting found at Karle Cave

I myself the creator of following picture:

I want to submit my work to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Reason

This painting is located on the top backside of 10th piller from the right side of entry gate of The great chytya cave of Karla Cave. And is the only ancient painting found in Karla Cave.

Should be of low resolution.

As it was at top of the piller and it was in dark the resolution of image is could be low for featured picture criteria. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok I have take thi picture again. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to start a delisting discussion on my behalf?

Per the title. I'm unsure whether anon editors are allowed to make these requests, the instructions don't outright forbid IP contributors but do say their opinions will be discounted. I can't create the pages required regardless, so would someone be kind enough to do it on my behalf?

The file in question is File:Tower of Hanoi 4.gif, which I do not feel meets the current requirements to be a featured picture. Specifically my concerns are:

  • At 320 by 125 pixels the image is nowhere near the minimum size expected for a featured picture, even allowing for the fact that animations can be smaller than the suggested 1500 by 1500 pixel minimum. In the articles where it is used the animation is noticeably pixelated.
  • There appears to be significant compression/GIF artifacting present, it is particularly noticeable in the shadows around the pieces.
  • The animation has 40 frames at 1.6 FPS, as such it is very jumpy with the pieces appearing to teleport around rather than smoothly moving.
  • I'm not 100% sold on the composition of this image, specifically I think the shadows being projected onto the background/other pieces when the pieces move are distracting.

It was a nice animation by 2005 web standards, but I don't think it quite holds up to to what we would expect of a featured picture 18 years later. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wonky formatting

Something strange today with the formatting - is it someone's April 1st joke? The formatting of the left border goes wonky starting with the Li Fu Lee entry. Happens in Firefox, Safari & Google browsers. Janke | Talk 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Janke It seems to be an April fools joke. It was this edit [5] which wrapped the bottom half of the page in a 0.4 degree rotation. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing FP topic

Hey everyone, I recently got File:Igor Stravinsky LOC 32392u.jpg to FP status under the "artists and writers" category. Upon further inspection of the category page, I noticed the statement at the top that says FPs of composers should go under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment. Could someone change the category for this image so it's in the appropriate section? I'm unaware of how to do so. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. By the way, great job with the restoration. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 00:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Historic portrait that needs restoration

Hey, I know that there are several people who like restoration of historical photos, so I decided to propose one if someone is interested. Theodor Herzl's photo on a balcony in Basel is probably his most famous portrait, used on postcards, stamps, books, everywhere. Besides this popularity, all the photos available online are of very poor quality. There were a bunch on commons, and I found several more, but all are quite bad. I though to propose it at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop, but most requests there a croppings/watermark removing, so maybe here is a better place.

  • best quality available, but it's a crop
    best quality available, but it's a crop
  • not bad, but low res
    not bad, but low res
  • this one looks good, but is damaged and too yellow. source is a .jpf
    this one looks good, but is damaged and too yellow. source is a .jpf
  • postcard
    postcard
  • no details in the background
    no details in the background
  • some details are better seen here, but looks too dark
    some details are better seen here, but looks too dark
  • retouched, grainy and low res
    retouched, grainy and low res

Artem.G (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Guideline suggestion

This suggestion was moved here from this nom. Bammesk (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to request please (re)create WP:List of Wikipedians by featured pictures nominations. The previous list, which was different in name, has been deleted in Feb. 2020 after this WP:MFD page. Many thanks. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I think it is unnecessary (admittedly, for some it might be a form of inspirational egoboo). The only worthwhile list would be of FP creators, i.e. photographers or artists; listing mere nominators seems meritless. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback before nominating

Greetings. I was wondering if here would be an appropriate place to ask for feedback about a potential candidate image. It may have to be improved before it's formally nominated. Thanks fgnievinski (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the best and simplest way to get feedback is to add it as a candidate. Not everybody watches this talk page... Janke | Talk 08:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Fgnievinski: You might be interested in commons:Commons:Photography critiques. Standards for FP differ a little between Commons and here, but you can [often] get general feedback on your images and how to improve them there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for the advice! fgnievinski (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie

