Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

FPCs needing feedback

Waiting period in FP criteria

I've noticed that some images are being nominated, usually by their creators, within a day of their being uploaded. I'd like to propose changing "The image is used in one or more articles." to "The image has been used in one or more articles for at least 30 days." in order to counter this. My thinking is this will help ensure that FP nominations are supported by the community as a whole rather than just the person who created the image. (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria.)--RDBury (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I didn't know the rules and worried it would be like DYK, where you have to get it in ASAP.TCO (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with a delay period. It was proposed for VP and I don't know it helped in any ways. Other review processes don't tell users do your work and then wait for 30 days for others not to undo your edits. FP reviewers can judge if the image is used properly without waiting random editors. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mh, I complained about that years ago already. We has some prolific contributors who specialized in the upload-nominate routine, minimizing the time in between. The result were images that had to be removed from their articles during nomination and good images that were kicked out for encyclopedically inferior images (which takes time for article editors to notice). The practice of pushing freshly uploaded images into articles for nomination purposes is putting the cart in front of the oxen. --Dschwen 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing in my defense is I am not a photo stud and did it for the first time and even the photo was obtained, not taken by me. And I went and got the image for a very particular article purpose. Just thought I would come here and try it out, learn something at least. I'm not someone (yet, haha) racking up the FP count.TCO (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@TCO: No worries. You followed the normal procedures (as they currently exist). I would definitely support adding a requirement that the image be in use for at least a week or so on the article before being nominated. This would go a long way to reducing the problems outlined by Dschwen. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this can be an issue, but 30 days seems a little excessive. How about 7 days? Jujutacular ^talk 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Has this been an issue at all lately? I think it's better to just judge images on a case-by-case basis. Thirty days in a low-traffic article means very little, and surviving one day in a high-traffic article probably means the image is good for the long haul. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus I think 7-days would be a good all-around threshold. Even 1-day would be a good threshold. The point is that if there is a threshold at all, people will check it and the longevity of the image's use will be discussed. Right now, no one checks it and no one discusses it. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is done there should be an exception for articles that did not have an image at all, which is often the case with our nature images, portraits of less well-known figures, etc. The issue is not fast nomination, the issue is inserting an image into an article that may not need it for the purpose of nominating. Chick Bowen 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why waiting one week to nominate the image would be problem, even in those cases. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a week isn't a big deal, but on the other hand, is there currently a problem either? I don't think the occasional issue with images being removed necessarily warrants a rule for it. Other discussions seem to have concluded that we can't legislate for every possibility. Better to keep the rules as simple as possible and use common sense to deal with these things IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Full ack Diliff! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree somewhat. I would see this rule not as legislate for some small possibility, but as a definition of the character or "philosophy" of FPC. Insert my very strained ox-cart image here. --Dschwen 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is highlighted above. The 30 days rule at VP was rather long but had the effect (as last time I checked) that all images -although considered of inferior technical quality to FPs- were still in articles after two years. I supported before this idea for FP and I'll remain consistent with that. I think most relevant is to allow feedback time for editors which have an article on their watchlist to review new image addition, placement and accuracy of captions. I think 5 or 7 days should be sufficient for that. --Elekhh (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are one or two orders of magnitude more FPs than there were VPs. Many of those featured pictures are much older too. It is hardly surprising that there are far more orphaned pictures. Just apply common sense. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Between 200+ and 2,000+ there is one order of magnitude only. Ideally one would compare the rate over the same time-frame, if anybody volunteers. My "common sense" understanding is that having over 5% of FPs orphaned over 7 years appears to be a higher rate than a 0% rate over 2 years. --Elekhh (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw any conclusions from these numbers, though. Sometimes FPs are removed from articles for legitimate reasons; sometimes they're removed for trivial reasons or no reason at all. For example, an editor removed this FP from an article with no reason given. I later reinserted the FP into the article (it was far better quality) and was thanked by another editor who didn't know a higher quality version existed. My point is that images get removed from articles regardless of quality, value, etc. A higher percentage of orphaned FPs than VPs doesn't tell us anything about the VP 30-day rule. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, I don't think I'd support instituting an x-day rule. I don't see the need for a rule, and I can't see how it would help the project. Reviewers should already be checking to make sure that images are used properly in articles. An image remained in an article for x days tells us a little, but no more than a good reviewer would. As I've said, if an article has 50 editors and it lasts 7 days, it's very likely going to stay indefinitely. But 7 days in a low-traffic article means little. That image may be removed as soon as an editor shows up, or it may remain for a long time. Anyway, I can't see how the rule would work. Speedy close a nomination for an image which hasn't been around long enough? Or suspend it? You'd have to put some banner up to make sure people know about it, and even then, only regulars will know about the rule. I just don't see it... Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the above comments, I'd like to change the proposal to adding the sentence "Please only nominate images that have been included in an article for at least 7 days." I think this will satisfy the people who thought that 30 days is excessive and also make it more of guideline than a rule. My object is get people to think twice before making a nomination that will essentially be booed of stage; this doesn't happen often but when it does it's not good for anyone.--RDBury (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 30 days limit is totally reasonable. I'm an article guy not a photo guy so am biased obviously. And we could make this thing totally disaccosiated from the encyclopedia and just run a set of awesome-looking pics. But I think the articles need better images and if we require stronger connection to EV, this may prompt y'all image-photo studs to take pics of stuff we need in the articles or to write articles or work with article writers or what have you. And really, lasting 30 days in an article is NOT that hard. The only inconvenience is having to wait to enter your stuff in FP (I agree that is a pain in the ass). Maybe some system to allow submission, but just not display for 30 days? I donno. But GregL informs me that there are too many FPs anyhow. So maybe some restriction to higher EV, is worthwhile as a filter. I donno...  ;-) TCO (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added this to the FP criteria. I tried to be conservative in the interpretation of the consensus here, it can always be strengthened (or weakened).--RDBury (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 7 Days is fine with me. In a stub with no available pictures (eg), I'd ignore it if I felt like it (apply the word preferable). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of these uploads have any potential? It's OK to rip them just want the insights on what to look for:

TCO (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In general you want to avoid what photogeeks call "blown highlights"--patches of pure white. All of these photographs have them--the middle one is almost half blown, but the other two have blown areas on the shells, reflecting the flash (or maybe the sun on the last one). It would be better to photograph these species using indirect lighting to avoid that reflectivity. Also, I'm not sure if the three-quarters angle all of these have is the best way to photograph a turtle; if you want to emphasize the shell, than take it top down, with the shell centered in the image; if you want to emphasize the rest of the anatomy, getting down to the animal's level might be a better idea. Chick Bowen 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are looking for WP:PPR. – SMasters (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama_of_Edo_bw.jpg FP status

This image was delisted awhile ago here ostensibly to be replaced by File:Edo_Panorama_old_Tokyo_color_photochrom.jpg but since there was some controversy about the replacement image it was not automatically promoted and the color image was rejected here. I have a personal stake in this (I nominated the original black and white image) so I resist the urge to be WP:BOLD and do it myself, but I believe that the original image should be re-added as a feature picture without the need for a new nomination as it was delisted under "mistaken" (to assume good faith} pretenses and since it seemed that most of the other reasons for the delist were in relation to the new color nomination it should be fairly non controversial. Cat-five - talk 10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the 'mistaken' pretenses? It seems that at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, there was consensus that the black and white image was not worthy of FP status, but that the photocrom version may not be either, and would need a separate nomination to become an FP. Jujutacular ^talk 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The only errors that were ever noted in the denom were also noted in the nom and were considered acceptable considering historical value, and those were the stitching errors (along with some disputed size issues). As far as I can see from the denomination the new one supposedly having less stitching errors was an issue that was later rebuked. I'm perfectly willing to renominate the original black and white if necessary but I don't think that should be necessary. Cat-five - talk 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I really do think this is a wonderful image, but I think that we'd really need to get one or the other somewhat larger before it could be promoted. Further, the photochrom version of the image has replaced the black and white in all articles, and I think that's probably the best choice, as photochroms generally managed a fairly high level of colour fidelity.

This image deserves to be an FP. But we just need it larger. =/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has an album of 200 images of Beato's work, among other things. [1]. It may be worth asking them if they'd consider adding it to the digitization queue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any form specifically for that but I put in a general inquiry, it looks like some of them are rights restricted still (a bit odd) according to the site but hopefully they'll put at least some of them into the queue for digitization eventually. Cat-five - talk 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I received from the Library of Congress in response to my request. I edited out the very beginning and the end since it was just a restatement of my initial request (seen above) and their notices of recognition when it moved from department to department.

Thank you for your interest.

We do not generally take requests for adding to our digitization queue. Generally, preservation priorities and support for the Library's publication and exhibition projects dictates much of what goes into that queue, along with considerations about the popularity of the images and rights considerations. With more than 14 million items in the collection, many of them fragile negatives, there is much competing for our limited digitization resources.

That said, we have given some priority to digitizing albums, given the preservation concerns that often attend them. (If you have not already seen it, you might be interested in our recently added reference aids on photographic albums: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/photoalbums.html>).

We do have a color laser copy surrogate of the Beato album pages that we offer to researchers in the reading room, but I will mention the interest in this album, in case their is some sort of surrogate we could offer digitally. Cat-five - talk 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes.

Barbara Natanson, Head Reference Section Prints and Photographs Division Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20540-4730 telephone: 202-707-6394 fax: 202-707-6647 URL: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/ > email: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/ask-print.html >

Licence

Is the licence for this photo no good for FP? [[2]] Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that license is okay. As far as I know, anything that is licensed correctly on Commons is fine. Jujutacular ^talk 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!

There is just less than an month and a half until April fools, and only a few nominations for FP have been received Here (two of which are from me). Just wan tot heep the discussion going so that no one forgets about it.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muhammad

What do we do with this? There is little confidence among the voters there that this is public domain in the US. Perhaps we should put it a request at Commons:COM:DEL? It may take some time, but they are very good at sorting out this kind of thing there. Jujutacular ^talk 06:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's start a deletion request, and suspend the FP candidacy until that's resolved. --Avenue (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg. Jujutacular ^talk 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elephant

I suggest that it's about time to close this. It has support and it's still used in an article. Jujutacular ^talk 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I make it a rule never to close nominations where an animal's erection is unexplained. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting rule. I hesitate to ask, but has been applied more than once?! Jujutacular ^talk 05:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I agree that it's time to close the nomination. I understand PLW's concern, but (1) the image has enough support without his vote; (2) the image would pass even if he opposed; and (3) it's unclear when/if we'll get an answer. I'd say close it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jujutacular ^talk 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page proposals

Dear FPC community, a note to make you aware of an existing proposal and a future proposal for main page inclusion.

• Featured sounds inclusion where a second featured picture is added five days of the week but two featured sounds are added at the weekend.
• Future proposed FL inclusion where one of the second featured pictures is substituted for a featured list on Wednesdays.

Overall, this would mean 7 FAs per week, 11 FPs per week, 2 FSs per week and 1 FL per week. Please head to Talk:Main page for the current FS proposal and shortly where the FL proposal will be listed. Many thanks, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons POTY

I just bounced over to commons to check in on the Commons:Picture of the Year and realized that one is not under way. What is going on this year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviews please

Here and here please --Muhammad(talk) 11:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone broke FP

The FP star now suppresses the Commons file description page, apparently. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Commons file description currently seems to be missing from the en wiki page for all Commons-hosted images that I've looked at, not just FPs. There is still a link to it, but it isn't included in the page by default like it used to be. --Avenue (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And now the file descriptions are back. I don't know why. --Avenue (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)