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 /

Contra content-less votes

On WP:ITNC, where this user also participates, instructions for Voicing an opinion on an item include the admonition –

Please do not... —

• ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached (my emphasis).

This seems an eminently reasonable directive. If a user is in favor of including/promoting an item, it's incumbent on that user to share at least something of his or her reasoning with colleagues. (In some contexts, just a simple word or phrase will do.)

At present (13:00 UTC, April 9) on FPC, one user has lodged a total of 48 support votes containing no reason or rationale. That user appears to have simply voted in favor of every nomination in the current FPC queue, without once providing an explanation or argument. This does not support a collegial reasoning process, and IMO is not helpful to the project.

I suggest we adopt instructions similar to those at WP:ITNC regarding votes, and disregard or disqualify those that contain no rationale whatever.

@Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@Sagaciousphil, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: Comments? Sca (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• In FPC, at least, there are cases where little improvement can be made, and thus I think an unexpanded support vote has merit. I'm firmly against unexpanded oppose votes, as the instructions say at the top of the page: they need expansion. And I quote:

1. "Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
2. Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.

   You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.

3. To change your opinion, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it.
4. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well said Crisco. Fully agree. Also, I would like to have the burden of support on the nominator. A bit more explanation, context, would be rather valuable. As you said: so little effort appears to go into making the noms. It shouldn't. They should be more motivation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• I think I agree with Crisco's opinion. The danger is that if we insist on people providing a rationale for support, then they (i.e. I) will just use some boilerplate and banal text: "Support: meets FPC criteria in my opinion", or similar, which doesn't really help things. Yes, someone sweeping through to support 48 images (at a rate of two or three a minute) is not a beneficial circumstance, but them cutting and pasting the boilerplate text at the same rate would both get round the restriction, and be equally unhelpful. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, meets FPC criteria in my opinion is not an argument or rationale, and could not be accepted as one because it doesn't contribute to the process. It's like saying, "Because, that's why!" Such responses could & should be prohibited. Sca (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's an argument and a rationale for a support. Stating that in your opinion something meets the FPC requirements is the very basis of a support: everything else is superfluous divel, to be blunt. If you start telling people that they have to write mini-essays to justify their opinion to support, then the practical outcome is that people will walk away from !voting, which is not an ideal situation. Let me spin this round on you. If you see an image that you want to support, what level of detail would you consider appropriate in your support? - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I should also add that yes, where applicable, nominators should provide more background detail to provide context. this may not always be applicable, but in most cases I think it is. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Jobas is a big savior, he helped saving more noms one would like to think of in the last month. Hafspajen (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

But Haffy, by that reasoning the fact that a pic/painting has been nominated would constitute prima facie evidence that it has merit or meets criteria. This would obviate the entire discussion/voting process. According to that rationale, we might as well just automatically promote any and all nominations. Why bother discussing them or arguing any particular aspect of a nom? Sca (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Confused. Not res ipsa loquitur. It is the nominator's opinion. When nominate anybody can - oppose or support. By supporting - you agree. By opposing you not, than please explain, and say - why? Hafspajen (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry mon frere, but I think I've provided an adequate exegesis of my rationale above.

I'd like to see some comments from others (or maybe I wouldn't!). Sca (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the rule and liked it first, but it is not good enough for FPC. Hence, I would say a clear cut NO per Crisco's comment. Each support vote does count and even sometimes those contra-content !votes decide the nom's future. You don't want to see 4 !votes supporting and closing it with a not ..not promoted, not enough votes. The best example. Few voters turn up with a comment seconding their support reason. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have voted simply "Support", mainly for photographs. I'm not an expert in photos, so I don't see the imperfections that experts do. I just support the nomination if the photo is interesting, seems to have EV, has fairly good composition, and looks clear and sharp. I was recently jumped on for saying an image was a good quality image, so I don't say that any more. If you would prefer that I not vote on photos at all, let me know. CorinneSD (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, you don't have to be an expert to have an opinion – or an eye for aesthetics. But IMO you do have to be able to explain your opinion in some fashion.

PS: One definition of expert is, someone who lives more than 1,000 miles away. (It used to be more than 100 miles away, but times have changed – for better or for worse.) Sca (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

S-Cat, re your "superfluous divel" comment above, a) the divel is in the details, and b) to characterize a user's reasoned comments as "superfluous drivel" violates WP:AGF and is offensive to this user. Sca (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you take it as offensive, then I am afraid you have misread the comment and my intent – there is absolutely nothing there at which you should take offence. (And I have corrected my initial comment: "superfluous drivel" was what was meant, which is still in no way offensive to you). I am still waiting for you to answer the point, btw, which is what would you consider appropriate text to put in a support vote? - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe when SchroCat used the phrase "superfluous d[r]ivel", s/she was referring to any comments explaining a "Support" vote other than "Meets FPC requirements (or criteria)," not any of Sca's opinions. But SchroCat, here is what you wrote in your reply to Sca, above: "Stating that in your opinion something meets the FPC requirements is the very basis of a support: everything else is superfluous divel, to be blunt." Do you see how, by focusing on Sca's opinion in the first part of your sentence, saying "Everything else is superfluous divel [sic]" could be misunderstood by Sca as referring to his opinions? It would avoid misunderstandings if you would try to be more precise, writing something like, "All other types of supporting comments are superfluous drivel." Regarding that opinion itself, I'm a little surprised that you would think, "Meets FPC requirements" is more helpful to reaching a consensus and coming to a decision than simply saying "Support". Don't you think there is a difference between writing a more specific phrase or short sentence (explaining one's "Support" vote) and writing a mini-essay? I think there have been quite a few interesting discussions at FP that show the details that can be noticed and pointed out, the differences in opinion regarding encylopedic value, and other problems. If everyone wrote, "Meets FPC requirements," no one would learn anything and there would be no interesting discussions. CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right to say that precision is beneficial, and perhaps I can be a little more precise with something you have written: you have said that I say "'Meets FPC requirements' is more helpful to reaching a consensus". That's not quite what I am saying. When I !vote to support, it is because I consider an image has met the FP requirements. I don't tend to read the opinions of other !voters (unless they have opposed), but read what the nominator has written. I try to give background and context in my nominations, as I believe it is that more than anything—apart from the image itself—that is going to get people's attention. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course I knew S-Cat meant "drivel." And I knew S-Cat probably meant it generally – but also perhaps personally, at least to the extent of classifying my arguments above for such comments as pointless, stupid, "mindless," etc.

