![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It was set at 180px many years ago. There is prima facie evidence of considerable support to increase this, probably to 220px. Please have your say here (initial discussion above on that page). Tony (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, VPC has been placed up for deletion again: see here. And please don't bite me for pointing that out here. It's a completely legitimate place to inform users. upstate NYer 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Recently it has come to light that User:Fg2 has passed away. Some editors have talked about doing something to honor his memory (See here). One idea was to try to get one of the articles he was working on or one of his pictures up to FA or FP status. User:Fg2 contributed lots of pictures, which can be seen here User:Fg2/Photos by Topic. I was hoping some of the FP reviewers could take a look at his pictures and see if any meet FP status and would have a good shot of becoming a FP. Thanks for your help. Remember ( talk) 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help in getting two of his pictures up to FP status. I greatly appreciate it.
Remember (
talk)
13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the Featured picture urgents isn't updating (meaning it's likely noone is looking at it), and given the nom isn't one of mine anyway, may I direct some attention to this? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
File:AudreyNiffenegger.jpg was provided by the author and the photographer to us. A higher resolution one could be gotten, but we don't want to bother him if it wouldn't be featurable. What do you think? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Wondering what people would have felt about me closing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Let L410UVP-E16 Góraszka 2008.JPG after nominating an edit yesterday. Is it allowed? Desired? Unacceptable? Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
For some reasons this image does not get any reviews. Please? -- Muhammad (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As I have made clear on many occasions I am strongly opposed to so-called Featured Sets and do not believe they should be permitted here in any form. All images should be able to stand on their own if they are to be promoted, or merged into a single image if they truly belong as a 'set'.
I have never seen any rationale for why they are allowed or how they came to be. I suspect they snuck in while I was on a several month wikibreak a couple of years back, and no one has ever pointed me to any better explanation than a few editors casually saying something like 'can we have featured image sets?', 'I don't see why not', 'OK I'll promote these alts as a set'... and there the problem apparently set in, creating an undocumented and unfortunate precedent.
The reason I raise this now is that I notice that a couple of sets have again appeared as noms, with one due to be closed, and I have been doing a reasonable amount of closing recently. This is simply to point out that I will not be closing any sets as promotions.
I am making my position clear as sometimes some editors feel that a particular nominator or particular type of image is being unfairly targeted by closers for some reason. Thus I am being clear that I will not be closing any set nomination as a promotion regardless of nominator, creator, type of image, number of votes, time on page, etc. If other closers want to permit this farcical situation to continue then they can close them. -- jjron ( talk) 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Have supplied a new edit per requests. Reviews and revised reviews are welcome. Durova 326 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the talkpage archive box to include a search box. Dunno why we never had this facility here, given how gobby we all are I think it's invaluable... if anyone would like to tweak it or whatever (why is it orange fer chrissakes?) by all means, go ahead. mikaul talk 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Any other votes on this? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The revised version is uploaded. Please unsuspend. Durova 326 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, two of the FPC regulars made it into the final round of the 2009 WikiCup, which is a content contribution competition that ends at the close of this month. One other media editor became a finalist, but he has withdrawn, which leaves...erm...me. So although normally I spread out nominations to make room for everybody, during the next week it'll be a little more intensive. Posting not to seek easy passes, just to request understanding for the temporary increase in volume. Fair, tough, and honest reviews are welcome--please review! Cheers, Durova 327 03:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Does a program exist, either a bot or a user tool, that can help with the closing procedure. It seems like the 12 steps can be a little intimidating, they are for me, and I would really hate to screw something up on a page I am not used to. _ Nezzadar_ ☎_ 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
MER-C does have one, but unfortunately it wasn't compatible with my Mac. That's how he closed when he was doing it. To respectfully disagree with Makeemlighter, I think the process is way too intensive and time-consuming. But to agree with him (her? I'm not sure, actually!) the three closers now are doing a pretty fine job. upstate NYer 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Goings-on | [[:File:Filename.jpg|brief description]] |
Announcements | [[:File:Filename.jpg|brief description]] (date) |
Featured pictures | |[[File:Filename.jpg|150px]] |
Featured pictures/Category | |File:Filename.jpg|[[wikilinked]] [[brief description]] |
Featured pictures thumbs | |File:Filename.jpg|'''[[wikilinked]] [[brief description]]''', by [[User:Username|Username]] |
Image page | {{FP|Nomination}} |
Nominator's page | {{PromotedFPC|Filename.jpg}} |
Do we really need a different format on literally every page it has to be set up for? Can't we at least lose a couple of these variants? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 11:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Jens_Stoltenberg. Normally I take a lack of feedback on an image to mean disapproval or lack of interest in a boring image, so just leave alone, but in this case I just can't see it. I'm not canvassing (or maybe I am!), but I'm curious to hear more opinion. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia could use a better way to flag its featured pictures. Currently, readers must click to a file hosting page to see that an image is featured (unless they're specifically browsing the featured image categories). It's something like finding a needle in a haystack to spot a featured picture during casual reading. So how about this solution?
