Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Featured_pictures

Just a heads up: The Wikicup competition is talking about making a featured picture - and I don't mean just a nomination, a user-created/restored FP - worth less than a moderately sized did you know with a small bonus multiplier. This caps a competition in which featured pictures have been bashed for the last four months, with people claiming they should be pulled out of the competition because articles are supposedly more important, and that anyone doing well in the competition due to featured pictures is a sign that vigourous measures must be taken to put a stop to any such possibility happening again.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup&diff=next&oldid=608844421#Withdrawing

"While I think it's (for lack of a better word) weak to withdraw, I mostly agree with Hink. How much value does the FP have to wiki?' I don't think they should be disallowed, but there should be some limit. To be fair, you cold get points for a bunch articles through GT's, but GT's are only worth 3. As for bonus points, I think it helps level the playing field somewhat, but it's worth nothing that Hink's (and mines) editing area has limited bonus points opportunities."

There's quite a lot more in that line. At one point it's said that FPs have "little content involved".

Frankly, I think it's time to shut down the Wikicup. It's become toxic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nuremberg, Pennsylvania

This nom is an hour and a half away from being closed. It would be nice if it could get another comment or two. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A general thank you

I just wanted to thank the regular and occasional FP reviewers. Without your patience (for some large and sometimes esoteric sets of material), success in the WikiCup2014 would not have been possible. I hope you found some of it interesting and learned something new (I know I have). More to come, at a more reasonable pace...--Godot13 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Don't be a stranger! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lars Kruse

Could we please get a few more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

#TTTWFTW kickstarter campaign

I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Featured image not marked as PD

File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg

This featured image has a license tag on it ("This image is the work of Luc Viatour

Please credit it with : Luc Viatour / www.Lucnix.be in the immediate vicinity of the image. A link to my website www.lucnix.be is much appreciated but not mandatory.

An email to UserIconMail.svg Viatour Luc would be appreciated too.

Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me UserIconMail.svgViatour Luc to negotiate terms.") yet is marked as being in the PD, despite explicitly stating "it is not in the public domain". I am a little confused. If this image is not in the public domain, should be it a featured image, or even hosted on WP? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not sure I want to use this if I have to credit the photographer on every article it's used in... --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is marked and licensed properly. That was something the original photographer added when he uploaded under a GNU license. I have removed it because that only applies in cases where the work must be attributed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible suggestion for nomination

Geneva drive

I know this is way below the usual size requirements, but I don't see in this case that there is any benefit in its being much bigger than it is. Would it be eligible for nomination? I don't want to bother if it would immediately fail on grounds of size. 217.44.130.43 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, silly me, it is already featured. 217.44.130.43 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Delist nominations should have a notification requirement

I suggest that creator(s) (including any later modifications by other editors aka retouchers) and original nominator (of successful nomination) should be notified as a requirement. Other Wikipedia processes have similar notification requirements. Comments welcome. Samsara 08:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is already a requirement: "Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated." The "if appropriate" is to account for the fact that creators/uploaders are often people who have never been involved with this project and/or who are no longer associated with the project for whatever reason. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Current case

In the case of this delist nomination, the creator was notified two days after the start of the nomination, and I don't see the nominator having been notified. Additionally, I've just inserted the link to the old nom, which was previously missing. I've also suggested to the nominator that the creator can be contacted through a number of means, including the email listed on her website, to draw attention to the identified fixable problems. I think there might be good cause for a suspension of the nom. Samsara 04:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Only one of the noms, because the second image was promoted in a different discussion. I have fixed this now, and also added the "Articles this image appears in". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's interesting that in the "notification" (the header is not particularly helpful to making the addressee realise what this is about) he states that two images are nominated - I'm not even sure now which two out of the three. I'll raise this on the nom as well. Any comment on the suspension suggestion? Samsara 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Length of nominations

As you may know, the length of nominations goes up to 13 days in December, due to fewer people being around, then drops back to 10 for the rest of the year. This left an awkward period where nominations started on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd of January would end before the ones from the 31st of January. I've fixed this by having all nominations from those days close just after midnight on 14 January. I think the code works, it's hard to test for other days, though, so let me know if any problems are noted on the 4th. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Darwan Sing Negi

Could I get some more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. 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, more than fifty 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! Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest not signing up. They've implemented some rules changes - ignoring consensus, no less - that basically assure that featured pictures are belittled and very heavily devalued. Joining would be a terrible idea. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone involved here wants to get into that mess anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination suggestion

I would like to suggest the adjacent picture for possible nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.150.143 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We'd need to redo the crop.... Nice image, though. And, while there's a lot of racism there (the Indian in particular) I think that documenting historic racism is useful, so long as we're careful not to support it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, I thought the historical interest was especially strong. Unfortunately I do not have the wherewithal to make the change that you suggest. 109.151.61.182 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's already on-wiki at File:School Begins (Puck Magazine 1-25-1899).jpg. JBarta did some work with that by the looks of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple co-nominators of an FPC

As this is a gray area, I would like to propose a rule for the rare occurrences where three or more co-nominators may decide to jointly put up an image or set of images for FPC. In the unlikely case of FPC nominations with three or more nominators, the number of support votes to pass should be twice the number of nominators. One or two nominators would not require any change in approach. Three nominators would require six support votes, four nominators would require 8 supports votes, and so on. It seems this would be the only way to allow for meaningful discussion and review of the merits of the nomination. Otherwise, five nominators (which could occur in the future based on a current nomination) has the ability to propose a candidate and pass it without any community involvement, short of mass opposition.--Godot13 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense (and note that the nomination which led to this discussion is passing by these regards as well) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I can get behind seeing I pointed that out in the nomination linked. GamerPro64 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The whole idea of getting points for the wikicup and getting a star is pathetic IMO and caused all the chaos. Creating a picture is one thing, but getting credited for nominating it? --122.167.237.240 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't see why anyone is bringing the WikiCup into this. No one gets points in the WikiCup merely for nominating images, and people never have. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree, and none of the nominators appear to have even expressed interest in the Cup. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well Chris, I do have signed up, but after knowing that they give credit only for the creator of the pic and the like. Its all about the fun you have in Wikicup.. - The Herald (here I am) 04:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question Would it be feasible to consider everyone co nominating as 1 vote, in which case if there are 2-x nominators they are collectively considered "1 nominator" and ergo "1 !vote of support" regardless of the total number of nominator/co-nominators?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2015 UTC
  • It seems to me that if there is one or more co-nominator, they should each count as a support vote. Each individual obviously supports the nomination or they wouldn't act as co-nominators in the first place. The issue for me is why there is a need for co-nominators. If each of the co-nominators actually had some input in developing the nomination and want to share the 'glory' of a featured picture (whatever glory that might be??), then I don't see the problem. But I can see that there is the potential for gaming the nomination by essentially using your friends to support any of your nominations and vice versa, in a sort of wiki-cabal. ;-) I don't really see that happening currently, but admittedly the potential is there. However, that potential exists whether there are co-nominators or not. If we make the votes of all co-nominators count for just 1 support collectively, it will probably force them to vote as regular voters instead of nominators. The result of the nomination won't change, it will simply relocate the support vote. If we do want to reduce the influence of a potential cabal (and as I said, I don't see it as a big problem currently), I don't think this is necessarily the best way to do it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support- I am finding any way to calm down it. But TomStar's idea seems to be good.  - The Herald (here I am) 14:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: As an alternative (I'm just thinking aloud, here), perhaps we could incorporate a specific mention of this sort of thing as a situation in which the closer could take a more active role in determining consensus than mere vote-counting? FPC does genuinely seem to be one of the last bastions of vote-counting on Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (though I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to vote here) Per Diliff. The suggestion is simply not really useful because those potential cabal members (and I don't really think that they exist at this point) would just stop co-nominating and add regular support votes. Personally, coming from COM:FPC, I find the concept of co-nominating slightly strange (in more than a year, I have not seen anybody ever do it there), since I don't really see the glory of having nominated many images not self-created (let alone having co-nominated them). I guess it is fair enough for such a large set which might have required some collaboration to assemble, but the few cases like this really should not be too much of a big issue. Personally, I think that EN:FPC badly suffers from the fact that it is (imo) fairly close to a painting-rubber-stamping vehicle, which is not very interesting for most people, and has too few entries that are original content (recent photos, genuine restorations or diagrams) and therefore we see a lack of participation that is a far larger issue than the number of nominators. For example, the German FPC (aka KEB) has far fewer entries (almost all of them photos) yet almost always generates a healthy quorum and many opinions. --DXR (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

5 Users give almost 50% of votes here. At commons the number is 12.

• • Please focus on the discussion at hand, rather than things which cause more heat than light. This discussion is not inherently about paintings, or banknotes, or photographs of birds, or whatever people are complaining about this week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. But the problem mentioned is essentially a problem of insufficient participation and the proposed solution does not change this variable. Of course a few pledged supports (either as nom or not) will have a huge impact on an image's promotion if there are fewer than 20 people who are realistically considering voting (and even fewer do). The voting seen here is a process, which at this stage is just too dependent on individual votes in general. --DXR (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• User:DXR I've been following this discussion with interest, and your comments (as well as the others) are quite clear. There's just one thing I don't understand. It's the last thing you said: "The voting here [at FP] is a process, which...is...too dependent on individual votes." What other kind of voting is there? CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• When closing an AfD admins take into account the policy basis of arguments and give weight accordingly. I imagine the same happens here. For example someone saying "Support, pretty flower" may not be given as much weight as "Oppose, the fact that the image frames only part of the flower limits its encyclopedic value". Chillum 19:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• CorinneSD, compared to the most reasonable "competitor" COM:FPC. I'm obviously not blaming you, but want to point out why I think that the issue is a larger one than just users who vote together. See the graph I just made. It is just some random sample starting at the top of the sites. I admit that the sample sizes could be more similar, but still I think that it illustrates the point sufficiently --DXR (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question If this rule was in place then wouldn't the 5 people who were going to nominate just change their plan and have 1 nominate it and the other 4 support it? If there are 5 people supporting an image then that is support by 5 people regardless of if they nominate or not. Chillum 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From a purely practical perspective, likely, but there probably wouldn't be as much conflict over it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. For me, the "co nomination" is just a way to express their enormous support. What we will do if one person make the nomination and the reaming three or four people support that nomination without mentioning the "co nom" word? All I see is just a collaborative work; a lot of work is needed in case of good sets. Tight reviewing of sets is good as it is intended to promote a lot of works altogether; but anything else is unnecessary. Jee 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the reasons explained by several people above, this proposal seems to me to be fatally flawed. 109.157.10.246 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the way it is formulated for now. I do agree that some kind of rules are needed. My idea was never to offend anyone with the nomination. If four nominators would require 8 supports outside the nominators themselsves- then we may just as well forbid four nominators on the spot. I you want to forbid four nominators, than please make that a separate issue, outside this voting. Again, this case would not have happened if it was not for the large amounts of difficult pictures nominated. It is a large set of 14 pics - and four nominators - that means - 3.5 picture on each. Now please make here a difference between the 1) amonunt of the pictures per set + amount of nominators. So far no nomination of a single picture had four co-noms. Probabaly never will either. 2) As Chillum noted: this rule was in place then wouldn't the 5 people who were going to nominate just change their plan and have 1 nominate it and the other 4 support it? We do cooperate on this project. I cooperate more than any other editor, I guess. I helped others to nominate pictures that they liked, encouraged them, fixed the noms it they were in trouble, or pictures I have found and that they liked them - many times without EVER asking to be credited for it. If we are not allowed to cooperate and help each other in this fashion than I think this project is failing. I don't want to have a wikipolice after me like this. The point is to find good pictures and promote them, that was my idea - and I think it is really the whole point - and still is. I never cooperated with Dillif because he is so much better than I am at photos, or Godot, because I know nothing about numismatics. But it would feel rather uneasy if we suddenly have to be searched and checked and mesured like this. Also, I want RIGOUROSLY to point out that we never made any conspiration about this nom or any so called cabal-thinking around. As far as can notice the whole issue is who should be credited or not. Because co-nom means all get credited, right? I am pretty sure the one who were co-noms now would have supported the nom anyway - with the only difference that they would have never been credited. It is not about promoting a picture to featured status. Most pictures that are good, get promoted. Bad ones don't. And this is the great truth, as my Indian friend would say. Right? So it boils down to only one thing . WHO are the people who are allowed to be credited in a nomination and WHO are the one that who are allowed to decide it. The nominators themselves, the other participants, the community - as the the rules so far are non-existent. Now make rules about this and make fair ones. Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment And I still think that the project is about promoting good pictures, making people collaborate and expand wiki and make more good quality pictures to be used and let others get to know them. I am the last person to care about anything else. And for co-noms by more than two editors and what constitutes a set, for which there were no established rules - OK, let's establish some. Maybe a set should only be counted as one single nomination not as many as the pictures included. That would prevent the nominators from: Provide a signature as a co-nom and pick up lots of stars. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• That is true, this project should be about promoting the images themselves and the motivation to make Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia, the rest doesn't matter much. I agree that the concept of sets does make it very easy to 'collect stars' which is a bit self-serving. I think we need to balance the needs to the encyclopaedia with the needs of individuals to feel rewarded for hard work though. Perhaps the work to reward ratio for sets is not correct. It's much easier to nominate one set of 20 images than it is to nominate 20 individual images, regardless of the quality of the images in question. How we fix this, I'm not sure. Removing the ability of co-nominators to ride on the coat tails of a set nomination might stop the multiplication of stars, but it doesn't address the root issue which is the set itself, and the number of 'stars' it generates... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Diliff: At the same time, viewer fatigue is a real issue. We should encourage set nominations, where appropriate, and, frankly, if I want to count every image in a set as a separate FP (and I do), I don't see how you could possibly stop me, nor, indeed, why you would particularly want to, or why it would be any of your business in the first place (all those "you"s being generic, of course). Frankly, I can't see any such proposal creating anything but pointless drama, particularly after last year's Wikicup's vicious attacks on FPs made devaluing them in any way a hot-button issue. The Signpost counts each FP in a set as an individual promotion but then, I am the editor for that section, so that it agrees with my opinion should not be surprising. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, all my nominations (that I count) are restorations, and the actual setting up of a nomination is by far the most trivial part of the work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: There's no functional difference between "We five will co-nom" and "Well, we'd better not all conom, but you three will still support it, right?" - it's just too gameable. Also, the number count goes funny at 4 nominators: Something with four or more nominators shouldn't need more independent support than a two-nominator nomination. If we're going to have a rule, I'd suggest the sensible rule would be "promotion always requires at least three supports independent from the conominators", but I'm not sure it's worth it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, that sounds much more reasonable than 8. I would support the three more, certainly. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The other thing to remember, of course, is that any obvious attempts to abuse the rules - say Wikiproject Trolling decides to all co-nominate a terrible image - can be dealt with as the special circumstance it is. But if a group of FP regulars all co-nom something, I can't see much harm. They know what they're doing, and, as they're regulars...

FPC tends to have cycles. At the moment, we have a lot of high-resolution painting scans suddenly available. This will eventually slow down a bit. Paintings will always be a part of FPC, because they're important, but eventually, the best ones will have been claimed already. We formerly saw lots of birds. We also had a period where space dominated. It happens, and always will, and each cycle brings talented editors and researchers in its wake. At the moment, this current cycle is actively improving our art coverage immensely - lots of new, well-researched painting articles - so why worry about something that's pretty unambiguously good? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - ^{don't know about the birds, but how about some fish? Hafspajen (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)}

I wonder where the fish has gone... Ohhh, fishy fishy fishy fish! (taking photos of fish is hard - the camera tends to not survive the process also). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Fish hardly ever stop moving, and I'm inclined to believe they eat for a living. Question: if there are 15 pictures in a set with 5 nominators, does the promoted set get a single FP star credited to the 5 noms (which I would support), or do each of the 5 noms get 15 FP stars? I also would suggest designing a new star for FP and FP "Set" both of which would differentiate from each other and the FA star. 23:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC) --Atsme☯^Consult 04:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? The number of "stars" awarded is however the hell the nominators choose to count it for themselves. We aren't a bureaucracy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support --Atsme☯^Consult 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - I'm going to withdraw my support at this time because I honestly don't know enough about the process to participate. Atsme☯^Consult 02:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Flickr

If a photo was uploaded from Flickr under CC BY 2.0, but the account and photo has since been deleted, will there be a problem nominating it? APK whisper in my ear 12:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it was reviewed before deletion, I don't think so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. APK whisper in my ear 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to renominate?

The picture was not promoted at this discussion due to its lack of EV. Currently, the article in which it is used gives three paragraphs about the dome. Maybe the objections raised are no longer valid? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's fine, just give it a go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. Particularly if it's been over a year since the last discussion (and it's been far more than that in this case). Opinions (and article usage) can change. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As you may have noted, opinions have most decidedly changed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Newscast

I would appreciate a few more eyes on this one. It's in that awkward limbo, just short of quorum, where you'd rather have a definite answer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If it doesn't work out, perhaps renominate in a month? If you're concerned about spamming, you can put me as a conom. I think it's great, personally. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Milburn! It's appreciated. Hopefully it won't come to that, though. =) That said, if you want to conominate the last major artwork from the magazine, I'll give you the details when it's a little more prepared. There's going to be three different versions of it, by necessity (two-page spread, image obviously is meant to proceed without a division, but wraps around the text higher on one page than the other...) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Luckily, it's reached quorum now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am back

As I have done in past years, I will be nominating Commons 2014 PotY candidates (2014 Featured Pictures) that are of interest to the Greater Chicago metropolitan area. I am not judging any of these and am just asking you to give your opinions of the images that I find may be somewhat interesting to WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Though I'd ask that you make sure they're used well in at least one article, as otherwise they're doomed from the start. I realize you probably planned to do that already. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated FPC urgents

Quite a few at the moment. Might be worth going through. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:FPCnom

I think we need an update in the template, specially in the format section? Are those 10000X200/260 needed? Ṫ Ḧ ^{the fury of the nature}_{given flesh} 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to be a bit more specific. Those parameters govern the size under different picture dimensions ("pano", "portrait", "landscape", "square") so that the thumbnail is an appropriate size on the nomination page (and transcluded). The default size for thumbnails is still very small afaik, so would not be appropriate. Samsara 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean, those 10000 px is a bit weird. Some 1000X260 will do..Ṫ Ḧ ^{the fury of the nature}_{given flesh} 14:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I've thought about it, and in theory it could cause problems with images with very unusual dimensions if people specify the wrong format. The original version was optimistic in this respect. I've gone ahead and made (almost) the change that you suggested, crediting you. Samsara 04:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

IndieGoGo project of interest

• Not directly related to FPC, but considering Jee (Jkadavoor) has so many images that he nominates or we nominate for him (and a lot of our butterfly FPs are by him), I figured some people may be interested. Jee and some Commons editors have a fundraiser project going on through IndieGoGo (located here) to help him raise the funds to buy a macro lens and supporting equipment (macro flash, tripod, bag, etc.). If anyone is interested, support would be much appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting started

I'm venturing into a completely new area of Wikipedia, I beg your patience (I may be asking in the wrong area). I create article about historical recordings, and occasionally take pictures of the records from my collection. Does anyone think these have potential for featured picture status? For example: File:Little Marvel 2 sizes.JPG used on article Little Marvel. Thanks you! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• 78.26, for an FP of a record (assuming that's possible), a cut-out would probably be accepted. Like, File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png, except in higher resolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• I have to say, I can't imagine that it would be easy to photograph a record in such a way as to make it both interesting enough and encyclopaedically valuable to be a featured picture. I think it would have to be photographically excellent in some way, not just a record on carpet shot from directly above with a simple point and shoot camera. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you both for your valuable insights. Being a record collector, I can't imagine anything more fascinating, of course. How do you feel a high-quality shot of a record label compares with say File:2006 American Buffalo Proof Obverse.jpg. Is it a difference in subject matter? Some record labels that pre-date 1915 are unusually colorful. I'm in a uncommon position to provide images of scarce, historical recordings, and I'd like them to be high-quality and of interesting presentation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  That coin image should be delisted if its not being used. I wouldn't mind a well-executed record image, though the sleeves (if free) would be much more interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Sleeves from that era tend to be plain brown wrappers for the smaller companies, unfortunately, or were often sold in sleeves provided by the dealer, which are interesting but not directly related to the record. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving candidates

Shouldn't all candidates be archived, regardless of the amount of votes they've received? I was surprised to see that this candidate was deleted Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl Reading a Letter by an Open Window - Google Art Project.jpg. – Editør (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The nomination was reconsidered by the nominator, and hadn't received any participation yet. In that case, I think it's OK to delete instead of archive. If someone else wants it nominated they can still do so. Jujutacular (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Achiving previous candidates is useful for future nominations. I don't think this withdrawal should be treated any different. – Editør (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It says the author requested deletion, which leads to G7, which is a privilege we grant and not a controversial reasoning. You may find it regrettable in this instance, but you equally should not let it stop you from nominating the file if you so intended. Samsara 14:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sandow returns

This got put up just before a flood of other nominations, and rather got buried. Could I beg a few more eyes on it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

??

Not even a month has passed when we used to have over 60 noms in 10 days. As of now, 25 or less. Is it that our usual nominators are withdrawing or is it that our 5000th FP began a stable graph? -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the climate ... Hafspajen (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• The number of nominations ebbs and flows constantly. I think those of us who write the Signpost are probably thankful that the number has decreased a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• You bet. People were so stressed they were biting off each others heads. But Spring is different from Winter. I blame the weather. Hafspajen (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• However, there is a solution, Crisco 1492 can nominate let's say eight pics, right now, so we have more noms... Hafspajen (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• LOL. I've learned better than to flood the nominations page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Might consider 3. That's a nice number. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good that we here have no limit for noms (2 as in Commons).IMO, we should not..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• If people were to start nominating 8 at a go, regularly, you'd change your mind pretty quickly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any recommended amount? Hafspajen (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• No. It ebbs and flows naturally. There have been times where there've been only 9 active nominations at once. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

General question about streams

I have about a couple dozen QIs of streams and creeks on Commons that are in articles. It's obviously impossible to show the entire length of a creek in one picture since a) they tend to be long and not very wide, b)they aren't straight lines, and c) they are often obscured by forests and the like. It seems that many of the FP people are sticklers for showing the entire subject, so do any of these have a chance of passing? I have so many failed nominations that I wanted to ask here so it doesn't look like I'm disrupting the FPC process. --Jakob (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Streams rarely show the entire thing. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes for ideas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: So some of these might have a reasonable chance of passing then? --Jakob (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lighting and other considerations have to be thought of as well. The one river was an aerial view, and the others had some really nice lighting. Flat lighting will have trouble. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: Thanks for the help. I've looked very closely at a few of those pictures with a critical eye and most have minor technical flaws, but then again, they are all QIs on Commons. So, last question: is it common, unusual, or unheard of that Commons QIs fail FP here on technical grounds? --Jakob (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• The lighting will likely be a problem. Any chance of going when it's not an overcast day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of my pictures seem to get burned in sunny weather, especially when there's water in the picture, like this, which is why I do most of my picture-taking on cloudy days. I do get lucky with burning occasionally though: Huntington Creek, Maple Run, Painter Run, Shamokin Creek, and West Creek were all taken on non-overcast days, IIRC. --Jakob (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Post processing is your friend, as is AV Mode. It's much simpler to use AV mode, and the colours can be made to pop more with a bit of post-processing. File:Portrait of ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), Windsor, Ontario, 2014-12-07.jpg, for instance, had a bit more exposure digitally added, the white balance changed, and the contrast increased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Also, don't point into the sun, but in the opposite direction. So if the sun is to your SW, aim N, NE, or E. It makes a difference: compare (at thumbnail) File:Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan from S 2014-12-07.jpg (winter, with the sun to the south) and File:Renaissance Center, 2010-06-23.JPG (summer, with the sun to the north, behind the building). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your tips. I'll try to keep them in mind next time I go out to take pictures. I guess since (as I said) a few non-overcast photos managed not to get burned badly, so I'll try nominating them, starting with this one. It's sort of pointing towards the sun, but on the other hand, there's a lot of dense foliage. --Jakob (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally, our FPs tend to focus on stream features such as bridges. Including such a feature in the picture should considerably increase encyclopaedic value, which is the most important criterion in evaluating an image. Samsara 04:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate and support what Samsara is saying: although a good, technical, quality picture is the foundation of an FP nomination, in order to round up votes of support it helps a great deal to have something in the picture that makes the casual viewer go, "Ah HA!", something to capture the viewer's interest and make them think for a moment. Your image of Huntington Creek looks like it is very good technically, and also has some pleasant lighting and water action/ turbulence going on, but doesn't have what feels like a visual a focal point, a "thing" in it that brings the viewer into the image, that makes the eye want to linger over it— something such as the aforementioned bridge, or a waterfall, a rapids, a dam, a ford, a delta, an old fallen tree, a patch of water lilies, an old mill, a dock, a canoe, a hiking trail sign or path, etc. Is there something— anything— about a given stream that makes your image of it both encyclopedic as well as visually interesting? Because that becomes the stuff that FPs are made of! I hope this is helpful and if anyone disagrees with me here please say so, but those are my own thoughts on streams. KDS4444^Talk 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you could get a greater field of view, to include both the stream and the forest... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492 and KDS4444: I've gotten a couple more pictures that might fit the bill, though they aren't perfect from a technical standpoint (you just can't win them all...): Mitchler Run looking upstream 1.JPG, Blizzards Run looking upstream in its lower reaches.JPG, Headwaters of Roaring Brook 2.JPG. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• The day's still quite a bland one... though if you were in a less busy area for the Blizzard's run image, you'd have had a shot. Mitchler Run looks pretty good, though the camper is a distraction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

5,000th FP

So what was our 5,000 FP? We apparently reached it, but I have no idea who the honor went to. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust:. Do you know??.---The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm searching..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Currently there are 5010 FPs, and therefore by counting back on Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 51, it's clear the 5000th FP was File:John Everett Millais - Mariana - Google Art Project.jpg (Hafspajen's nomination.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? Hafspajen (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, what do you know. Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Homunculus(:-)) is right, then we can see how she's so tired and stretching her back, saying...OH Gosh!! 5000 FPs...!! -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

She? Who's that? Take a looks at my selfie. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. Christ!! I told about the 5000th FP. I know you of old armbrust.....-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• LOL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's she -> .. I believe I saw though a painting that looked just like Armbrust. Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• So did I. This one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Actually the one I am thinking about it was Christ, naked. Lost it somewhere, though. --Hafspajen (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Threshold of nominations per user

It was not even three months before Chris proposed a change in the rule about the number of edits. Though we may not follow Commons altogether as it is, do anyone fell that there is a necessity for a threshold of nominations per user, i.e. a single user can nominate a maximum of 5 or 7 nominations (including delists) at a time? I was against this till some days before, as you can scroll up and see, but have changed my mind since. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC) @Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@Sagaciousphil, Sca, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• As Crisco said it ebbs and flows naturally. I can tough understand your point of view too, lots and lots of nominations may get a bit crowded, considering the length of the page, more work for those who keep the administration, closing, and difficulty in scrolling down... I think that we had lots of great noms too, so I don't want to kill this nice, friendly competitive and great atmosphere. But yes, not as a rule but rather as a recommendation: It is not recommended to ... whatever Maybe it could be some kind of recommendation .. try not to serial nominate more that a couple, let the others get in between... - or something like that. As @Crisco 1492: said above: If people were to start nominating 8 at a go, regularly it might become a problem ... and it is kinda happening now. Noticed that you never pinged Alborzagros, who has currently 13 noms. Maybe it would be more straightforward to discuss it with him too. About that scrolling down... Actually CorinneSD had a very intelligent proposal, some days ago.

• CorinneSD pointed out that after you vote and save the vote, for going back to the main candidates' page, you have to scroll down through all the instructions and then all the above candidates to get to the next one, after the one you just recently voted for... I guess it is irritating, especially on screens where scrolling down is an issue - and especially if the page is way too long. You should get back were you were, on the candidate you edited ... at the same place in the cue. This may also cause that people just vote on the first few candidates, and the longer the que is the worst this problem gets. Isn't that possible to fix this? Hafspajen (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

After saving your edit, click on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates link at top of nom page, then on table of contents, then on the next nom you wish to view. Sca (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a johnny-come-lately, but I'm fine with 100-edits threshold. Most unsers/eds log many more than that within a fairly short time. Sca (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I began to follow, but then left off following, the discussion about how many edits an editor ought to have made before being allowed to vote on FP. I agree with Sca, above, on that. It's the same with everything - you might get a new editor who doesn't know anything and will stumble at first but will learn, or you might get a new editor who is quite knowledgeable and whose participation will add greatly to the process. Regarding number of nominations, I think it should be a recommendation, not a hard-and-fast rule (unless it really becomes a problem), such as no more than, say, four nominations per week, or twenty nominations per month. It's got to be "per + time period", not "at once", because "at once" may be difficult to define. I'd recommend that the reasons for the limit be explained right up front. Regarding one possible reason editors become tired of voting after a few votes (referred to by Hafspajen just above), couldn't the whole instructions part of the page be kept on a separate page from the actual list of candidates? Then you wouldn't have to scroll down through those instructions each time you return to the list of candidates. Also, isn't there a way to return to the place you left when you voted, so that the next candidate on the list appears in front of you? CorinneSD (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1) I do click on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates link at top of nom page, but never then on table of contents, and next nom cos I never know what they are called, so I use to scroll down. Hafspajen (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• 2) Regarding number of nominations, I think too it should be a recommendation, not a hard-and-fast rule (unless it really becomes a problem), such as no more than, say, three-four nominations per week, - fine with me. Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, just click on the next one listed after the one you just edited, then. Sca (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• But I am looking at the picture, never at the name of the nomination, ever. And I forget them even if I look at them. Hafspajen (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Try staring at the nom name for a few seconds. This may require a change in Hafbits. Difficult after a certain age, I know, but not ausgeschloßen surely. Sca (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, definitely not age - and I change habits all the time. It is more like I am not interested. Then I rather scroll that stare at nom names. I am simply not interested. Hafspajen (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in connection with A Winter Scene in the round, I find it impossible to make Swedes do anything they don't secretly want to do.

Sca (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The best way is to use Chrome and open the link to edit on a new tab by pressing ctrl and clicking the link. I just do that and am done. IE takes more time for that and hence Chrome is better in that aspect. BTW, I fear that we are deviating from the discussion about the no. of nominations a user must have at a time. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well. yes we do. Hafspajen (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, something needs to be done. An average of 3 noms a day is a bit much, especially when so little effort appears to go into making the noms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• To be honest I haven't been able to vote or check all nominations lately, other than if I spot something coming up on the "FPC Urgents" link on my talk page, because I have a very restricted data allowance and loading the nominations page when it is so huge eats up my allowance; I appreciate that it's just very selfish on my part and that there could easily be high numbers nominated by individuals but a restriction may go towards making the page more accessible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC) How I envy those with unlimited data and fast connection speeds!

• I think I agree with CorinneSD in not having a hard-and-fast rule on numbers, but more of a recommendation to curb excesses (Giving people rule-of-thumb guidelines seems to work in getting them to see the approximate number, but not so hard that they have to clockwatch and wikilawyer to push the boundry on their next listing). If you have to push it down the pathway of a fixed number, perhaps no more than one listing and one delisting per day would work. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons says: Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Hence I would say that only a maximum of five active nominations by the same user, including delists, are to be allowed. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the proposal as nominator. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support OK, got that - 5 active nomination - I can go with that. It is democratic. Because some are very good at finding good nominations, other have to work more. This gives an equal chance to each. Hafspajen (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I would support a slightly higher number, perhaps 6-8, but with some space between them. We currently have 16 active nominations by a single user which (in my opinion) is flooding. In addition, every single one is missing at least one of the required fields, and the reason for nomination is identical for each.--Godot13 (talk) 01:01,10 April 2015 (UTC)

• The wording with some space between them is rather essential. 5-7 - it is still OK, but not all 5-7 in a row. But if the suggestion that prove a better rationale and more info for a nomination, than it will take some time to make a nom. Currently some of the nominations are not filled in correctly - no rationale, no caption, no category given and so on... that takes time too. (Also - I think - one should count sets as one, of course.) --Hafspajen (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent influx of new editors

I've noticed that, in the past two weeks, we've had an influx of three or so editors whose first or early edits were to FPC. It's rather... suspicious. Does anyone feel we should initiate a minimum number of edits rule, like on Commons? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I totally agree with this. We should have a minimum number of edits rule. I think brand new editors who's first edits are to FPC are not actually brand new editors but they might be socks of some banned or blocked users. Jim Carter 05:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Crisco 1492. National Names 2000 and Bryant2000 are especially suspicious. (1) The have a very similarly formatted username, (2) both make the same mistake by signing their posts (1 & 2) and (3) both of them are marking (almost) all of their edits as minor. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There are more than three. And some them can be simply sleepers put suddenly in activity. Edits 300-2000 edits since 2006 - 2008 - well, that is not much activity. Hafspajen (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the IP from England, that is not the same editor that used to edit from Canada. He, according to himself got an account. Hafspajen (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I am a new user in this page :P --Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support That is a reasonable thing to do. In Commons the guidelines read: Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per all comments above; I'd be inclined to set the bar regarding number of edits etc higher than those quoted as used at Commons though as 50 edits/10 days isn't a lot. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support -50 edits is not a lot, perhaps more...--Godot13 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ten days in, there looks to be a bit of support. Any thoughts of using wording similar to on Commons? "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. All editors can vote for their own nominations." Or do we want to go for more, say 100? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say go with the higher figure. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Above idea and proposed wording by Crisco. A bit of experience and understanding of the project is a reasonable requirement. I also think that more often than not a brand new user who finds their way to FPC is in fact not a new user. I think the exception for nominators makes sense as it has happened in the past the skilled photographers have joined specifically to add their images. Chillum 19:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support the idea by Chris. May be 100 or 125 (at least 25 edits in Wikipedia pages) can be the threshold with the account older than 25 days. - The Herald (here I am) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If they have edits on commons could count too. But a good editor can easily make 50 edits a day... 100 is very much only a minimum. I would put that figure much higher. Actually - edits per day would be ideal. X edits - in X days - as X edits per X days. Commons could count too. Hafspajen (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dislike that Hafs. That's why I said for at least 25 (or more) edits in Wikipedia pages.  - The Herald (here I am) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Haffy, that's why there is a 10 day minimum in the Commons wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd still be inclined to set the bar regarding number of edits higher than those quoted as used at Commons though as 50 edits/10 days isn't a lot. The idea is sorting out editors and avoiding socks, I belive. They simply start editing 50 edits. They can go on to recent changes and adding 50 welcome-templates. Sorry to sound cynical, but my latest experiences kinda rock my fait in how Wikipedia is edited by some. It can simply boil down to one thing: there are editing rules but some have no problem whatsoever breaking them. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - with the restrictions that Crisco mentioned. Atsme☯^Consult 23:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could somebody who is not involved close this? It looks like the consensus is perfectly clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:..Can you close?  - The Herald (here I am) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The motion is passed. However, the exact details aren't clear. The most consensus seems to be for 100 edits, 25 days, exception if you're a nominator. Are there any objections to that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Fine with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Though we may need an exception for self-noms, like at Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Works for me.--Godot13 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Fine with me too.. - The Herald (here I am) 04:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• I can live with that. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The rule has been added to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Header. If it causes problems, we can alter it later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I made an amendment that I felt necessary, to clarify that anybody is still welcome to _comment_ on noms. Samsara 17:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And though I realize this discussion is now closed, if anyone thinks that input from more editors would have been good to see, I would have been very glad to have chimed in (though in this case it would only have been to affirm my support for the exact conclusions that were, in the end, reached). Please think of me as someone "pingable" (not a word??) in the future for such things: am always honored to be invited to contribute thoughts in places where I know thoughts might be wanted, and Featured Picture business more than most. I just don't always know what's happening, that's all! KDS4444^Talk 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - Do not new editors (or accounts, I suppose) tend to loose interest quickly? And if this discussion is already closed, I apologize for the late post. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 20:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@HullIntegrity:Hence we have the obligation for comment. Anyone can comment, but not all can vote. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• @The Herald: -- Fair enough. HullIntegrity^\ talk /