As to S-Cat's query re "appropriate text to put in a support votes," I humbly offer as examples my votes today on several pending FPCs. Sca (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you could please not try and smear me through misleading statements: I scan the page and can see nowhere where I (or anyone else) have classed your comments as pointless, stupid or mindless, so perhaps you could strike the accusation? - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these are not going to help me reach any decision on the images concerned:

• Support – Lovely – I have a weakness for Skagens. Sca (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Interesting. Sca (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Very présentable work from this artist. Sca (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support – "Love is all there is." – Bob Sca (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand this excellent comment stopped me supporting, which I probably would have done before you commented. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an oppose vote without comment is useful, but our standards of promotion have some hard-line positive aspects - must be used, must have EV as used, and must be freely-licenced, for example, but, presuming we already accept those as the minimum standards, I think that not having reason to oppose is enough, not because we have low standards, but because we have so many high standards that a major failure at any one (barring mitigating circumstances) is quite enough to sink a nomination. Being able to pass the checklists the reviewers put it through is quite sufficient to mark it as an image of exceptional quality; that it has many good qualities should be the presumption. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good points, Adam. Thank you for your polite explanation, SchroCat. Perhaps if you re-read what you wrote, particularly the first part of your reply to Sca, above, you will see why I interpreted it the way I did. Sca wrote:

• Obviously, meets FPC criteria in my opinion is not an argument or rationale, and could not be accepted as one because it doesn't contribute to the process. It's like saying, "Because, that's why!" Such responses could & should be prohibited. Sca (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

and you replied:

• Of course it's an argument and a rationale for a support. Stating that in your opinion something meets the FPC requirements is the very basis of a support: everything else is superfluous divel, to be blunt. [italics added]

I don't know about the other thing that Sca said in his last comment. Your examples of Sca's comments are good, though, and, in fact, the one you gave as an example of a helpful explanation (for an "Oppose" vote) kind of supports Sca's statement that providing a short explanation for one's vote can be very helpful to other editors. Sca, going back to your original suggestion, at the top of this section, I think it is a good one but should not be phrased as a requirement. I think it should be phrased as a recommendation. Right now, as Crisco pointed out, it says, "Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional." If we just change "A reason is optional" to "It is recommended, but not required, to give a reason or explanation for one's vote," it might motivate more editors to write something. I agree with SchroCat that if a reason or explanation is required it might either scare away voters or result in boilerplate comments. CorinneSD (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Often new users will come to vote and over time learn the process. It can be tough as, frankly speaking we are a diverse group and everyone has his/her standards of "like's" and "dislike's". In this instance we are talking about what looks to be a new user. It can be difficult getting accustomed to the procedural issues of contributing & voting for FP or elsewhere so I too have to agree with SchroCat & CorinneSD that if a reason or explanation is required it might either scare away voters or result in boilerplate comments. What's needed is something that teaches those users what to look for and what to vote on and what to look for that creates the quality aspects of a nomination. talk→ WPPilot  21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well said, WPPilot. I think that's a great idea. There is a list of requirements, but is there a tutorial with examples, explanations of what is good or bad about an image, examples of various types of problems, examples of images that were not promoted and why, and examples of images that were promoted and why? If not, maybe someone could create it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OMG THIS IS TOTALLY WHAT WE NEED!!! And we need TWO: one for PHOTOS and another for DIAGRAMS! --KDS4444^Talk 06:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(And if no one objects, I myself will even offer to compose a preliminary document on evaluating diagrams, though I could certainly use input from anyone else interested in the subject— let me know if I can get some kind of go-ahead with this; I have looked extensively in the past, and the only document I ever found about creating diagrams was the abandoned WP:DIAGRAM page, which doesn't address featured picture issues anyway.) KDS4444^Talk 06:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(Oooooo.... And one more thing: though I've been an on-again-off-again voter on FP candidates for years, I still do not feel confident formally "explaining" my individual support votes on photographs because I am not a professional photographer and am afraid of looking like an ass by saying something like, "This is neat!" and then have someone else come along behind me and say, "If you like needless motion blurs and off-center images with no depth of field." So I try to speak from my gut, but I have no confidence because I fear the unknown criteria and am not anything like an expert. How do we get people like me to participate more? And would such people be helpful or just annoying? Just a thought!) KDS4444^Talk 06:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444: I would be more then happy to help with the photographic aspect of it. I think that we need a few experts that have obtained FP status to do it right, Crisco is a excellent elaborator IMHO on photos, and has brought to my attention things that have, using the editorial comments helped me take better photos DLiff is yet another exceptionally qualified photographer with a deep understanding of the art, as is JJ Harrison. I suggest that we gather a core group of well known quality photographers together to assist in the process for photos. We do have another issue in the fact that photos of paintings also should be defined for the photographic aspect of the picture. As a photographer it is hard for me to vote on a photo of a Rembrandt, when you really have no idea about the "photographic aspects" of the nomination. Often these are professional scans done at the host for the artwork, but this is/was the Featured Photo section and all too often you will see votes that support the image, not the photographic quality of the image. Considering these are almost always going tohave a copyright that is expired perhaps we should consider a section for "Featured Art" that way the voter can chime in on the perceived value of the artwork in conjunction with the users perspective on the photo/scan of it.talk→ WPPilot  14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems can be linked more explicitly; we've had it for ages. Pinging KDS4444 and WPPilot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• That is alright, but, as I mentioned above it has nothing regarding painting scans/photos that are predominate in the Featured Photo section now. Many years ago the FP section was dominated by photos, without researching it seems to me that the nomination of digital scans of famous paintings is something that has become more dominating over the last 2 years. talk→ WPPilot  15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're up to 2,500 words. Any consensus? Should I pack up my troubles in my old kit bag and keep smilin'? Sca (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I’m a little late to this discussion (traveling) but wanted to weigh in. The above-quoted #1-4 by Crisco seem reasonable. While it is sometimes nice, beneficial, and/or educational when comments accompany a support vote, I’m not sure it should be required. I do strongly feel that an oppose vote should be accompanied by a rationale (which always appears to be the case). IMO, an oppose (or weak oppose) without any rational (following a note to the voter’s talk page) should not be counted, but I don’t recall this happening. I also agree with Hafspajen that the burden of providing at least some contextual/encyclopedic information in the nomination falls on the nominator. As an aside, Jobas has helped me as well on occasion, but their pattern of supporting does not suggest that the images were closely viewed or EV in the relevant article checked, and I do think that is a problem. I like CorinneSD’s suggestion about adjusting the wording (“recommended not required”), because, as several editors have pointed out, we do not want to drive anyone away with required support comments. Adam’s comments are also very much on target.--Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The one thing I worry about with FPC is that it can be very hard to delist images. We really, really, need to stop accepting "Not until we get a better one!" as a valid "Keep" argument except in cases where it's very nearly good enough. This is... problematic, given there can be some very major problems with a promoted image sometimes.