Display a featured content star within the caption; communicates 'this image will look good at full resolution'. Do you agree? Durova 331 04:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Make it clear that on the template's documentation that use of this template for non-featured pictures is naughty. — raeky ( talk | edits) 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Check out the level one template I made for removing a star. If you like it, I can make the level 2, 3, 4, and 4im versions. I also can make a template series for inappropriately adding the star to images. Template:Uw-FPremove1 Example below uses the fictional page Nezzadar. Nezzadar ☎ 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent editto
Nezzadar removed the
Featured pictures star icon from an image. When making edits, please be careful only to remove exactly what you are seeking to remove. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the star has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and take a look at the
Featured pictures page to learn about these images. Thank you.
Nezzadar
☎
18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'll fix the typo soon.
It appears that
Gimmetrow maintains the FA and FL page display stars. Pinged at user talk to request input.
Durova
331
21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This ain't hard. Ya just have to add {{ FP-star}} to the caption to get something like the image on the right. I expect I'll write and propose a bot to do this en masse. — Jake Wartenberg 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the idea of having a star in the caption (or perhaps some other place near the featured file) is a great idea. Having a bot to automate the process is also a great idea. I would suggest to not focus on trying to make specific rules for what to do if people put a star on a file improperly and the warning levels and various other bits of rule creep. If that sort of thing becomes a problem, and the community agrees with the use of stars in this manner, then there shouldn't need to be a whole set of rules and guidelines and templates, etc. Get the idea itself functioning first, then the rest of it will evolve as things do on a wiki... don't make more rules and policies than are actually needed. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The position of the star elongates the caption, and looks wierd. How about floating it to the top right or left corners (Example 1)? – blurpeace (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) My original idea was tint the star a bright gold, as the current one would be surely lost in the background. I prefer Shoemaker's suggestion though (tint the star when hovering). Maybe even a tooltip would be possible? – blurpeace (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the star in the caption. All FAs have a star in the top-right corner, and we trust people to know what that means (or figure it out). Just have the star link to WP:FP. The other edits still don't solve the problem of taxo-box images, though I don't really see a solution to that. Regardless, I'm still in favor of the star in the caption. upstate NYer 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I made an addition to the delist closing procedure. The instructions now say to add the nomination entry to the recently closed nominations section of WP:FPC. This is something (I think) we've been doing anyway, so I figured no one would have any objections. It adds maybe 30 seconds to the time to close a delist nom, which are infrequent anyway, so there shouldn't be any problems with added workload. Feel free to revert me if you disagree! Makeemlighter ( talk) 06:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor recently raised questions of a general nature regarding digital image restoration. Would be glad to discuss that here. Durova 332 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The project page is very cluttered at the moment. While it makes sense to have some discussion with the candidates in question, for extended discussion the practice has been to move discussion to the talk page. I'm kinda guilty here, as I thought that my comments on translation would launch such a discussion but equivocated over whether to make them with the nomination or on the talk page. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, as all the arguments need to be in the same place for the transclusion and later reference of a discussion. Nezzadar ☎ 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion about which criteria should hold the most weight in FP nominations. From what I gather there are a few camps. One wants technical skill, another wants high encyclopedic value, and a third wants high aesthetic value. Most people lean towards one of the three camps while taking the other two into consideration.