Hello, I am following a suggestion made by @King of Hearts: Can I nominate Disney's animated short film Steamboat Willie without uploading it first? The reason is that the film will famously enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2024 and I would like to showcase it on the Main Page on that exact day (I would upload it on Commons on 31 December 2023). I know that this is unorthodox, but it would be a really cool way to celebrate Public Domain Day next year. What do you think? Gnom (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Conditional support under the grounds that the version of the file uploaded
  • is of the best quality available
  • is added to the relevant articles depicting the significant EV on the day of upload itself
  • is not digitally manipulated otherwise
  • complies with all other FPC criteria
The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, must be a scan of the original film, not in any way edited by Disney, which would renew the copyright... --Janke | Talk 18:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I support the idea. Maybe we can do a nomination in the absence of a copy on Commons, any time from now to end of the year. For FPs we usually prefer a WebM version (if not, it can be converted to WebM), the higher the pixel resolution the better, the name of the article that the video will be added to, the external URL link where we can see the version that will be uploaded. Those should be enough to vote on the nomination. Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Bammesk, @Janke, @The Herald, thank you very much for your support. Could you help me move the nomination forward? (Again, my goal would be to have the video on the Main Page on 1 January 2024.) Gnom (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I just very bravely started a nomination – also pinging @King of Hearts. Gnom (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest running it January 2. That way there's no legal issues possible. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Reason for FPC

Lately, I've been seeing multiple nomination with reason subsection FP in commons. IMO, that is not a criteria for an FP nomination in enwiki as we value EV substantiallymore than Commons. More rationale should be given in the reason section why the picture should be featured. I'm proposing to add a sentence on to the reason tab in Template:FPCnom where the nominator should provide a proper reason for nominating the picture, not just because it's a FP in Commons. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be a good reason to nominate it. It's what attracted you to the image. But it's not, in itself, a support reason. In some cases, EV is fairly obvious. For example, in the recent Charon image, my rationale was "Honestly, was very surprised this wasn't featured already" - and I think that's enough, because anyone looking at a NASA image of a major solar system body that is the lead image of the article on it can see the EV in a moment.
However, there are going to be cases of less-clear EV. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have just noticed your post The Herald (Benison) (copy Adam Cuerden}. The reason I mention 'FP on Commons' is that it shows that it helps voters to know that a large group of online photo critics think it is technically excellent. Voters on enwiki can then concentrate on EV. If I was obliged to add a 'proper reason', I would state on 95% on my nominations which occupy the top right infobox: 'The best image available and with the highest EV to illustrate the animal.' Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

PD films

With more films hitting the public domain in the US I can see a lot of these being nominated. We may need to decide if this is something we are prepared to feature en masse or instead push for unusually high standards and EV (say Oscar winners of films with unusual technology).©Geni (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that, practically speaking, it's always going to be a rush in January, slowing greatly over the rest of the year. No need to up limits since there's going to be so many fewer later.
Now, there are a few things we could add to requirements that are sensible and, I think, uncontroversial:
  1. No watermarks: Films that feature a (modern) watermark throughout may be extremely useful to their articles, but almost certainly aren't sufficient for FP quality.
  2. Try to limit the number of film nominations up at once: Not a hard and fast rule, but one can review a still picture in 5-10 minutes. Reviewing a film properly can take up to two hours. As such, it's generally a good rule of thumb to not have too many films up at once, or, at the least, not have more than two that aren't already passing/clearly rejected. This rule doesn't apply to shorts (<15 minutes).
Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 19:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Telescope comparisons

I'm wondering why this image is only Quality and not Featured, and seems to have not been nominated as Featured. I think it's terrific.



DonFB (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

My dad worked on nearly half of those.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The "Quality" designation is a Commons designation, not an English Wikipedia designation. I say nominate it at en-Wiki WP:FPC. At first look it's informative and it's used in lots of articles. The image page has a W3C validator error, but I think that's Ok. The image renders fine on my browser. The upload history shows that the image is occasionally updated as new developments come along, so some W3C errors may persist. Bammesk (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

How many nominations at once?

Is there an etiquette on how many images you may nominate at once? I have a list of potential FPC candidates on my user talk page, so far I am nominating them whenever a previous nomination closes. I might not end up nominating all of them; some may lack educational value or have quality issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  • IIRC, someone once suggested a maximum of four simultaneous noms from the same nominator. After their period in the limelight has ended, more can be added. Any comments from others, do I remember correctly? --Janke | Talk 17:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    No limits at present, and, honestly, with my production schedule, I'm fine with that. Given that we often don't make the 30 FPs a month that are necessary to support POTD long-term, no throttling is necessary or desireable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
  • There is no maximum limit or a firm consensus. The active nominators regulate their own pace. We have had a couple of occasions when a nominator dropped 7 or 8 nominations in a single day, and that caused some concern. Personally, I think when there are several nominations with the same motif (say rivers, or cars, or castles) then reviewers will judge them in comparison to each other, rather than individually. So I would say keep that in mind. Bammesk (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Easy CSS image crop

To help handle things such as proposing crops of images, the rare usages that absolutely require certain dimensions, and so on, I've made this. It handles a lot of the surprisingly complicated math I was doing by hand when using {{CSS image crop}}. Please feedback on it, and give it a little time before using it in articles, though, as I want to finalise the parameter names and such before it goes into use. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolution cutoff

Life size!

I've found an image I'd like to nominate, but it's only 1314px tall instead of 1500px. Is that inherently a deal-breaker, or is there some wiggle room? I believe it meets the other technical qualifications. Moonreach (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Requesting feedback

Hibiscus Rising sculpture from above. LEEDS 2023. 01

Hello FP friends, I am hoping to nominate my first Featured Picture, but I wanted to gather some advice as it would be my first nomination. The image I would like to nominate is this one which features on the page Hibiscus Rising. My questions are:

1) I was uploading the images as part of a paid project, is it still OK to nominate them for FP? (It is for DYK, but I couldn't see a guideline for FP)

2) EV: this is a unique view of a unique sculpture - does that reflect encyclopaedic value enough? Or is the fact that there are likely to be other aerial photographs of other sculptures detract?

Thanks very much for your advice Lajmmoore (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

Hi, File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg was designed FP after Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Rushmore. Then it was removed from the article, and replaced by this poor quality image. I reinstated it, but Randy Kryn objects. See discussion on the article talk page. I think a FP should not be removed from the main article for which it was promoted, unless there is a consensus otherwise, and specially for such a bad quality image. Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Support FP to the lead. The image is far better than the below par resolution image and an existing FP with such high EV should not be replaced without prior discussion or consensus. Agree with Yann because the image was promoted to represent the best of Wikipedia. It was a POTD too. Moreover, the FP gives a better and clearer view. Randy Kryn gotta give some very solid explanation for this disruption. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    No disruption, the image under discussion has been the long-time image for the article (I don't know exactly how long, but it's been awhile). The FP image, as you can see from the talk page, shows the sculpture from a distance and does not present the artwork as clearly as the two other photos under consideration (looking at the image while it's a stand-alone does not have the same effect when it is presented smaller on the page infobox). Since this discussion has now been divided among three pages (I moved the initial discussion on my talk page to the Mount Rushmore talk page) we should probably alert other pages, including the visual arts and sculpture WikiProjects. Just because an image became a FA does not mean it is the best image for its page topic (am surprised I even have to point that out). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry but you are wrong. FPC criterion 3 literally means that. And it has passed a community consensus to become a FP. Hence yea, it's worthy for the lead. You can as for a delist if you think the image isn't FP worthy anymore and doesn't illustrate the topic. But till then, it's worth the addition into the lead. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
FPC doesn't preempt editorial discussion. It just takes five people to decide something is an FP (there were nine in this case), and none of them need to have any interest at all in the article. 3,105 people have edited the Mount Rushmore article, by contrast. FPC bases its decisions in part on the sometimes ephemeral editorial decisions of article editors; it doesn't preempt those decisions. That said, it's a very strong indication that an image is good, which should influence discussion on whether to replace it. Ultimately I do agree with Randy's last comment, however, that this should be on the article talk page and primarily for article editors to decide. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, the FP is the superior photo. Some people will like to crop absolutely all space around an image for the infobox. I'm not always a fan of that, but even if there were consensus to do so... just crop the better photo, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Can this discussion take place at the Mount Rushmore talk page, I think more people would find it of interest there. Cropping the feature photo seems a possibility (although not in my skill set). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

From Copenhagen Stock Exchange

Was looking at the recent ITN of the Copenhagen Stock exchange fire and wanted to see if this image, created in 1895 by a Skagen Painter by the name of Peder Severin Krøyer. Do you guys think that this painting is FP worthy?

This photo! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥

Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably yes IMO. Yann (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominating two images?

Is it possible to nominate two images to be 'one' featured picture? The images in question are shown at Fight-or-flight response. I understand I could edit the images to be a single image but that'd worsen the article quality. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You can nominate them as a featured picture set. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The only problem with nominating those two images are that their resolutions are too small. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. —Bruce1eetalk 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You're right, I took it to mean 1,500 pixels eg 500 by 300 pixels would be appropriate. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Diliff

Just a pointer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#License fee demands for Diliff’s images since he was one of our prolific FP creator. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I see one of Diliff's images was nominated for delisting, so I'll elaborate here on what's been going on over on Commons. What we know is that Diliff works with Pixsy, which has a rather bad reputation among free culture communities for "copyleft trolling". It's a process that exploits the "please use this!" signal that Creative Commons licenses communicate by subsequently demanding money anyone who doesn't comply with every aspect of the license. From Diliff's own words, this applies to minor violations and to independent/small-time reusers, and not just e.g. unattributed use by for-profit companies. It's a practice that Creative Commons itself has explicitly condemned as out of line with the principles of the license. There are multiple discussions on Commons about this, and it's unclear what there will be consensus for. Forced watermarking a la Larry Philpot's images (example) is possible, which would itself raise questions for FPC (do we want FPs with big destructive watermarks). But at least as likely is no action, in which case it will be up to this FPC community to decide if this sort of behavior should factor into the promotion/delisting of images here. I don't see much point in delisting one in particular, unless I guess it's being used as a test case for future nominations. As a related aside, anyone interested in this subject is welcome to provide feedback on a draft document about copyleft trolling on Commons: commons:User:Rhododendrites/Copyleft trolling. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you nominate your own image?

Can you nominate your own image? TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: Yes, you can nominate your own images. However, they must be under a comparable license. For more info, see WP:FP?. ZZZ'S 02:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Two Gibson's albatrosses

Hello all

We appear to have two FPs for the Gibson's albatross in flight – File:Gibson's Albatross 0A2A4153.jpg and File:Gibson's Albatross 0A2A8124.jpg. They look slightly different to me too, although I'm no expert... Could they be male and female? No idea. The former one is no longer used in the article... Please advise on what should happen here?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

When I nominated the second FP, I didn't notice (forgot) the first FP. I think we should delist one of them. I don't have a preference and would support delisting either one. Pinging the other nominator @MER-C:. One image shows more of the feathers, the other is in the infobox, so it's a tie as far as I am concerned. Bammesk (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
They're still both used in at least one article. Doing nothing is acceptable. MER-C 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Bammesk (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_37&oldid=1254533249"