For example: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele_aerial_view.jpg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. KDS4444^Talk 06:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Also agree, I have yet to be able to actually delist a nomination. I think only Armbrust has this figured out really. talk→ WPPilot  14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy almost-the-weekend. In light of the foregoing discussion, I could support a non-mandatory advisory requesting (or encouraging) users to explain support votes, and perhaps explaining that comments about specific aspects of an FP nom may be helpful to others – plus retaining the rule requiring them to explain oppose votes in terms of FP criteria.

To the latter, I wish we could add some sort of criterion regarding intrinsic aesthetic value, which – because FPs appear on the Main Page (which I think of as the Front Page) – to me always has seemed a missing value. But I suppose we never could agree on what such a criterion would require or emphasize.

I Know there's an Is among Wikipedia's best work criterion, but it states, rather too pointedly IMO, that FPs are "not always required to be aesthetically pleasing...." I'd like to see that rephrased to say being aesthetically pleasing isn't an absolute requirement – "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative."

So anyway:

• Suggestions on how an advisory request should be written?
• Armbrust, would you care to moderate a vote on it after we draft it?

Sca (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• "I Know there's an Is among Wikipedia's best work criterion, but it states, rather too pointedly IMO, that FPs are "not always required to be aesthetically pleasing...." I'd like to see that rephrased to say being aesthetically pleasing isn't an absolute requirement – "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." - That's a completely different ball of wax, and very different than what we've been discussing recently. If it has to be discussed, it should be in its own section. (Personally, I think we'd just need to drop the "always"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I could live with that – but how about "aren't absolutely required to be" – ?

I mean, the Main Page is top exposure! But agreed, this doesn't have to be handled now. Sca (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I am late by far to this conversation and let my grammar be hanged. I used to expound in supports with a comment. In this diff: I decided otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/vG%27s_Bedroom . I was chided on user talk pages by two editors for my use of an absolute adjective and also within this nomination. Even to some extent by Sca (who probably was oblivious to my mocking). In this nomination I stated that I would no longer state a comment. Just 'support'. I have relented in this one nomination by Hafs with "this is beautful": .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:P.S._Krøyer_-_Summer_evening_on_Skagen%27s_Beach._Anna_Ancher_and_Marie_Krøyer_walking_together._-_Google_Art_Project.jpg. I will have to be banned from the process before I will take back my resolution. To me FPC is non-article space and the comments may be allowed to be in common relaxed written language and not needed to be 'article perfectly grammatically'. Thanks or whatever. Fylbecatulous talk 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• After some eigth years participating in FPC as a creator and as a reviewer, both here and in Commons, my opinion on the subject has slighty changed. During the first times I was mainly concerned, as most of the reviewers, with the justification of oppose votes. Now I'm mostly worried with the unjustified support votes, as the Facebook "like-it" phenomenon has already arrived to both foruns. That is, a significant number of users post their support votes just because they like the images, without trying to assess their encyclopaedic value or even, in some cases, opening them in full size. This is much worse, in my opion, that not promoting a couple of high quality images because of unjustified oppose votes. It is much worse because it degrades FPC standards! Please note that the default state of a FPC candidate in "not-promoted". And should remain exactly that way unless the reviers agree that it is among the very best images Wikipedia has to offer. Looking at the issue from this side, it appears more necessary to justify a support vote than an oppose one... Just my 2 cents. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think I have noticed it over here ( degrading the FPC standards). But it is a problem though on commons, that I noticed myself, when voting on picture of the year. Hafspajen (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I can understand your point about why we'd want to have comments on why an image is good, but I can't get behind "it appears more necessary to justify a support vote than an oppose one". If we want to avoid fights, and to have nominators improve their contributions, we need to provide feedback about what went wrong, so that it can be fixed in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly Chris. Hence, I would oppose the proposal. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't understand me wrongly, I still consider justifying all votes as necessary, both the opposing and the supporting ones. Two reasons: firstly, you justification is an important feedback for the creator (or nomimator) and noting can be more rewarding than a feedbak from our peers, especially when the review is negative; secondly, our comments can be a powerful way of influencing the opinion of the other reviewers or calling their attention to important aspects of the nomination. This is a very nice component of our open discussion/voting system, whose expected goal is to reach a concensus rather than finding a winner through the counting of votes. Having said this, I find the above proposal appropriate and fully support it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - in that case, because many people above gave a god explanation and rationale why not, that I think it was rather clear. Also, we don't want to scare off participants, when we just a couple of month ago had a discussion to lower the votes from 5 to only 4 because people didn't participated enough in the voting process. That was never a concern on commons or on the news. Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – While I appreciate Alvesgaspar's support, at this point (considering the discussion) I'm not comfortable with the notion of "justifying" votes, which to me seems rather legalistic. My interest is more toward sharing information, making a point about some aspect, etc. Compromising on a non-mandatory advisory re 'yes' votes dovetails with this theme, I hope. Sca (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As a recommendation or suggestion, alright, but not as a requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as noted above ystdy ("requesting or encouraging"). At this point still soliciting suggestions on how to phrase it. Sca (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't like my earlier suggestion? I had suggested changing "A reason is optional" (for the "Support" votes) to

(a) It is recommended, but not required, to give a reason or explanation for one's vote, or

(b) It is recommended, but not required, to provide a reason or explanation for one's vote, or

(c) It is recommended, but not required, to provide a reason or brief explanation for one's vote. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

and perhaps add:

(d) Your thoughts and insights will help others formulate a judgment about the image, or

(e) Your thoughts and insights will help others reach a decision.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• A combination of C & D would have helped me avoid a few minor run-ins (all amicable). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 20:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• How about this combination:

It is recommended, but not required, that you include a reason for or brief explanation of your "support" vote; your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion.