Which of these should hold the most sway? Which one does now? Do we need to go delist some things? Thoughts please.
Been on the fence about a restoration, seeking input about whether this is appropriate or goes too far. The following is a before and after on a work by Hiroshige. It's from his sketchbook rather than a finished work. So on the one hand, is the white space from a sketchbook doodle unimportant and the image should be cropped for thumbnail display? Or is this messing with a major artist? Haven't used this in article space; seeking feedback. Durova 333 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely do not crop this. I am studing the history and politics of East Asia, and can vouch for the importance of white space in Japanese artwork. Minimalist artistic design is a common and respected technique that brings out the subject and places importance on it by removing all other elements. This is lost with that crop. You may wish to crop off a little bit of the top to remove the folded paper, but that is all. Nezzadar ☎ 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, this depends. If the images is intended to represent the drawing, a crop would be better. However, it should be uncropped when it is being represented as a historic document, as the full page it was drawn on has good amount of EV. Zoo Fari 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Other than nearly doubling the file size, I don't think the extra white space adds anything to the image. Makeemlighter ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Need some input here, keep or delist. Thanks, Zoo Fari 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
RESOLVED ZooFari has delisted this after a flood of consensus for the delist. Thanks everyone. Nezzadar ☎ 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
With no offence meant to Staxringold who was simply trying to close it (so please don't try to divert the discussion), the closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"The Raven", Édouard Manet's illustrations has again raised the mess that sets are. See his talkpage where I started discussing it with him, but it needs wider input. In short, those people that think sets are valid need to sort this mess out. A couple of recent discussions to use as a starting point linked here. -- jjron ( talk) 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Featured picture sets. I have started a discussion thread for this. Nezzadar ☎ 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Durova attacked me over this comment in a lengthy Skype chaat (available by e-mail to all interested). And yet, she has the gall to describe my actions thusly on Wiki:
Durova is actively seeking to suppress discussion of her work, concurrent with her work going through a substantial drop in quality. Further, in the Skype conversation, she threatens me with actively stopping help she was organizing to allow me to get a scanner so I can resume my FPC work, and to prevent me from getting any access to material provided by museums to Wikipedia (as well as starting off by calling the above comment "trolling", and stating "fuck you, troll" about half a dozen times while I try to calm her down.) I have kept quiet for quite some time about the things I have gone through because of her, but with an active attempt to subvert the FPC process by silencing discussion, a substantial drop in quality, and the other actions of recent weeks, I think it's time I take this public. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing here which violates policy, or requires administrative intervention. Your relationship outside of Wikipedia is your own business- here, at worst, your relationship should be one of collegiate respect. I have a great amount of respect for both of you (at the very least, as talented colleagues) and I don't think feuding is going to be beneficial for either of you, to the FPC process, or to Wikipedia. J Milburn ( talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Pertinent to a couple of ongoing nominations, it is worth pointing out that WP:Notcensored applies to featured pictures. It is not our function to select featured pictures based upon value judgments such as war is bad or the handicapped should be treated respectfully. Distasteful attitudes do exist in the world and part of our encyclopedic mission is to document them.
Featuring a picture does not necessarily mean an endorsement of the content contained within it. We can expect that it be captioned neutrally, and we can demand high technical standards, but expurgation is not a featured picture criterion. Difficult subjects can be encyclopedic. Durova 340 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with Nezzadar's point that context is paramount in these situations. A picture that has legitimate historical context in one article can be totally inappropriate and offensive when used to illustrate other articles. Exercising editorial judgment in those situations is not "censorship". Kaldari ( talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We need to start realizing that the FPC talk page is for discussion about the nominations page only. We've had to handle plenty of crap in the past and it hurts the FPC process more than the situation regarding it. For those who have been involved in it (it's not just the two FPCers in the above section), you know this doesn't belong here, and you know the variety of ways of dealing with them. This page is not for you to point out people and we should treat each other with respect. I think this should become a new rule for the talk page to avoid this in the future. Any comments? For the sake of FPC. Zoo Fari 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here, ZooFari. Nezzadar ☎ 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[Deleted per discussion. WP:OVERSIGHT out of date, and while not permitted under rules stated, is within standard acceptable behaviour.] Shoemaker's Holiday talk 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Question: Assuming that all of the votes are support or strong support, how many votes, not counting the nominator, should I set as the quorum minimum for promoting FPs?
Question: Same situation as above, but with only Neutral, Weak Support, and Support?
Question: Same situation as the second question, but with striked out opposes?
This will be useful to me as I grow into the FP process. Thanks, Nezzadar ☎ 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[undent] Thanks everyone. Yes, I hear you all with the watch and learn thing, and don't worry, seeing as I have voted on every current candidate, I won't be closing for a while, but thanks for the community teaching, it makes it much less stressful to join in. You people are great people. Except for Durova, who specifically told me that she was evil. And me. I'm not a good person, but only on the internet. Nezzadar ☎ 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Per requests, reedits are available at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Henry_Breault and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Get fat. Reviews welcomed. Durova 347 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone added this pic (from flickr) to Arthur Adams (singer), and I think it's a cracking image - but I'm not sure if it could become a FPC. Any advice welcome - crop the top off, change the colour balance? Chzz ► 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
An unusual development occurred yesterday. Roger Davies discovered that the Library of Congress had misidentified a recently-promoted featured picture subject. File:Lord_Kitchener_duty5.jpg is actually Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (see my user talk for citations). I've informed the Library of Congress. This would be a simple clerical matter except that the filename ought to be changed procedurally. If no one objects to transferring the featured star onto an identical version of a renamed file (to get Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener out of the filename) then I'll go ahead with that shortly. Durova 348 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
...needs closing. Who's up for it? ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the WikiCup is due to end in a few hours. Points submitted after midnight UTC won't be accepted, so requesting closure for the following nominations:
Thanks, Durova 349 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It was set at 180px many years ago. There is prima facie evidence of considerable support to increase this, probably to 220px. Please have your say here (initial discussion above on that page). Tony (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, VPC has been placed up for deletion again: see here. And please don't bite me for pointing that out here. It's a completely legitimate place to inform users. upstate NYer 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Recently it has come to light that User:Fg2 has passed away. Some editors have talked about doing something to honor his memory (See here). One idea was to try to get one of the articles he was working on or one of his pictures up to FA or FP status. User:Fg2 contributed lots of pictures, which can be seen here User:Fg2/Photos by Topic. I was hoping some of the FP reviewers could take a look at his pictures and see if any meet FP status and would have a good shot of becoming a FP. Thanks for your help. Remember ( talk) 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help in getting two of his pictures up to FP status. I greatly appreciate it.
Remember (
talk)
13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the Featured picture urgents isn't updating (meaning it's likely noone is looking at it), and given the nom isn't one of mine anyway, may I direct some attention to this? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
File:AudreyNiffenegger.jpg was provided by the author and the photographer to us. A higher resolution one could be gotten, but we don't want to bother him if it wouldn't be featurable. What do you think? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Wondering what people would have felt about me closing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Let L410UVP-E16 Góraszka 2008.JPG after nominating an edit yesterday. Is it allowed? Desired? Unacceptable? Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
For some reasons this image does not get any reviews. Please? -- Muhammad (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As I have made clear on many occasions I am strongly opposed to so-called Featured Sets and do not believe they should be permitted here in any form. All images should be able to stand on their own if they are to be promoted, or merged into a single image if they truly belong as a 'set'.
I have never seen any rationale for why they are allowed or how they came to be. I suspect they snuck in while I was on a several month wikibreak a couple of years back, and no one has ever pointed me to any better explanation than a few editors casually saying something like 'can we have featured image sets?', 'I don't see why not', 'OK I'll promote these alts as a set'... and there the problem apparently set in, creating an undocumented and unfortunate precedent.