(Remember, the rule requiring users to explain "oppose" votes in terms of FP criteria would remain in force.)

Sca (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought: is there enough difference between "a reason for your "Support" vote" and "a brief explanation of your "Support" vote" to include both phrases? Wouldn't one suffice? CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit prolix. "A brief explanation of" would cover the waterfront (although either phrase would work). So:

• It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote; your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion.

Or:

• It is recommended, but not required, that you include a reason for your "support" vote; your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion.

(I kinda like the "brief" idea.) Sca (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Good. Either one is fine. I kind of like "include a brief explanation of your "support" vote" better. Just another thought: what about reversing the sentence:

• Because your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion, it is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support vote.

CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We might even leave out one of the two nouns. "Insights" would flatter the editor a bit (but it's correct):

• Because your insights may help others form an opinion, it is recommended but not required that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote.

(I think we can leave out the parenthetical commas. Now it reads smoothly.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

On reversing the order of the clauses, I wouldn't; the most important thought is soliciting a voter's rationale, and that should come first, IMO. And I'd argue for retaining "thoughts and insights" as a friendly gesture to encourage comments. Sca (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• "It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your insights may help others form an opinion".? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about "as" – I like it! And we don't really need "thoughts and" – who knows what their thoughts are? Sca (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

So, here's where we are:

It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your insights may help others form an opinion.

Sca (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Just a thought: we have some non-native speakers of English who like to participate; do you think "your insights" will be understood? For those editors, could we add some synonyms in parentheses after "insights":

• ...as your insights (your thoughts and ideas about the image) may help others form an opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that insights is all that obscure a term, but I could go with substituting thoughts for insights if you think it's more everyday-speech. Either way, they'd get the msg. Re synonyms, I think we need to keep this advisory brief.

Crisco? Sca (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think "insights" is really the best word, and I suppose anyone who isn't familiar with the word can either look it up in a dictionary or use Google Translate. I agree that the advisory should be brief. CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Herding cats?

I agree that "insights" may be the best word, but not necessarily for non-native speakers of English. I like the combination of the two suggestions above to form: It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your insights (i.e., thoughts and ideas of the image) may help others form an opinion. --Godot13 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

So now where are we? Sca (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, to answer my own question, I think we're here:

It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your thoughts may help others form an opinion.

Time to vote? Sca (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• A side note, related but off topic: I am new to WP:FPC. After reading this discussion I added this to my userspace. It is just an idea. Whether it is helpful or hurtful, I don't know. I yield to you, more experienced contributors. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote

• Okay, so long story short: there is a suggestion that we modify the FPC header, replacing "Write Support if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional." with "Write Support if you approve of the picture. It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your thoughts may help others form an opinion." This is hoped to put more emphasis on positive feedback, while still allowing simple "support"s to stand. I don't think a formal RFC is required, so it's best we have an open vote. After a week, if there is a clear consensus, the vote will be closed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Since the statement, "It is recommended..." follows, "Write Support if you approve of the picture," why do we have to repeat "support"? Couldn't it be written like this?

• Write Support if you approve of the picture. It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your vote as your thoughts may help others form an opinion."

Since, I believe, a different statement requiring an explanation follows, "Write Oppose if...", I think it will be clear that the statement "It is recommended" applies only to "Support" votes. CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Alborzagros, Armbrust, Bruce1ee, Adam Cuerden, CorinneSD, Diliff, and EtienneDolet:@Gazhiley, Godot13, Hafspajen, The Herald, Janke, J Milburn, and Jobas:@KDS4444, Pine, Sagaciousphil, SchroCat, WPPilot, and Yann: You're invited to vote on the non-mandatory FPC voting advisory drafted here. Planned closing date is April 21. Sca (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Sorry Sca thanks for the invite - I have been away on holiday and as such not arrived back in time... Thanks though... gazhiley 12:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation

of your "support" vote, as your thoughts may help others form an opinion.

• Support proposal 2 - The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really see the point of this change. Before comments were optional, now there are not compulsory, so what? Yann (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a bid to encourage sharing thoughts about why a nom should be promoted. Sca (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know what "Support" statement I'm voting for – I see three versions under Vote and Votes. Can we please head this section with what we're voting for. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. (Confusing material deleted.) Sca (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support —Bruce1ee^talk 13:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - When somebody says Support He/She mentions the picture is a high quality picture and bears encyclopedic value and He/She doesn't need to describe by words like Greet, fantastic awesome and like them.-Alborzagros (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)-

• Comment - I'm going to repeat what I said just above, at the end of the preceding section:

• Since the statement, "It is recommended..." follows, "Write Support if you approve of the picture," why do we have to repeat "support"?

Alborzagros Are you saying you would prefer that editors write either just Support or Support - High quality image with good EV. for every image whose nomination a voter supports? No discussion? No interesting observations? No questions? I think that would make for a boring process.

I mean there are just few reasons in order to vote Support. when somebody writes this word he or she refers to high quality, good framing, good scan, EV and something like them so if a user types the word of support without comment he or she means the pic has got HQ, EV and good framing and everything that a pic might have to be FP.Alborzagros (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support – with the word "Support" in the middle of the sentence left out. CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose -- Rules have a tendency to low-ball. In this case, "requiring" comments seems an attempt to avoid sock-puppetry, or (more likely) to discourage those editors who are not experts in photography from wandering around in here. Even a "recommendation" is a de facto "condemnation" of those who do not follow the "rule". HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody write some sentences. I don't understand. For example we have a nom here. If you are going to vote support, please type what you mean blow (fill the gap):Alborzagros (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• - @Alborzagros: I must assume you were attempting to respond to me, but I do not understand your comment. Can you leave a message on my talk page, please. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment -- ROFLSNORT. Ok, THAT was a brilliantly ironic vote. You win. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:40, 19 April UTC 2015

• Query I assumed we were voting on the use of the little hand "Vote & Comment" banner (and policy). If that is that not the case, I need more coffee. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

^{The pointing hand is not part of the proposal – just a typographical device to help answer Bruce1ee's question above. Sca (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)}

• NOTE — All that's necessary here is a positive or negative vote. Sca (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Some useless talks. This is a section for voting. Discussions above. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Query - @Sca: I am apparently confused. Are you suggesting that there should be no discussion when voting here about the necessity for discussion when voting later? HullIntegrity\ talk / 14:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Comment User:HullIntegrity Now that I don't understand (meant partly humorously, partly seriously). There has already been quite a bit of discussion on this above this section. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC) - True enough. I will defer. I mistakenly assumed discussion was still open in this section to explain our votes and query about votes. HullIntegrity\ talk / 16:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC) HullIntegrity et al., the discussion above totals 5,800 words, but by the middle of last week it seemed to have petered out, so we moved ahead on the vote. Explanations of votes here aren't prohibited, however – just not nec. Sca (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC) @Sca: Thank you for being patient with me. I totally agree this discussion seems all done. HullIntegrity\ talk / 00:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Patience is my middle name. Sca (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Excellent smiley. I am totally stealing that. HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support – either with or without the word "support" in the middle of the sentence. Sca (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've added a comma that I think is grammatically necessary. My punctuation tends to be a little formal, mind. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

^{Adam, I gave that comma deep thought(s) but concluded others viewed it as too fussy. Either way. Sca (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)}

• Oppose as is. In my opinion, all votes should be explained. I would write: It is required that you include an explanation of your vote (either "support" or "oppose"), as your thoughts may help others form an opinion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's going to be support for that anytime soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, the original proposal started out that way but was roundly rejected (see discussion above). Sca (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment - If an explanation for a vote is required that seems to me to imply that the explanation (or lack thereof) may be valued (by someone?) and the vote thrown out (by someone?) based on bad grammar, lack of knowledge about photography, perceived insanity? Ergo, criteria for analyzing votes, with or without comments, would need to be established. Or am I missing something? I am admittedly sometimes a bear of very little brain. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 16:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - What is required to say a consensus has been reached? We now have six Support votes and three Oppose votes. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Then that is that, right? HullIntegrity^\ talk / 16:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Crisco is monitoring this vote. Sca (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Right. RFCs generally run for a month; I'd like this to at least reach a week before we close it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Crisco 1492|Crisco, I'd forgotten that you were monitoring this. In fact, I'd forgotten that anyone was monitoring this. CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It seems that this is mostly a symbolic change, as it merely suggests rather than requires any change in voting behaviour. I think it's a positive step, as I think that in general, all votes should be justified (or justifiable). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Based on the discussion here, there doesn't seem to have been enough discussion to affirm a consensus yet. Anyone mind leaving the discussion open a bit longer? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What you mean, Chris? -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Might as well wait & see if a few more users vote. Sca (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• What Sca said. There are those who support, but they generally (and ironically) haven't given explicit reasons here, whereas the opposers have. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with what Crisco says above. I do not think this discussion is anywhere near consensus, so perhaps leave it open. I will still follow, but have said my piece. And, not being a professional photographer will defer since my interest is on content. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• By "content" I mean I am not trained to have an opinion on the technical aspects (as in pixels per inch and so on) but I am interested in the subject matter and composition of photos and will vote from that position and explain from that position, and fully support any editor's right to vote without doing so--as annoying as it may be. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible candidate

Can this be an FP?--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Give a try...Personaly, I would say that a better shot from the right side, making the church at the center of the frame..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Skr15081997, I'd advise against that. The lighting is dull, the building is off center, the crop is a bit too tight, and there appears to be significant lens distortion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

Hi, We have File:March on Washington - Reflecting Pool.jpg, which is bigger and much better. Should we do a "Delist and replace"? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

FPC Coordinators?

Hi all,
Do anyone feels that we should, here at FPC, should have some coordinators as FAC and FLC have it? Someone like Armbrust (who 24X7 closes our noms), who could make out some clear cut consensus and the like sometimes. How do you all feel? -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 05:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• A title, by any other name, would work as well. i.e. no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't really understand what the point of it would be. What would change other than giving Ambrust a name for what he already does (and Crisco and yourself on occasion)? I certainly believe that he deserves a lot of credit for the work he's put in over a long period of time as it's a thankless job, but I'm not sure that a title is the way to show it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SG-1000

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SG-1000. It will expired in less than 12 hours, and it's currently failing on quorum. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I light of the fact that this FPC didn't even get a single user comment I'd like to propose that in such cases the FPC in question be either reintroduce to the lineup from the top of the page with a time stamp to reflect the new date of closure or moved to the section where more input is required to find consensus. I think it unfair that an FPC should fail do the lack of participation from anyone other than the nominator, and would like FPCs in such case to get at least on person's comment and/ or iVote before being close to help gauge where other people stand on the matter of the nomination. Would anyone here support such a proposal? (and for that matter has this even been proposed before?) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Or perhaps it meant that nobody felt it worthy of support, yet didn't feel strongly enough to oppose. Personally, the resolution was a deal breaker for me. 320 × 240 pixels isn't anything to write home about. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • But hearing that at least provides some measure by which it is possible to gauge whether or not the image had a chance or not. See in light of that observation from you I would be of the mind not to renominate this clip since there is now officially a flaw in resolution size. But since I know that now, I am aware that a renomination is likely not worth the time or effort at this moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It would be worth hunting down a higher resolution version. We've got a whole gigabyte to play with on Commons, so we could get full HD if something was available.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That helps my example, but it still leaves others who have had the same experience of nominating an image or flick watch as there nomination sails through without any input. Even if you're not going to support or oppose its not that hard to type a few words on the subject matter, and having at least that would be nice to help editors and nominators gauge where the image stands. Personally, I'd be of the mind to do what they do at afd when this happens and just relist the media at the top until they get some input, but thats me, and I'm out of my league and my mind here. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Even AFD has limits; a decision has to be made in three weeks at most. It's a bad point of comparison, too, as the goal is to see whether or not an article can stay, not whether or not it is really, really, good. No featured content processes feature such an "automatic rotation". The nominator has to take the initiative to renominate. Heck, at FAC and FLC, there's a two week delay, unless a coordinator says otherwise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Compare also things like the Rigoletto image of recent: 4 supports, no opposes, very near passing, but nominated at a bad time. Such things happen sometimes. =/ Asking for feedback usually is better if you're not sure why something didn't pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: But in the case of the Rigoletto image there was some input, and while the image didn't pass it was not for lack of participation, it was for lack on the currently accepted definition of consensus required for passing. What I am looking at are the specific cases in which images like the tear down this wall clip and the Jcpag2012 (talk · contribs) nominated Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dione (moon) which had exactly zero input across all 10 days of the nomination period. In these very specific cases I feel that closing the nomination that has absolutely no input is a bad idea, hence the suggestion that they be moved to the more input required section or re-listed from the top rather than being closed as no consensus. Personally I favor the former since any kind of comment from someone other than the nominator would qualify as input, which would allow the images to be closed with some feedback to help the nominator better plan his or her next move. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed clarification to delist closure

• If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

This is a fundamental failure to be a featured picture that has to be sufficient grounds to delist, and we should write that into the rules. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I support this proposal (or something like it)- I agree that there is a fundamental flaw in unused images being kept. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tweaked the last clause for clarity, shouldn't be any real change to meaning. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Image size

Hi everyone; thanks to an appearance at DYK, I've recently come across Commons user BigHead, who is professional photographer Augustas Didžgalvis. His portraits are fantastic (though he prefers a little less head room than is typically preferred at FPC), and cover some underrepresented topics. However, he uploads his portraits at a size of 1500 by 1000, so they're a little under our size requirements. I assume part of the motivation for this is that it isn't clear why much bigger than that would be helpful for a portrait, unless we're looking to count hairs missed while shaving or pores on the nose. I suppose what I'm asking is whether we feel that these images would be suitable to nominate here; I've included a few highlights below. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

• I do like his picture of Irina Davydova, but honestly I can't see why we can't ask for 1500px. 2250 * 1500px is only 3.4 megapixels, a mere fraction of what's possible with modern cameras. For high quality print uses, the files are slightly on the small size. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that we shouldn't compromise on the minimum size. The images above don't even fill an HD TV screen. They're good portraits, but what is the point of FP if it doesn't push for excellence. We're a Free Content project, so part of judging our best free images is also whether they are restricted in size to diminish their value. -- Colin°^Talk 16:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about camera quality

I take some pretty decent pictures, but I just use a mid-priced digital camera. Are the pictures that get FP all from professional cameras, or can they also be from ones that cost under $300? RO^(talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492:@Diliff:@Godot13:@Jkadavoor: Ping some users. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My 39 fps in Commons are with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28. The new fp here is with a Sony Alpha 33. Hope it explains. Jee 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can only say that we have fairly strict image quality requirements. It isn't that cheaper cameras are completely incapable of meeting these standards, but it is difficult and a $300 camera is going to struggle. That being said, a spectacular photo from an artistic or encyclopaedic value point of view might be enough to gain support. Can you give some examples? Perhaps we could suggest whether they have a chance or not. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I do believe I previously answered that question, with examples of pocket camera-taken FPs on Wikipedia or Commons (which in technical aspects is even more demanding). @Diliff, see the original upload of File:Aztec Ruins National Monument by RO.JPG for an example. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• That example is a tough one. It's compositionally quite nice, and I assume has good EV. But the common problem that I see with these point and shoot style cameras is that there's often very little detail in the texture. The megapixels are there, but there's not actually much true resolution in them. I believe they use strong edge enhancement to give the illusion of sharpness, which works well for things like the brickwork, but fails to render finer detail like the grass or trees well. I know I'm being a bit picky and possibly elitist, but to really get good image quality and sharpness from that image, you need to downsample it to almost 50%, by which stage it falls below our minimum resolution requirements. The same is often true of DSLR photos too, particularly when paired with cheap lenses, but DSLRs often have more megapixels to work with to begin with. Just my thoughts. Anyway, I'm not saying I'd consider that image a flat-out oppose. I'd just find it hard to outright support too. Landscape images like this are fundamentally not hard to take and there's enough light that you should be able to extract the most out of any camera, so there's little mitigation for difficulty or capturing a once-in-a-lifetime moment. ;-) Just my thoughts anyway. I don't claim to speak for everyone. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• And many compact camera can shoot in raw, nowadays. Better processing may improve the results. Anyway an entry level DSLR like Canon EOS 1200D can produce fps; I think. (The quality of some bird photos by User:Baresi franco are exceptional. His camera is not that much cheap; but not as expensive as the mainstreams.) Jee 17:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Diliff: One of the issues I found was the considerable distortion towards the edges. That was my main issue for opposing the nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver I think you would struggle to create an FP with a compact camera, but you certainly don't need professional equipment. Until last year, I had an entry-level consumer DSLR bought in 2010 and have taken many featured pictures with it. The biggest factors on quality are the size of the image sensor (bigger is better) and the cost of the lenses. If you want a compact camera, have a look at something like the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100, which you might find at around $400 for the original version (there are newer more expensive versions of that camera). That fits a relatively large 1" sensor into a pocketable camera body. Alternatively, look at getting one of last year's (or the year before last) DSLRs. An entry-level Nikon or Canon DSLR with kit lens would also be about $400 if you avoid looking at the very latest models. And to be honest, the latest Nikon/Canon DSLRs aren't very different from those made a couple of years ago. If you can't spend more than $300 then it is probably best to look for a second hand DSLR. But beware the photography can get expensive as a hobby and before you know it, you'll have bought extra software for your PC and more lenses, a bag, tripod, flash, etc, etc. Photography is also more than just about the equipment, and FP demands more than just "decent" images -- they are supposed to be among the finest. -- Colin°^Talk 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations everyone. I won't bother noming any more images at FP until I get a much better camera. RO^(talk) 17:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Should FPs be removed from the main page?

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon proposes that to be the case. It's one of those stealth proposals - not notified anyone affected by it, just going around and trying to give the illusion of some support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no expectation for that proposal to pass. It looks like something you'd see in 1990. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Somehow I got myself involved in a debate there. Oh well, I think you're right. There certainly isn't much support for it yet. I think they're entirely missing the point though. The premise of needing to deliver a page with a tiny footprint is based on the blog of a Youtube software engineer written three years ago about a story that took place six years ago. Internet connectivity in the developing world has improved considerably in that time, I'm sure, and they will continue to improve in the future. Also, Wikipedia isn't a search engine. Yes, it has search functionality but it primarily hosts content. If people really want to find an article on a specific topic, they'll most likely use Google and click the article link directly from there. And if they want a minimalist Wikipedia 'search page', there's http://www.wikipedia.org. And if they're from a developing country on a low bandwidth connection, they're most likely accessing Wikipedia on a mobile device. The mobile version of the English Wikipedia main page is already very minimalist. There's nothing in our current set up that stops people from accessing a minimalist search page if they want to do so. It's a storm in a teacup. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the footprint of the Wikipedia Main Page is way under the footprint being discussed as the size to get under in that blog. An ancient 2400 baud modem would take less than 20 seconds to download our mainpage; anything 90s or later should get it in a second or two. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: BTW this is the same as Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview

Hi all, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's monthly newsletter The Bugle (along with Ian Rose), and we're hoping to run a group interview in next month's edition with editors who frequently work on military history-related featured pictures. I've invited several editors to take part, but have doubtlessly missed some people. As such, I'd like to extend an open invitation to editors who are interested in participating to post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2015/Interview by 14 August. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just curious ...

... as to how [this] one got out front so soon. Sca (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Because it's in DYK and not POTD. Different parts of the main page with different processes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

^{Oh. Doh! Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)}

It's cos I was multi-tasking, Sca darling. Belle (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, did you paint it too? While you were preparing cherries jubilee with your left hand? Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you been peering through my window again? Belle (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Na, man muss sich auch mal was gönnen! Sca (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Machine de Marly graphics

Dpendery Appears to have put a significant amount of work generating a computer model of Machine de Marly. Machine de Marly was an incredibly complex artifact (for its time) built in 1684 to pump water from the river Seine to the Palace of Versailles. Dpendery's images are posted in the gallery on Machine de Marly#Description. I would like to nominate the computer model for Featured picture, but given that there are numerous views, I am not sure what to nominate. Should suggestions be given to Dpendery to improve on the presentation before an image is nominated? I would think that other views could easily be generated. Any recommendations?
File:Machineanim1.JPG, File:Machmarly3D1.jpg, File:Machmarly3D2.jpg, File:Machmarly3D3.jpg. As well as this aninimation on youtube
Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't comment on the merit of the nomination, but we do sometimes promote a "set" of featured pictures. See: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Star atlas. Jujutacular (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for potential change to voting procedure

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this, but I would like to propose a vote on changing the voting proceedure with relation to supports. For opposes, the requirement is there currently to have to explain why, otherwise your vote is invalid. For some reason this is not the case for Supports. I am personally very "suspicious" (maybe not the right word) of a few editors who seem to support everything, without giving a reason, and often in complete contrast to the previous votes that state quite valid reasons for opposing. While this of course is entirely their perogative to vote how they see fit, it looks more like they either haven't bothered looking at either the nominated picture and comments, or see something that everyone else hasn't... By forcing said users to say WHY they are supporting, this would at least help other editors make a decision if they are currently sitting on the fence...

There also appears to be an editor who seems to support 7-8 noms in the space of a few mins, on regular occasions, further making me wonder whether they are even looking at the pictures...

So how do we go about putting this to vote? It's a very simple change, minimal effect to the process (especially as most editors already provide reasons), and can only be of benefit to the project... gazhiley 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm for it, except what stops "Support" becoming "Support - meets all the FP criteria"? Belle (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If "Support" became "Support - meets all the FP criteria" then at least we will have a claim by the person as to why they support it. I agree that every opinion should be explained or disregarded. If some one just says "Support - meets all the FP criteria" and there is evidence presented that it does not then it should be given less weight too. Chillum 13:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

But that claim is inherent in "Support"; by implication what is really being requested here is that the closers weigh up the arguments for promotion rather than doing a simple calculation; I'd like that more but I don't know whether the closers will. Belle (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I someone gives no reason then there is nothing to refute. However if a person gives even a pro forma reason then that can at the very least be shown to be incorrect. It is just like at AfD, it someone gives no reason at all then the closer really should not give weight to that. If they so much as say that it meets the standards without explaining how then at the very least the closer can check if that statement has been refuted by others, if it has not been refuted then it is reasonable to give weight to such a comment. Chillum 16:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I get what you're saying Belle, but in the situation where an editor has supported without checking (I believe this is happening) and they type "meet criteria", then if the other editors have proven it doesn't then it should be ignored... To the same extent why do we ask for a reason for oppose? They could just type "oppose - not good enough" but we still ask for a reason... We will never have a perfect system, I just feel that by making it a rule to give SOME form of opinion, we are 'more likely' to get a genuine reason/vote than if we don't ask... gazhiley 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Didn't we like just discuss this a couple months ago? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sort of. I was trapped in an enchanted fortress at the time; that's my excuse. Belle (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry Chris Woodrich, despite being a regular editor on here, I was not tagged in on the discussion, so was not aware of it... I would have supported the change clearly had I known... gazhiley 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Criteria Changes

Good day to you all, Due to my life taking a quite unexpected turn towards insanity (not literally, but overall much more busy with studies and work), my participation here at FP candidates has dropped considerably (I consider it more of a hiatus on Wiki at large.) I now have the time to return and resume helping judge the candidates of a high honor here at Wikipedia.

Now for the meat of the issue. I notice the criteria states that the minimum is 1500px resolution. Is there any other major changes concerning the criteria, rule of thumb, consensus, closing procedures, delisting, or has all stayed relatively the same over the past couple years? If nobody knows, readjustment wont be difficult. But, nonetheless, any answers are appreciated. Thanks! Dusty777 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Welcome back, Dusty777. Aside from the resolution issue, we've combined delist nominations with normal nominations (but the subpages are still different), and enacted a rule regarding the minimum age of accounts before their !votes can be considered. The last one certainly doesn't apply to you . — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for the response Chris. (I was unaware of who you where until I clicked your Talk page.) I figured most changes were relatively minute. Dusty777 03:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup.

I already started doing this, but may as well say:

I'm going to go through the bottom few images in every FP category, and just check for, basically:

• Images with an obvious D&R candidate (e.g. Google Art Project scans; LoC images where a much larger copy exists)
• Images that don't come anywhere near our current quality standards - I don't mean ones that are a tiny bit under resolution, or which need a little cleanup, I mean egregiously so.
• Images not in use/replaced with another image.

These will be nominated for deletion. I'll batch together anything with similar issues - do we really need fifty "Google Art Scan available to replace a much lower quality original" nominations? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We screwed up again

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jim Morrison (2) probably shouldn't have been promoted: It's been deleted on Commons now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• We didn't screw up. Someone gamed the system until he got what he wanted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Camera cleaning

Can someone tell me if my camera needs to be cleaned based on a picture?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • How much does my camera need to be cleaned based on File:20150902 Quest Multisport clinic Tim Hardaway.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I would follow the instructions at this page to have a look. The example image you gave is much too busy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How many at one time?

How many Featured picture candidates can one nominator have up at one time?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• We don't have any rules about that. Nominators are expected to be reasonable, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh okay sounds good. So perhaps wait till a prior nomination has gotten further down the list, that sort of thing. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Consider doing a joint nomination if it makes sense to do so, like those currency sets we've been seeing of late. Thinking about this may also help identify additional EV that maybe wasn't obvious at first. HTH, Samsara 02:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

People/Musicians

See here for my new FP category proposal. JJARichardson (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons request

This is not an FPC question, but you guys are the picture file experts. A file has been up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Millennium Park. It has been deleted and undeleted pending moving it to a FU listing on WP. However, the source file has moved or something. Is there a way to search flckr.com for the original source file for File:Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The ghost of Wikipedia past?

Why is this even here? I thought it was discouraged to even upload Creative Commons or public domain photos to Wikipedia these days. Is this to give second chancers a last ditch hope to have their work featured after it fails on commons where there is a more professional and serious photography core? B137 (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Significant changes to featured Image?

Hi. I have recently replaced a Wikipedia featured image on Commons with a higher quality version, but there is some debate about whether the new version is substantially different to the original. Would someone be kind enough to take a look and advise as to whether it should be reverted to the original or not? Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably your best bet would just be to upload it under a different name. —howcheng {chat} 17:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the new version is so much better than the orginal that I don't see any issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Unauthorised alteration of another person's comments

User "Charlesjsharp" has twice (here and here) struck out my comments without any explanation. This is not acceptable. 109.151.59.86 (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

POTD discussion

• Community feedback is requested in this discussion regarding a possible Picture of the Day for International Holocaust Remembrance Day. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

FPs with watermarks

Discussion here. Samsara 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue here, not at Errors, that's about the main page, not what should and should not constitute a featured picture, as you know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Samsara and The Rambling Man, would it be appropriate to move that entire discussion here and if agreed upon, can one of you perform the move? Atsme^📞📧 18:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking this discussion is whether a video game cover should include the logo of the company making it (which appears as part of the cover on all copies)?! That seems... bizarre. There's a difference between someone slapping a logo on soemthing 50 years later and something that was part of the artwork from the start. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

For posterity's sake, the full discussion can be seen removed in this edit. I, too, see this as a slightly misplaced confusion. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Full length movies

See discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_we_move_full-length_movies_from_article_space_to_Commons.3F

While that discussion was kicked off by "think of the children!" concerns, full length movies have been nominated for featured status. I have never supported them because I'm unconvinced of their encyclopedic value, we wouldn't just dump the text of Hamlet into the article. We should take important extracts and contextualise them for the reader, we should do this with video too. - hahnchen 13:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Almost (but not quite) there

In the event an image has almost all the support it needs without any opposes why isn't added to the more input needed section? It occurs to me that this would seem a good place to add images that still need supports but have no opposition. I'm sure the issue's been raised before, so I am certain there is a reason why this isn't done, but I can't recall why and frankly its does seem like a good way to get the community behind images that are almost there - but not quite (disclosure: I'm off a second failed attempt that fell short by one Gad-Damn vote, so I'm suggestion and letting off a little steam here. Have a degree of patience with me if I seem cross with any replies). TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The "More input needed section" begins with this sentence: "These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion." Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Filippino Lippi 016.jpg

Hey guys, I closed it successfully after a good four months. Please let me know of any wrongs...-The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robert Earl Jones

Could I get more eyes on this? It has 4.5 supports out of 5, an awkward situation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange artifact!

Last year there was this nom [1] and it had a strange artifact in the beard area, visible at full size. At the time I was guessing an algorithm related issue. Then there was this nom [2] and it had a similar artifact in the upper/left area of the image, but not everywhere. So I thought the artifact might be lens related. Recently we have this nom [3], with no such artifact. The three images have relatively similar cameras, image size and file size. The f-stop of two images are similar. The focal lengths are 220mm, 90mm, and 32mm. So I am still thinking the artifact is lens related. Does anyone know what it is? clues, guesses? Bammesk (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In the second, as it happens near the top of the plant, I'm inclined to think motion blur from wind. The youngest prts of plants, usually the topmost, tend to be most flexible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Adam the exposure time on that one is 1/250 seconds, so motion blur is unlikely. What Chris said in this diff [4] eludes to a lens issue and the artifact on this image [5] kind of looks like a lens/focus/DOF issue. Bammesk (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it has to do with the optical coating, anti-reflection coating of the lens, the quality or the lack of it!? Bammesk (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)