The reason I raise this now is that I notice that a couple of sets have again appeared as noms, with one due to be closed, and I have been doing a reasonable amount of closing recently. This is simply to point out that I will not be closing any sets as promotions.
I am making my position clear as sometimes some editors feel that a particular nominator or particular type of image is being unfairly targeted by closers for some reason. Thus I am being clear that I will not be closing any set nomination as a promotion regardless of nominator, creator, type of image, number of votes, time on page, etc. If other closers want to permit this farcical situation to continue then they can close them. -- jjron ( talk) 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Have supplied a new edit per requests. Reviews and revised reviews are welcome. Durova 326 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the talkpage archive box to include a search box. Dunno why we never had this facility here, given how gobby we all are I think it's invaluable... if anyone would like to tweak it or whatever (why is it orange fer chrissakes?) by all means, go ahead. mikaul talk 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Any other votes on this? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The revised version is uploaded. Please unsuspend. Durova 326 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, two of the FPC regulars made it into the final round of the 2009 WikiCup, which is a content contribution competition that ends at the close of this month. One other media editor became a finalist, but he has withdrawn, which leaves...erm...me. So although normally I spread out nominations to make room for everybody, during the next week it'll be a little more intensive. Posting not to seek easy passes, just to request understanding for the temporary increase in volume. Fair, tough, and honest reviews are welcome--please review! Cheers, Durova 327 03:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Does a program exist, either a bot or a user tool, that can help with the closing procedure. It seems like the 12 steps can be a little intimidating, they are for me, and I would really hate to screw something up on a page I am not used to. _ Nezzadar_ ☎_ 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
MER-C does have one, but unfortunately it wasn't compatible with my Mac. That's how he closed when he was doing it. To respectfully disagree with Makeemlighter, I think the process is way too intensive and time-consuming. But to agree with him (her? I'm not sure, actually!) the three closers now are doing a pretty fine job. upstate NYer 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Goings-on | [[:File:Filename.jpg|brief description]] |
Announcements | [[:File:Filename.jpg|brief description]] (date) |
Featured pictures | |[[File:Filename.jpg|150px]] |
Featured pictures/Category | |File:Filename.jpg|[[wikilinked]] [[brief description]] |
Featured pictures thumbs | |File:Filename.jpg|'''[[wikilinked]] [[brief description]]''', by [[User:Username|Username]] |
Image page | {{FP|Nomination}} |
Nominator's page | {{PromotedFPC|Filename.jpg}} |
Do we really need a different format on literally every page it has to be set up for? Can't we at least lose a couple of these variants? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 11:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Jens_Stoltenberg. Normally I take a lack of feedback on an image to mean disapproval or lack of interest in a boring image, so just leave alone, but in this case I just can't see it. I'm not canvassing (or maybe I am!), but I'm curious to hear more opinion. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia could use a better way to flag its featured pictures. Currently, readers must click to a file hosting page to see that an image is featured (unless they're specifically browsing the featured image categories). It's something like finding a needle in a haystack to spot a featured picture during casual reading. So how about this solution?
Display a featured content star within the caption; communicates 'this image will look good at full resolution'. Do you agree? Durova 331 04:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Make it clear that on the template's documentation that use of this template for non-featured pictures is naughty. — raeky ( talk | edits) 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Check out the level one template I made for removing a star. If you like it, I can make the level 2, 3, 4, and 4im versions. I also can make a template series for inappropriately adding the star to images. Template:Uw-FPremove1 Example below uses the fictional page Nezzadar. Nezzadar ☎ 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent editto
Nezzadar removed the
Featured pictures star icon from an image. When making edits, please be careful only to remove exactly what you are seeking to remove. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the star has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and take a look at the
Featured pictures page to learn about these images. Thank you.
Nezzadar
☎
18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'll fix the typo soon.
It appears that
Gimmetrow maintains the FA and FL page display stars. Pinged at user talk to request input.
Durova
331
21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This ain't hard. Ya just have to add {{ FP-star}} to the caption to get something like the image on the right. I expect I'll write and propose a bot to do this en masse. — Jake Wartenberg 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the idea of having a star in the caption (or perhaps some other place near the featured file) is a great idea. Having a bot to automate the process is also a great idea. I would suggest to not focus on trying to make specific rules for what to do if people put a star on a file improperly and the warning levels and various other bits of rule creep. If that sort of thing becomes a problem, and the community agrees with the use of stars in this manner, then there shouldn't need to be a whole set of rules and guidelines and templates, etc. Get the idea itself functioning first, then the rest of it will evolve as things do on a wiki... don't make more rules and policies than are actually needed. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The position of the star elongates the caption, and looks wierd. How about floating it to the top right or left corners (Example 1)? – blurpeace (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) My original idea was tint the star a bright gold, as the current one would be surely lost in the background. I prefer Shoemaker's suggestion though (tint the star when hovering). Maybe even a tooltip would be possible? – blurpeace (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the star in the caption. All FAs have a star in the top-right corner, and we trust people to know what that means (or figure it out). Just have the star link to WP:FP. The other edits still don't solve the problem of taxo-box images, though I don't really see a solution to that. Regardless, I'm still in favor of the star in the caption. upstate NYer 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I made an addition to the delist closing procedure. The instructions now say to add the nomination entry to the recently closed nominations section of WP:FPC. This is something (I think) we've been doing anyway, so I figured no one would have any objections. It adds maybe 30 seconds to the time to close a delist nom, which are infrequent anyway, so there shouldn't be any problems with added workload. Feel free to revert me if you disagree! Makeemlighter ( talk) 06:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor recently raised questions of a general nature regarding digital image restoration. Would be glad to discuss that here. Durova 332 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The project page is very cluttered at the moment. While it makes sense to have some discussion with the candidates in question, for extended discussion the practice has been to move discussion to the talk page. I'm kinda guilty here, as I thought that my comments on translation would launch such a discussion but equivocated over whether to make them with the nomination or on the talk page. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, as all the arguments need to be in the same place for the transclusion and later reference of a discussion. Nezzadar ☎ 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion about which criteria should hold the most weight in FP nominations. From what I gather there are a few camps. One wants technical skill, another wants high encyclopedic value, and a third wants high aesthetic value. Most people lean towards one of the three camps while taking the other two into consideration.
Which of these should hold the most sway? Which one does now? Do we need to go delist some things? Thoughts please.
Been on the fence about a restoration, seeking input about whether this is appropriate or goes too far. The following is a before and after on a work by Hiroshige. It's from his sketchbook rather than a finished work. So on the one hand, is the white space from a sketchbook doodle unimportant and the image should be cropped for thumbnail display? Or is this messing with a major artist? Haven't used this in article space; seeking feedback. Durova 333 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely do not crop this. I am studing the history and politics of East Asia, and can vouch for the importance of white space in Japanese artwork. Minimalist artistic design is a common and respected technique that brings out the subject and places importance on it by removing all other elements. This is lost with that crop. You may wish to crop off a little bit of the top to remove the folded paper, but that is all. Nezzadar ☎ 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, this depends. If the images is intended to represent the drawing, a crop would be better. However, it should be uncropped when it is being represented as a historic document, as the full page it was drawn on has good amount of EV. Zoo Fari 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Other than nearly doubling the file size, I don't think the extra white space adds anything to the image. Makeemlighter ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Need some input here, keep or delist. Thanks, Zoo Fari 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
RESOLVED ZooFari has delisted this after a flood of consensus for the delist. Thanks everyone. Nezzadar ☎ 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
With no offence meant to Staxringold who was simply trying to close it (so please don't try to divert the discussion), the closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"The Raven", Édouard Manet's illustrations has again raised the mess that sets are. See his talkpage where I started discussing it with him, but it needs wider input. In short, those people that think sets are valid need to sort this mess out. A couple of recent discussions to use as a starting point linked here. -- jjron ( talk) 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Featured picture sets. I have started a discussion thread for this. Nezzadar ☎ 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Durova attacked me over this comment in a lengthy Skype chaat (available by e-mail to all interested). And yet, she has the gall to describe my actions thusly on Wiki:
Durova is actively seeking to suppress discussion of her work, concurrent with her work going through a substantial drop in quality. Further, in the Skype conversation, she threatens me with actively stopping help she was organizing to allow me to get a scanner so I can resume my FPC work, and to prevent me from getting any access to material provided by museums to Wikipedia (as well as starting off by calling the above comment "trolling", and stating "fuck you, troll" about half a dozen times while I try to calm her down.) I have kept quiet for quite some time about the things I have gone through because of her, but with an active attempt to subvert the FPC process by silencing discussion, a substantial drop in quality, and the other actions of recent weeks, I think it's time I take this public. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing here which violates policy, or requires administrative intervention. Your relationship outside of Wikipedia is your own business- here, at worst, your relationship should be one of collegiate respect. I have a great amount of respect for both of you (at the very least, as talented colleagues) and I don't think feuding is going to be beneficial for either of you, to the FPC process, or to Wikipedia. J Milburn ( talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Pertinent to a couple of ongoing nominations, it is worth pointing out that WP:Notcensored applies to featured pictures. It is not our function to select featured pictures based upon value judgments such as war is bad or the handicapped should be treated respectfully. Distasteful attitudes do exist in the world and part of our encyclopedic mission is to document them.
Featuring a picture does not necessarily mean an endorsement of the content contained within it. We can expect that it be captioned neutrally, and we can demand high technical standards, but expurgation is not a featured picture criterion. Difficult subjects can be encyclopedic. Durova 340 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with Nezzadar's point that context is paramount in these situations. A picture that has legitimate historical context in one article can be totally inappropriate and offensive when used to illustrate other articles. Exercising editorial judgment in those situations is not "censorship". Kaldari ( talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We need to start realizing that the FPC talk page is for discussion about the nominations page only. We've had to handle plenty of crap in the past and it hurts the FPC process more than the situation regarding it. For those who have been involved in it (it's not just the two FPCers in the above section), you know this doesn't belong here, and you know the variety of ways of dealing with them. This page is not for you to point out people and we should treat each other with respect. I think this should become a new rule for the talk page to avoid this in the future. Any comments? For the sake of FPC. Zoo Fari 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here, ZooFari. Nezzadar ☎ 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[Deleted per discussion. WP:OVERSIGHT out of date, and while not permitted under rules stated, is within standard acceptable behaviour.] Shoemaker's Holiday talk 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Question: Assuming that all of the votes are support or strong support, how many votes, not counting the nominator, should I set as the quorum minimum for promoting FPs?
Question: Same situation as above, but with only Neutral, Weak Support, and Support?
Question: Same situation as the second question, but with striked out opposes?
This will be useful to me as I grow into the FP process. Thanks, Nezzadar ☎ 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[undent] Thanks everyone. Yes, I hear you all with the watch and learn thing, and don't worry, seeing as I have voted on every current candidate, I won't be closing for a while, but thanks for the community teaching, it makes it much less stressful to join in. You people are great people. Except for Durova, who specifically told me that she was evil. And me. I'm not a good person, but only on the internet. Nezzadar ☎ 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Per requests, reedits are available at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Henry_Breault and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Get fat. Reviews welcomed. Durova 347 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone added this pic (from flickr) to Arthur Adams (singer), and I think it's a cracking image - but I'm not sure if it could become a FPC. Any advice welcome - crop the top off, change the colour balance? Chzz ► 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
An unusual development occurred yesterday. Roger Davies discovered that the Library of Congress had misidentified a recently-promoted featured picture subject. File:Lord_Kitchener_duty5.jpg is actually Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (see my user talk for citations). I've informed the Library of Congress. This would be a simple clerical matter except that the filename ought to be changed procedurally. If no one objects to transferring the featured star onto an identical version of a renamed file (to get Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener out of the filename) then I'll go ahead with that shortly. Durova 348 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
...needs closing. Who's up for it? ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the WikiCup is due to end in a few hours. Points submitted after midnight UTC won't be accepted, so requesting closure for the following nominations:
Thanks, Durova 349 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |