![]() | 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. |
p
I have created {{ FPCgloss}}. Hope somebody finds it useful. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leonard Siffleet was just closed today when I withdrew it — we could have an FP of the original photo, but the scan we're using has problems that disqualified it. Are nominations like this one considered disruptive at all? Nobody's accused me of being disruptive, but I know so little about FPC that I'm not sure what to think. Nyttend ( talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have a computer with a lot of memory and a copy of Hugin? I can provide a copy of the original scans and the more-or-less ready-to-run Hugin file. As it is, I've had to scale it down a bit, so it's "only" 8000 pixels wide. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So, this is, of course, quite premature to be nominated (both Ruddigore images were rather dirty, and will need a lot of cleanup), but is the key I made clear enough? (And if not, does a quick skim of Ruddigore make everything clear?) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
User:WPPilot withdrew his nomination of Loe Real 60 foot Water World Waterworld Trimaran by removing it from the main FPC page 1. I am unsure if this is an acceptable way to withdraw a nomination, so bringing it to everyone's attention here. In my opinion, it should be put back, withdrawn and closed as all other noms. -- WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I asked editors on Commons to restore File:Sailors of Minas Geraes.jpg, and I think they responded beautifully. Would it have a chance at getting featured here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've created a delist nomination, but I'm apparently overlooking instructions about what to do with it. Where do I transclude it? And is there a template that I should place on the filepage to say "This is a candidate for removal"? Nyttend ( talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just be direct, please. I will go after a bigger image if it does, but not bug the source otherwise (as image works fine in article).
TCO ( talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
(If I get a "bigger" image...also how best to do that and will anyone help me please?)
TCO ( talk) 16:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Is a bigger image required (and if so, would it have a good "shot"?) Also, any help with getting the bigger image...please?
TCO ( talk) 16:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just had a nomination - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dustforce closed without having reached consensus to promote. There were no opposes, but it was one support short. Is there a relisting procedure at FPC? Is there some kind of time out period? I'd just stick it at the top again, but am wary of pissing the regulars off. - hahnch e n 23:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There were a series of beautiful images made for Georgius Agricola's last and most famous work, De re Metallica. They delayed publication for a year (and the book came out after his death). They have a very draftmanlike quality (almost like some doing isometric drawings). Renaissance use of perspective, I guess. And lots of content (even at the time) in terms of the lettered labeling of apparatus. Plus, they just look sort of Escher or Durer like. Don't they?
Which do you like best? (See Commons category for more.)
Also, any tips on getting a high enough res image?
TCO ( talk) 17:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I ordered the CD. No brainer to pay for that, but I just had to do the hassle of making a Paypal acct and all that. Now to wait. The guy has to send it overseas too.
I'll let you know how it looks. It is supposed to be 300dpi scan (is that good?)
TBH, just uploading all the images and organizing them into book chapers, giving page notes, giving the ABC info, and relevant descriptions from the Hoover translation is like a worthy project in and of itself. But now it is just a total disorganized mess on Commons. They are worried I will delete their old versions, but I won't. I'm very tolerant of different image versions because I see all the time that different EV needs different crops and that when you have people from different language projects using same file, you should be very wary of uploading and changing their articles.
On the technical side, I wonder how they do a coffee-table book or even just a printed copy of the Hoover translation (maybe I will buy that on Amazon). Like do they recut the plates? Do the original plates (450 years old!) exist somewhere and are they printable with? Is there some electronic process that is used when a book is put out? I know that the resolution of printed material is much better than what displays on a laptop...so quality work needs to not look like someone Xeroxed the crap out of an old manuscript. But I don't know how they do it.
TCO ( talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(update) I went to the library to look at a book copy. It looks better than what we have, but still you can definitely see defects. The one I have is hard cover and from 1950. I think there was a 1912 printing, don't know the quality of that. To really clean up all these prints and recut engravings or even the electronic versions of engravings would probably be a work of a year or two of a skilled graphic artist. We are talking 250 illustrations with significant detail. But maybe just getting the best scan up and organizing it would be good.
TCO ( talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
P.s. They are displayed half-page or full-page (and the book is about A4 sized paper). So that shows how people normally read this stuff. Not tiny embedded thumbs. (TCO)
I took the book home from the library. It is the 1950 Dover edition. I want to take a look at the 1912 Hoover printing which supposedly had higher quality. Not sure if this was just paper and binding or if related to the illos. I know that Hoover supposedly did work to get the woodcuts redone well. They don't look yellowed or like photocopies...but at least in the 1950 edition, they were not sharp. I might be just being too picky, not sure. At the end of the day, we are talking about mass printing, even in the time of Agricola, so the quality is not like a fresh painting. Is some wear on the blocks for instance as printed.
An interesting article, here: "The finished translation, replete with a learned but still charming scholarly apparatus, was printed and published privately by the Hoovers in 1912 while they were still living at the Red House in London. Great care was taken to use appropriate paper and type to give the feeling of the original De Re Metallica, and the woodblock prints were reproduced with precision. The Hoovers' close friend Edgar Rickard was entrusted with the task of supervising the publication because of his background in technical publishing. The printer and binder was Albert Frost, who selected a fine vellum for the binding. Three thousand copies were printed. Some were sold, but the majority were sent as gifts to the Hoovers' friends and associates."
TCO ( talk) 03:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I went and looked at the 1912 edition. (It was in Special Collections, but they brought it out. FYI, it costs 8,000 on ebay for a copy of this edition...and I think even at the time, was very much a luxury item because of the illos, size, low print run.) It is very similar to the Dover edition but a little nicer. The pages are more like 10 by 14 instead of A4 so the images are bigger. Slightly crisper look. The black borders of the cuts are sometimes a little spotty and they aren't completely clean cut (looks almost hand drawn but this may be intentional.) Engravings are not perfect in the very fine detail (may have been an issue even for the original, but I think hoover did get new plates made...am research this...may just be a limitation of the method). In the Dover, it seems like there is some graying where the fine marks are and this is cleaner in the 1912. Pages are slightly off color though (Dover quite white). The pagination is exactly the same in the main texts (so organizing the images by page number means someone referring to either edition does not get off.) There's a slight difference in the pagination of the preface text (Dover's fault), but that does not affect the woodcut organization as no pictures back there. The images look a little sharper in the 1912 (I think the 1950 may have been some sort of photographic reproduction...although it's "decent" for normal viewing). TCO ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/President Barack Obama is a delist and replace that was listed in the main part of the FPC page, and nobody has objected to that so far. I think it is better to list delist nominations with the others, and I propose that we eliminate the delist section. I would ask someone who likes writing templates to write one that says "Delist" in some bright color (and not the red we use for expired noms--maybe green or something), and then make
Template:FPCdel add it to delist noms. Obviously the webform for FPCdel will have to be moved someplace else, probably to the top, under the main nomination form. What else would need to be done?
To review:
More eyes on delist and delist and replace noms.
Can't think of any! It's not like there are so many delist noms that they will clutter the page.
Thoughts? Chick Bowen 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Old suggestion
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Option 1 — Easiest, keep the two separate templates ({{ FPCnom}} and {{ FPCdel}}), but merge parts of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delistheader with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Header, like the nomination buttons.
Option 2 — Or create one template for all nominations (candidate, delist, delist/replace)
Option 2 template
|
---|
Candidate image placed in the "candidate image" parameter. "Delist image" is left blank. = 9-day nomination. Depending on which parameters have image names in them, headers will appear like:
Note that "previous nominations" can actually be used for a candidate nomination's second attempt. I've seen this happen a few times. I also took the liberty of slightly re-phrasing some of the parameter definitions. |
– Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC) added options 1 and 2 – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 19:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Option 2 template - v.c5
|
---|
Candidate image placed in the "candidate image" parameter. "Delist image" is left blank. = 9-day nomination. Depending on which parameters have image names in them, headers will appear like:
Note that "previous nominations" can actually be used for a candidate nomination's second attempt. I've seen this happen a few times. I also took the liberty of slightly re-phrasing some of the parameter definitions. |
There's definite support for incorporating Delists with Nominations, so aside from pending comments from others, that seems to be where FP is headed. But there is no consensus on is how to handle the template. Adam Cuerdon made a point regarding archiving—and keeping two separate templates for two different archives. I'm still relatively new to FP workings, but it appears candidates are (for example) archived here and delists are archived here. Are there any pros and cons to having two separate archives? Also, currently archiving is done manually. Has there ever been any discussion about implementing a bot? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at the following links and see what you guys think.
– Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick update, I've been tweaking another sandbox page (Nomination procedure), and then I'll go through all the text to make sure everything is up-to-date and consistent, including the removal of any WP:PRR mentions, etc. If there's no more comments, I'll probably go ahead and make everything "live" later this evening, which will include moving all current delists up—if I don't get to it, it's only because I'll be suddenly busy in real life. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hope no one gets too angry! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 06:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This nom got stuck under the gigantic set nom of the moment, and could use a couple more eyes. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone's wondering: it's slowly getting there, but it's a particularly spot-covered image, so, while I'm actively working on it regularly, I'm breaking to do things with a little more chance of getting finished in a day or two, because, well, one might wish it isn't so, but finishing things helps motivation.
This also applies to the Ruddigore illustrations, but I'm putting them to after Lincoln, for Mediran's sake. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, "all discussions about individual featured pictures" should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates, "if the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate" then it should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures.
This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?
This note is being posted to both of the indicated talk pages, and I'll use Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to post my specific comments this time. -- 50.100.192.246 ( talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
When I wrote the above, I assumed that since FPs are associated with the home page, the descriptions would be at least semi-protected. Now that I've realized they're not, I've gone ahead and edited the ones I was concerned with. However, that was because I knew what changes were needed. If I had had to post about a problem and ask someone else to fix it, then the conflict I described above would have applied. -- 50.100.192.246 ( talk) 06:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, is anyone else going to Hong Kong for Wikimania? I won a scholarship there! Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A lot of the current images are underreviewed. I'll try to keep FPC urgents updated, but it's worth keeping an eye on things for the next week or so. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden brought up that some of the images in here could be re-sorted. Should there be some new subcategories? For example:
Just throwing some ideas out there. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. Here's what I propose (based, of course, on the suggestions above):
I think that using the "and" names will help resolve ambiguity, and keep people from shoving things into "Other". If people are fine with this, I'll do it this weekend. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Table Mountain cable car repair 1973 should be removed from suspended nominations, in accordance with the discussion at User_talk:Robvanvee#Cable_car (copyright not cleared for now; image has been removed from articles). I wasn't sure of the proper close-out and archive procedures. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 01:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It has high EV, visually appealing, and every other criteria. Only the shorter length, is below 1500 meters, but I think it is minor and we can make a small exception for it. Think of it. 117.197.75.177 ( talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominate it. I think this place way way WAY overemphasizes technical aspects and way way WAY underemphasizes encyclopedic importance and compositional impact. And then they threaten to ban you if you vote your heart instead of following some drone-like ruuule which itself did not come down from God but was edit warred in or voted on by some tiny group. But that's the Wiki way. Thank God there is a real world with American freedom. Still, kinda sorta. TCO ( talk) 01:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
In case people are interested, I have started a thread on AN/I about the happenings in a current FPC discussion. J Milburn ( talk) 23:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Herschel should be up by tomorrow, Ethel Waters and Bodley will follow. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've begun work on the People category. Note I'm only redistributing People/Others to the new categories at the moment; I'm sure that there's going to be a number of people in other categories better put in one of the new ones. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to note for those that missed it: I did finish the restoration of this I had said I would do. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political be expanded to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Politics and law? There are a few lawyers in there, and it could potentially help avoid ambiguity. Alternative might be to split Law off to its own category. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Community input is welcome here. Tony (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that while 5 support votes is usually fine, in some months - Christmas, and apparently Summer - participation is lowered. Would it be a good idea to go back to 4 supports minimum? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Delist noms are still set to run for 14 days instead of the 9 for regular noms. Should we standardise? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been done. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm posting this request on the basis that editors here will have photographic interests and that many will be skilled photographers in their own right.
As you will probably already know, Wiki Loves Monuments ( http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org) is an annual international photography contest and crowdsourcing event in which participants photograph and upload images of historic monuments to Wikimedia Commons. These images are then available for free use on Wikipedia and beyond. More details about this year's annual competition can be found at Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. The competition takes place throughout the month of September each year.
The UK part of this year's contest will focus specifically on listed buildings. This will be the first time the UK has taken part in the international competition, and we are now seeking people to join the UK jury. We need at least three jury members, more preferably five, who would be available to judge on a volunteer basis in October.
We should ideally have:
Does anyone have personal contacts who might be suitable, or who could put us in touch with possible candidates? Please feel free to put your own name forward, if you are interested.
You can comment below, or on the WLM UK project talk page on Commons. Alternatively, you can email me privately using the 'Email this user' feature from my home page. Thanks for the help! -- MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion on SVG guidelines at commons:Commons talk:SVG guidelines. J Kadavoor J e e 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently the JPG versions of PlayStation 2 and GameCube pictures got promoted to FP instead of the transparent PNG version. I compared both versions in full resolution but I didn't notice any difference. In a thumbnail JPG had artifacts, PNG did not, plus transparent PNG looks nicer on a dark coloured infobox. Could someone tell me why the JPG version was selected? -- Mika1h ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking for a list of the raw numbers of un/successful FPCs from January 2010 till now. Are there any automated logs of this, or am I stuck with searching each month-page for the string "Promoted File:" ? Thanks :) – Quiddity ( talk) 21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to nominate a gallery of SVG of polyhedra models, or perhaps a gallery of rotating polyhedra? The images are technically sharp and have great EV (at least for the more common shapes). As an example with the Platonic Solids:
E.g., SVG:
E.g., animated:
If there's support for promoting either set of images, I'll go look for the other polyhedra ones to add to the gallery. Quanyails ( talk) 05:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also the issue where thumbnails of large animated GIFs frequently don't play properly on Wikipedia, even though they play perfectly well at full size. How large is "large"? According to the Village Pump, 12.5 megabyte GIFs do not scale well in thumbnails. In my own experience, however, a 2.37 megabyte version of File:Algol_AB_movie_imaged_with_the_CHARA_interferometer.gif did not play well as a thumbnail (scroll down to the file history). There are many other examples of large animated GIFs that, as thumbnails, play well in some browsers but badly in others. For example, see the red folding animations in Platonic solids on the Spanish Wikipedia. They are supposed to loop, but whether or not they do so for you will depend on your browser, the phase of the moon, whether you have sacrificed to the proper gods etc. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we upgrade our Featured Pictures pages to new-style galleries? I've changed one page to give an example, Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings, and would suggest the same code would work well in the others. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to moving forwards with converting all of the FP galleries? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this FP look upscaled? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
[1] Does this work? It gives a slightly different value. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The Triple Crown's
2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible. |
![]() |
— ΛΧΣ 21 07:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Despite the shutdown, downloading images from the LoC appears to be possible again. This may prove useful. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It is no longer necessary to not include File: It'll work whether you include it or not. I have tested this, it should work fine; let me know if there's any problems, though. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi image superstars:
Can you please review and fix " Fluorine". -TCO 98.117.75.177 ( talk) 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Refugees of Hamidian massacre. Three of the four supports are from editors who have a history of editing Armenia topics, and two of them have pretty much never had an edit to FPC before. Does anyone else think there may be meatpuppeting going on? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently bought a Canon 60D and was hoping to participate in FPC with some of my own photographs, assuming I can get the quality right. I'm fairly pleased with the image at the right, though owing to stitching issues (fairly minor, but still) I'm not planning to nominate it at FPC. I was wondering, however, if anyone here could give me some feedback on (say) equipment to invest in, angles to work with, composition, etc. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Where do I report suspected Flickr washing?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg and File:US-Fractional (1st Issue)-$0.05-Fr.1231.jpg are the same? 46.107.88.8 ( talk) 10:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Commons:Photo challenge has been created and needs you! If you are interested please come to the
talk page to discuss and help organise this new project. December 2013 has two themes: Coloured light and Silhouette. I hope you are able to participate. -- Colin ( talk) |
Photographers on this forum may be interested in this new project on Commons. Based on the "photo challenge" contests run on other photography forums, we've started one on Commons. Similar to WLM, but regular and smaller and with multiple themes. Some themes will try to get new content for Commons (and thus Wikipedia) specifically in areas where it is lacking, other themes are just for the challenge or fun. Colin° Talk 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been reviewing photographs here for a little while now and although we are promoting many quality scans that improve the encyclopaedia, I also fear we are missing the forest for the trees. I wonder if we could have a little contest or something, and try to find/make featured pictures for the most commonly viewed wiki pages, or even for featured articles that currently lack quality photographs.
It’s all good to find a great scan photograph of some obscure little thing, but I wonder if we can focus some effort on places where it has the most impact (in addition to all the random esoteric stuff!). Maybe a rolling top 10 or something that we can try to find or take? I'm not sure if this exists on commons but the focus would be on encyclopaedic value over aesthetics of course. What do you think?
Mattximus (
talk)
18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I recently had a delist and replace nomination succeed and saw an issue with the way it was processed. Namely, the old image was replaced by the new one in the article space, and in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures archive. However, the image did not go to the top of the relevant subsection as new FPs usually do, and merely replaced the entry of the existing FP which was second-from-the-bottom in the Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds subsection. I had a brief edit war with Armbrust until he pointed out to me that the delist procedures specifically say "Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.".
I feel this is mishandling the new FP. Yes, it has been nominated as a replacement of the old image, but it is also a new FP image and I think it should be treated as such. It's trivial whether it was nominated as a FP independently of the delist procedure or not, it's still a new FP, it is not the old FP. The only reason I nominated it as a delist and replace was to keep bureaucracy to a minimum (obviously it failed this time around!). Also, the delist and replace nomination itself was not added to the FPC archive for the current month. Even though was is a delist and replace nomination and the FPC archive is intended for regular nominations, I think it should still be archived there as it does involve a new image being promoted and a record of the promotion of a FP should be kept. Also, I never received a notification on my talk page that the image had been promoted. I readily admit that Armbrust seems to have made no real error here, as he/she was just following the procedures.
To avoid this situation where the replacement image of a delist and replace nomination effectively 'slips through the cracks' in a number of ways, I propose that any replacement images should be treated exactly the same way as a regular FP. There are two ways to effectively do this:
I'm happy with either option as I can see benefits and drawbacks to either approach. But either way, I feel the procedures need some improvement. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
New d&r part of the delist closure procedure The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.- Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Add the replacement image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Remove the delisted image from the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
- Add the replacement image to the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and remove the delisted image from the same page.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use " Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Replaced section of Archived removal requests and the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}.
Creative Commons have recently clarified their licence wrt image resolution. Users who upload a small 640x480 JPG to Wikipedia/Commons under CC have in fact released the underlying "copyright work" under CC. So the licence applies to any other form of that "copyright work", including the 24MP JPG you may have thought was safely "All rights reserved" on your pro photo site. Even if your larger version must be purchased, there is nothing stopping someone uploading it here should they acquire it. This is a surprising development. It is unclear as yet how this affects other variants of a copyright work such as cropping an image, a short cut of a video or even a single frame from a movie. I know many photographers here donate large versions of their images anyway, but professional images are often donated downsized and this seems to kill that practice.
Please discuss at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Update. -- Colin° Talk 19:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. 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, 106 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! J Milburn ( talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the process to renominate a picture? The subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates with the same picture name already has the old discussion with the not promoted status because of low EV at the time. The top of that subpage has "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes." If the picture is now qualified with a very good EV due to new information. How do we renominate it without removing the old nomination? Z22 ( talk) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Godot's excellent work, money likely has enough FPs - and a large number of potential FPs left - that it would be worth creating a sub-catgeory for it. I'd suggest we put it under "Culture and lifestyle". Thoughts? Supporting votes, and any objections? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This one could use a few more eyes. It closes rather soon, and - as the rather long list in the FPC urgents shows - we're in a bit of a reviewer shortage. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. This isn't quite related to FPC, as I doubt I'd nominate these images ("avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" and all that), but can I have a second opinion about the aesthetics of pictures which use a partial bleach bypass? I think it gives a stark realism to the subject and, with all the (greyish white) ash, makes the subject stand out more, but I'd like a more experienced photographer's opinion. Two examples are thumbnailed here. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
How do people like these handled? I'm a little uncomfortable with how much of my stuff ended up in there - I had a very stressful day a week and a half ago, and tried to work through it by doing lots and lots of restorations, and it kind of shows; would I be better off cutting back a bit so that, say, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Armenian_illuminated_manuscript (1 vote away from passing, not mine) would have a better chance; or is it fair enough to leave mine in because I really, really hate close-call closures, which mean having to document things and hold them back for an appropriate length of time? (Also, not quite sure what to do with the astronomy images if I do hold back, since a complete set is impossible - the LoC only has a partial set in the first place.)
In any case, rambling aside, I'm quite happy to limit it to one or two of mine, if that's preferred. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, just want to bring your attention to this: Input wanted: orphan works. I'm pretty sure the issue of unknown and un-contactable copyright holders is something we deal with fairly regularly - particularly for users who restore older works, such as Adam Cuerden and Crisco 1492. Our input may be valuable. Julia\ talk 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility to introduce speedy closes, like at Commons? I see nominations that have absolutely no chance in passing, such as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Adana massacre (5 opposes, no support but the nominator) and wonder if we really should keep them running for a full week. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Um, just wanted to check - is there something wrong with these images; is it just that people would rather I nominate the rest all at once, or did the nomination just get overlooked at present? Because there's a lot of images to work through, and, since we have an article on the book of star charts I'm trying to get up to FA in the long run, I would like to know of any issues before they end up compounded over 20 more images. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I participated in this DR recently and opposed the deletion per the prevailing policies. But after discussing with the original author (not much as he is not a native English speaker) and reading the relevant discussions, I see some communication problems that affected our decisions. The author is a subject expert and we didn't contact him. We didn't contact the relevant project too. I discussed this matter with my colleagues in the same stream, and they too raise a similar concern. Biopics seems very disappointed (not only due to this matter alone); and expressed that "New and more images moved to Flickr".
I think this matter needs our attention as a generic way (for future cases) and we need to consult relevant people in case of any doubts. J e e 09:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, a new Commons deletion discussion is here. -- Colin° Talk 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The FPC urgents is currently full of things with 3 or 4 supports, no opposes, and which will likely fail if people don't vote. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
And we're back to the same state as previous. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
FPCs needing feedback
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Russell Lee (now with alt!)
|
I really shouldn't say which one, outside that it's not one of mine, but I had honestly been hoping to use one of the images in FPC urgents as the lead for the signpost report on featured pictures in a couple weeks, to the point of not featuring another image, but it's hovering at just under the five vote minimum, with no opposes. Can people please have a look at the urgents? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any way to edit the associated text for this group of 4 pictures by William Russell Flint. This is necessary because the article until a few minutes ago had incorrect information about his education. According to Oxford Art Online, he studied at the Royal Institute of Art, Edinburgh, not the Royal Academy of Art(s) in London. (And beware, Royal Institute of Art should not be wikilinked because that article describes an institution in Stockholm.) Colonies Chris ( talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If a FP disagrees with the article text, it does not have Encyclopedic value, and either it or the article is not verifiable.
Why was rhe picture promoted while failing both 5 and 6 of the criteria?
5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.
Why would a FP be promoted under these circumstances? Diagram of Jupiter is either using sources not used by the article or it is OR. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
I recently discovered that File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg had been missed for POTD (images promoted in the same week were run in 2012) and have scheduled it. If contributors here are aware of any older FPs (i.e. those promoted before 2013) which have not run at POTD, please contact me. I might have to dredge the FP thumbs page to catch some of them. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've fixed delist nominations so that including or not including File:
will not matter. The change is at
Template:FPCdel, with a change to
Template:FPCdel/init to remove the instruction to not use File:
- but please tell me if you notice any problems, and revert my last change (and only my last change: the penultimate one is from last year, and I believe is important.) in the meantime. Cheers!
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to note, this nomination has changed into a much improved nomination since its start - higher resolution, text-free copy, and so on. It's probably worth looking again. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
At WT:POTD there is a discussion regarding whether an image of Michele Merkin should run on the main page as picture of the day. If you are interested in weighing in, please comment at the discussion. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
By my reckoning, we've got some hundred or so images in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture. Does anyone else think it may be time to split this? Say, Religious buildings (mosques, churches, temples), other buildings, and other architecture (bridges, for instance). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Since we are heavily image-oriented, regulars of this page may be interested in this discussion. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Can people check these? There's a few on there that I'm a bit shocked aren't passing, particularly [really shouldn't say]. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 06:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone with access to a lossless crop tool remove the black line on the right and bottom edge? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I commented about today's Featured Picture on Wikipedia's Main Page at Commons:Village pump/Copyright here (at 11. Faithful representation) and a respondent suggested I post in this forum.
Whatever the merits or demerits of this image it is a derivative work which should be deleted as a copyright violation. The editor has simply warmed the original Google image some 30% or so in Adobe Photoshop. He said himself in the nomination discussion that he doesn't know what the original looks like. The result, piss horrible in my opinion, is a travesty of Manet's intentions and an infringement of the original photographer's moral rights. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Also ping Johnbod and Amandajm Hafspajen ( talk) 13:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is not that there are a number of images of varying qualities. That happens all the time with art images. When it comes to colour values the differences can be immense. But this was a Google Art Project image, images noted for their fidelity. The original comes from the gallery which owns it and the photograph was taken by a noted fine arts photographer. That Wikipedia can use it in US law depends directly on the image being a faithful representation. What an editor subsequently can't then do is to manipulate it in the way that has been done to produce an image which he personally thinks is superior (on his own admission he didn't even know what the original actually looked like, never having seen it). You don't have to be an expert to know that resulting warm cast is nothing like that of the original and that should matter in an encyclopaedia. The whole point about this painting was that the flesh tone was cold and cadaverous, described by critics of the time as "putrescent".
Done here. I shall nominate the image for deletion once (if and when) its protection is removed. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think, user Coat of Many Colours, that you should try to calm down. As I said, it is possible to replace it with the Alt. Hafspajen ( talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Johnbod. When I said I liked the blog photo, that's right. So I do, but it's just a snap and not a full blown repro and I only quoted it to indicate a general impression of the image. The original Google image was commissioned by the museum that own the work and executed by a noted photographer of the fine arts. The featured version is merely warmed in Adobe Photoshop to the editor's taste in pink, essentially trying to eroticise an image in a conventional way that was nevertheless conceived as odalisque i.e. exotic rather than erotic. It's really very patronising of the editor above to ask me to "calm down" (the "dear" lingering in the air ...) If an editor hasn't seen the original image, doesn't even bother to familiarise herself with the most basic critical comments about the image, then she shouldn't be editing its colour values in this way, and the community should be reigning her excesses in. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)::NO, ask an expert.
Hafspajen (
talk)
00:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The second image is the original Google image copyright RMN (Musée d'Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski and can be seen on the museum site here. It is a very good representation of a painting I know well. Regarding the skin tone it is pale and sallow (absolutely not warm), controversial at the time: indeed the most controversial thing about it (although the impressionists handling of skin tone was much praised - thus Mary Cassatt (strongly influenced by Manet) was highly praised for her flesh tones at her first show at the Fourth Impressionist Exhibition 1879). I'm currently away from my reference works but shall make an edit when I return some time around August, at which point I trust the original Google image will be linked in the article, otherwise I shall make a WP:BOLD edit myself. A feature of Manet's work was his love of the colour black and of dark tones in general, as can be seen for example in his A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. The Yorck image reproduced here by Hafspajen, with a pointed comment for my benefit it would seem, is derisory in the circumstances. I replace these Yorck images with better whenever I notice them. Their time is past.
The French version of this article uses Google Art Project 2.jpg which looks to me a slightly more satuarated (but not warmed) version of the original Google image. I don't really see the need for that. Regarding the remarks about brightness, this is a problem compounded by modern LED screens. If you like to have your screen tilted up towards you i.e. to say its bottom edge closer to you, as I do, then the resulting image is darker than it should be, a constant source of irritation to me.
Needless to say I don't need nor require Hapjean's strictures about my behaviour at my age. I'm sure it was meant with the very best of intentions from someone I'm guessing is rather young (but I shan't be back to check, persuaded that the acquaintance is not one I should wish to further nor appropriate). I use "she" habitually and generically as pronoun. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 04:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Just compare. Hafspajen ( talk) 09:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering... does anyone feel as if the minimum image size should be at least 1,500 pixels in either dimension, rather than in both dimensions? We currently ask for more than Commons, and some really nice FPs are below 1,500 pixels in one dimension ( File:Hylobates lar - Kaeng Krachan WB.jpg, for instance). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
FPCs needing feedback
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Russell Lee (now with alt!)
|
We're currently in a slow period, so a lot of things could use a few more votes. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Would like some eyes here, if possible. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Some eyes on this would be helpful too. It's going to fail due to insufficient votes. Please don't let the (extensive) discussion put you off. And If you want to oppose, please do so, I will say no more on the matter. ;-) It's better to know for sure what the consensus is than let it flounder under the minimum required votes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey—I'm new to FPC, but I have a collection of images at commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar that I believe has a few good candidates. I'm looking for advice on potential candidates from the several hundred uploads, perhaps a good set or two? Let me know what you think? I'm particularly curious about what videos and GIFs would work best. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll check back later this week. (@ Sven Manguard and GamerPro64, I know you've expressed an interest before.) czar ♔ 03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I just read that the 25 min movie has been replaced with a longer version. I'm wondering if reviewers are expected to have watched each version in full, or if we're generally willing to trust uploaders (for instance, that quality is consistent throughout). Samsara ( FA • FP) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I find it quite often that noms have nice captions, but when you go to the pic's page the description is let's say limited. Can this be more strictly enforced? Nergaal ( talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could I get a few more eyes on this one? It's nearly at quorum, but not quite, and I'd prefer a more definitive result. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If you believe (like I do!), that W.O. Reeds' quality panoramic photograph of the Monroe Street Bridge under construction deserves and can achieve featured status, then I would encourage you to nominate it for me so it can be recognized as an excellent image.
This restored version of the image is already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia (nomination page here) and the unaltered original is featured on the Wikipedia Commons [here Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg]. I see no reason why this cant easily achieve featured status on English wikipedia as well. It is far more relevant and would get more recognition and exposure there. This picture is most relevant to the Monroe Street Bridge article and the deck arch bridge articles.
This picture deserves to be nominated because the image has very high historic value; the picture was taken in 1911 and captures the construction of the historic ( NRHP listed in 1975) Monroe Street Bridge in Spokane, WA. As you can see from the article, it would become the largest concrete deck arch bridge in the United States at the time of its completion and the third longest in the world. The image itself contains dimension and specifications info. of the bridge to further enhance its historic, technical, and encyclopedic value. This image also has a high resolution (3617 × 735 = 2,658,495) and was cleaned up nicely, especially for a photo that is over 100 years old! If the historical and interest value and quality of the image wasnt enough to justify a nomination, I personally think it is a beautiful image of beautiful bridge emerging. I find the falsework centering in the center of the image drawing my eyes to it in a mesmerizing way. It looks like a vortex. Thank you for reading through case for someone taking the time to nominate this image as a featured picture candidate! 75.106.229.140 ( talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Like Adam above, I'd love a few more eyes here. There was a stitching issue which has been addressed -- Muhammad (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
We've had a number of nominations fail recently due to insufficient votes rather than any real opposition. I can't find the original discussion, but a number of years ago, I recall that we discussed this and decided to stick with five votes as we felt that contributions to FPC were on the rise and we could expect five votes for a worthy image. I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case currently as most nominations are struggling to get five votes. The biggest problem that I see is that we have mostly the same small group of voters who contribute to most of the nominations, and a few others that contribute sporadically. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be (the health of FPC would suffer even more without them), but the end result is that nominations pass or fail on the basis of a couple of regulars. Obviously, reducing the voting numbers isn't going to change this, but at least it gives a nomination a fair chance of succeeding. Looking at the current list of nominations, about half will fail not because there is significant opposition, but because of insufficient votes. It's been rightly argued in the past that this is often due to indifference and as such, the nomination probably deserves not to pass, but I'm not sure this is always the case. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't participated here for quite some time. I look in from time to time, but don't see much to catch my eye or worth investing my time in. There are some great photographs but most of those have been through Commons FP. There are a lot of historical photos, paintings, diagrams, etc, which is great and encouraging for that aspect of Wikipedia. But as a photographer, those aren't images that I have much interest in reviewing in my limited spare time. Currently we have some photos of "frozen fog". I'm sure there are lots of nice pictures of frost and fog and it is hard to think why any one should be held up as special for the articles. Where are the photographers? I don't buy the argument that people have left due to bad atmosphere or harassment: that always has and always will flare up on forums. I think Alvesgaspar is right that we're at some natural low but combined with lower participation on WP overall, perhaps the forum is in terminal decline. What's the attraction for a photographer to take and nominate his/her images here rather than at Commons? On Commons, you don't have the hassle/stress of having to take a "lead image" and there is currently a much more active community to get advice/encouragement. Considering Commons is the picture repository for WP, what really is the purpose of this forum? Is the emphasis on encyclopaedic value a bonus or a handicap? -- Colin° Talk 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As a warning to others: If you work primarily on images, stay well away from the WikiCup. The entire competition has been one long complaint from three or four entitled people about how dare anyone who work on pictures look like they might win or do well. Six months of abuse, because some of the people who work on articles apparently do not appreciate images, and think their contributions should be the only ones that matter.
Do not sign up. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This has had some new images added: Please have another look. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Something seems to be broken with the archiving of this page. Just now I was looking for an item I thought† I'd posted here in mid-2014 from a different IP address, I found that the latest archive link was to Archive 34, but there was a gap of over a year between that and the oldest section now on the page. I then looked to see if there was an Archive 34, and there was, but it was not linked.
I further noticed that Archives 1 through 31 were each identified by a range of pair of dates, while the most recent archives were only identified by number. I decided to manually edit the archive links to add the missing one and convert the latest ones to that style. However, when I did this, I realized that the closing date shown for Archive 31 is wrong, while Archive 32 overlaps with both Archives 31 and 33 in date. Specifically:
Archive Earliest section started Last section started 31 2 August 2010 25 January 2012 32 10 March 2011 24 April 2012 33 13 April 2012 9 January 2013
The overlap between 32 and 33 is minor, but not for 31 and 32. Just checking section titles I don't see any duplicated section titles between these three sections, so it's not that something was somehow archived without being removed from the talk page itself. I haven't looked to see if there's a pattern of how the sections in the different archives interleave.
†It wasn't in Archive 35 either, though; I guess I posted it somewhere else. -- 174.88.135.88 ( talk) 05:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
While surfing and scrolling down the featured images, I came across many old FPs which were far below the current requirements of a features picture. Some are unaffected by the quality problem, but they are below the minimum resolution.
File:Flying mallard duck - female.jpg and
File:St Vitus stained glass.jpg are some of the stunning images which we have, but are far below the required requirements. So what I have in my mind is some kind of Delist and Replace drive where the images which are below the resolution requirements can be delisted/delisted and replaced with a higher resolution version. Of course there are some occasional Delist nominations, where Godot13 and Crisco does it (mainly), but we can have a united nomination where all the such images are first classified into some page, like say,
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/D&R drive and then go for the consensus individually. This will increase the speed and reaction time for the FP contributors and voters. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Herald (
talk •
contribs)
15:13, 30 October 2014 (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. |
p
I have created {{ FPCgloss}}. Hope somebody finds it useful. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leonard Siffleet was just closed today when I withdrew it — we could have an FP of the original photo, but the scan we're using has problems that disqualified it. Are nominations like this one considered disruptive at all? Nobody's accused me of being disruptive, but I know so little about FPC that I'm not sure what to think. Nyttend ( talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have a computer with a lot of memory and a copy of Hugin? I can provide a copy of the original scans and the more-or-less ready-to-run Hugin file. As it is, I've had to scale it down a bit, so it's "only" 8000 pixels wide. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So, this is, of course, quite premature to be nominated (both Ruddigore images were rather dirty, and will need a lot of cleanup), but is the key I made clear enough? (And if not, does a quick skim of Ruddigore make everything clear?) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
User:WPPilot withdrew his nomination of Loe Real 60 foot Water World Waterworld Trimaran by removing it from the main FPC page 1. I am unsure if this is an acceptable way to withdraw a nomination, so bringing it to everyone's attention here. In my opinion, it should be put back, withdrawn and closed as all other noms. -- WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I asked editors on Commons to restore File:Sailors of Minas Geraes.jpg, and I think they responded beautifully. Would it have a chance at getting featured here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've created a delist nomination, but I'm apparently overlooking instructions about what to do with it. Where do I transclude it? And is there a template that I should place on the filepage to say "This is a candidate for removal"? Nyttend ( talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just be direct, please. I will go after a bigger image if it does, but not bug the source otherwise (as image works fine in article).
TCO ( talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
(If I get a "bigger" image...also how best to do that and will anyone help me please?)
TCO ( talk) 16:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Is a bigger image required (and if so, would it have a good "shot"?) Also, any help with getting the bigger image...please?
TCO ( talk) 16:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just had a nomination - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dustforce closed without having reached consensus to promote. There were no opposes, but it was one support short. Is there a relisting procedure at FPC? Is there some kind of time out period? I'd just stick it at the top again, but am wary of pissing the regulars off. - hahnch e n 23:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There were a series of beautiful images made for Georgius Agricola's last and most famous work, De re Metallica. They delayed publication for a year (and the book came out after his death). They have a very draftmanlike quality (almost like some doing isometric drawings). Renaissance use of perspective, I guess. And lots of content (even at the time) in terms of the lettered labeling of apparatus. Plus, they just look sort of Escher or Durer like. Don't they?
Which do you like best? (See Commons category for more.)
Also, any tips on getting a high enough res image?
TCO ( talk) 17:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I ordered the CD. No brainer to pay for that, but I just had to do the hassle of making a Paypal acct and all that. Now to wait. The guy has to send it overseas too.
I'll let you know how it looks. It is supposed to be 300dpi scan (is that good?)
TBH, just uploading all the images and organizing them into book chapers, giving page notes, giving the ABC info, and relevant descriptions from the Hoover translation is like a worthy project in and of itself. But now it is just a total disorganized mess on Commons. They are worried I will delete their old versions, but I won't. I'm very tolerant of different image versions because I see all the time that different EV needs different crops and that when you have people from different language projects using same file, you should be very wary of uploading and changing their articles.
On the technical side, I wonder how they do a coffee-table book or even just a printed copy of the Hoover translation (maybe I will buy that on Amazon). Like do they recut the plates? Do the original plates (450 years old!) exist somewhere and are they printable with? Is there some electronic process that is used when a book is put out? I know that the resolution of printed material is much better than what displays on a laptop...so quality work needs to not look like someone Xeroxed the crap out of an old manuscript. But I don't know how they do it.
TCO ( talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(update) I went to the library to look at a book copy. It looks better than what we have, but still you can definitely see defects. The one I have is hard cover and from 1950. I think there was a 1912 printing, don't know the quality of that. To really clean up all these prints and recut engravings or even the electronic versions of engravings would probably be a work of a year or two of a skilled graphic artist. We are talking 250 illustrations with significant detail. But maybe just getting the best scan up and organizing it would be good.
TCO ( talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
P.s. They are displayed half-page or full-page (and the book is about A4 sized paper). So that shows how people normally read this stuff. Not tiny embedded thumbs. (TCO)
I took the book home from the library. It is the 1950 Dover edition. I want to take a look at the 1912 Hoover printing which supposedly had higher quality. Not sure if this was just paper and binding or if related to the illos. I know that Hoover supposedly did work to get the woodcuts redone well. They don't look yellowed or like photocopies...but at least in the 1950 edition, they were not sharp. I might be just being too picky, not sure. At the end of the day, we are talking about mass printing, even in the time of Agricola, so the quality is not like a fresh painting. Is some wear on the blocks for instance as printed.
An interesting article, here: "The finished translation, replete with a learned but still charming scholarly apparatus, was printed and published privately by the Hoovers in 1912 while they were still living at the Red House in London. Great care was taken to use appropriate paper and type to give the feeling of the original De Re Metallica, and the woodblock prints were reproduced with precision. The Hoovers' close friend Edgar Rickard was entrusted with the task of supervising the publication because of his background in technical publishing. The printer and binder was Albert Frost, who selected a fine vellum for the binding. Three thousand copies were printed. Some were sold, but the majority were sent as gifts to the Hoovers' friends and associates."
TCO ( talk) 03:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I went and looked at the 1912 edition. (It was in Special Collections, but they brought it out. FYI, it costs 8,000 on ebay for a copy of this edition...and I think even at the time, was very much a luxury item because of the illos, size, low print run.) It is very similar to the Dover edition but a little nicer. The pages are more like 10 by 14 instead of A4 so the images are bigger. Slightly crisper look. The black borders of the cuts are sometimes a little spotty and they aren't completely clean cut (looks almost hand drawn but this may be intentional.) Engravings are not perfect in the very fine detail (may have been an issue even for the original, but I think hoover did get new plates made...am research this...may just be a limitation of the method). In the Dover, it seems like there is some graying where the fine marks are and this is cleaner in the 1912. Pages are slightly off color though (Dover quite white). The pagination is exactly the same in the main texts (so organizing the images by page number means someone referring to either edition does not get off.) There's a slight difference in the pagination of the preface text (Dover's fault), but that does not affect the woodcut organization as no pictures back there. The images look a little sharper in the 1912 (I think the 1950 may have been some sort of photographic reproduction...although it's "decent" for normal viewing). TCO ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/President Barack Obama is a delist and replace that was listed in the main part of the FPC page, and nobody has objected to that so far. I think it is better to list delist nominations with the others, and I propose that we eliminate the delist section. I would ask someone who likes writing templates to write one that says "Delist" in some bright color (and not the red we use for expired noms--maybe green or something), and then make
Template:FPCdel add it to delist noms. Obviously the webform for FPCdel will have to be moved someplace else, probably to the top, under the main nomination form. What else would need to be done?
To review:
More eyes on delist and delist and replace noms.
Can't think of any! It's not like there are so many delist noms that they will clutter the page.
Thoughts? Chick Bowen 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Old suggestion
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Option 1 — Easiest, keep the two separate templates ({{ FPCnom}} and {{ FPCdel}}), but merge parts of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delistheader with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Header, like the nomination buttons.
Option 2 — Or create one template for all nominations (candidate, delist, delist/replace)
Option 2 template
|
---|
Candidate image placed in the "candidate image" parameter. "Delist image" is left blank. = 9-day nomination. Depending on which parameters have image names in them, headers will appear like:
Note that "previous nominations" can actually be used for a candidate nomination's second attempt. I've seen this happen a few times. I also took the liberty of slightly re-phrasing some of the parameter definitions. |
– Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC) added options 1 and 2 – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 19:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Option 2 template - v.c5
|
---|
Candidate image placed in the "candidate image" parameter. "Delist image" is left blank. = 9-day nomination. Depending on which parameters have image names in them, headers will appear like:
Note that "previous nominations" can actually be used for a candidate nomination's second attempt. I've seen this happen a few times. I also took the liberty of slightly re-phrasing some of the parameter definitions. |
There's definite support for incorporating Delists with Nominations, so aside from pending comments from others, that seems to be where FP is headed. But there is no consensus on is how to handle the template. Adam Cuerdon made a point regarding archiving—and keeping two separate templates for two different archives. I'm still relatively new to FP workings, but it appears candidates are (for example) archived here and delists are archived here. Are there any pros and cons to having two separate archives? Also, currently archiving is done manually. Has there ever been any discussion about implementing a bot? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at the following links and see what you guys think.
– Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick update, I've been tweaking another sandbox page (Nomination procedure), and then I'll go through all the text to make sure everything is up-to-date and consistent, including the removal of any WP:PRR mentions, etc. If there's no more comments, I'll probably go ahead and make everything "live" later this evening, which will include moving all current delists up—if I don't get to it, it's only because I'll be suddenly busy in real life. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hope no one gets too angry! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 06:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This nom got stuck under the gigantic set nom of the moment, and could use a couple more eyes. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone's wondering: it's slowly getting there, but it's a particularly spot-covered image, so, while I'm actively working on it regularly, I'm breaking to do things with a little more chance of getting finished in a day or two, because, well, one might wish it isn't so, but finishing things helps motivation.
This also applies to the Ruddigore illustrations, but I'm putting them to after Lincoln, for Mediran's sake. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, "all discussions about individual featured pictures" should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates, "if the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate" then it should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures.
This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?
This note is being posted to both of the indicated talk pages, and I'll use Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to post my specific comments this time. -- 50.100.192.246 ( talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
When I wrote the above, I assumed that since FPs are associated with the home page, the descriptions would be at least semi-protected. Now that I've realized they're not, I've gone ahead and edited the ones I was concerned with. However, that was because I knew what changes were needed. If I had had to post about a problem and ask someone else to fix it, then the conflict I described above would have applied. -- 50.100.192.246 ( talk) 06:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, is anyone else going to Hong Kong for Wikimania? I won a scholarship there! Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A lot of the current images are underreviewed. I'll try to keep FPC urgents updated, but it's worth keeping an eye on things for the next week or so. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden brought up that some of the images in here could be re-sorted. Should there be some new subcategories? For example:
Just throwing some ideas out there. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. Here's what I propose (based, of course, on the suggestions above):
I think that using the "and" names will help resolve ambiguity, and keep people from shoving things into "Other". If people are fine with this, I'll do it this weekend. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Table Mountain cable car repair 1973 should be removed from suspended nominations, in accordance with the discussion at User_talk:Robvanvee#Cable_car (copyright not cleared for now; image has been removed from articles). I wasn't sure of the proper close-out and archive procedures. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 01:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It has high EV, visually appealing, and every other criteria. Only the shorter length, is below 1500 meters, but I think it is minor and we can make a small exception for it. Think of it. 117.197.75.177 ( talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominate it. I think this place way way WAY overemphasizes technical aspects and way way WAY underemphasizes encyclopedic importance and compositional impact. And then they threaten to ban you if you vote your heart instead of following some drone-like ruuule which itself did not come down from God but was edit warred in or voted on by some tiny group. But that's the Wiki way. Thank God there is a real world with American freedom. Still, kinda sorta. TCO ( talk) 01:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
In case people are interested, I have started a thread on AN/I about the happenings in a current FPC discussion. J Milburn ( talk) 23:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Herschel should be up by tomorrow, Ethel Waters and Bodley will follow. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've begun work on the People category. Note I'm only redistributing People/Others to the new categories at the moment; I'm sure that there's going to be a number of people in other categories better put in one of the new ones. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to note for those that missed it: I did finish the restoration of this I had said I would do. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political be expanded to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Politics and law? There are a few lawyers in there, and it could potentially help avoid ambiguity. Alternative might be to split Law off to its own category. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Community input is welcome here. Tony (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that while 5 support votes is usually fine, in some months - Christmas, and apparently Summer - participation is lowered. Would it be a good idea to go back to 4 supports minimum? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Delist noms are still set to run for 14 days instead of the 9 for regular noms. Should we standardise? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been done. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm posting this request on the basis that editors here will have photographic interests and that many will be skilled photographers in their own right.
As you will probably already know, Wiki Loves Monuments ( http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org) is an annual international photography contest and crowdsourcing event in which participants photograph and upload images of historic monuments to Wikimedia Commons. These images are then available for free use on Wikipedia and beyond. More details about this year's annual competition can be found at Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. The competition takes place throughout the month of September each year.
The UK part of this year's contest will focus specifically on listed buildings. This will be the first time the UK has taken part in the international competition, and we are now seeking people to join the UK jury. We need at least three jury members, more preferably five, who would be available to judge on a volunteer basis in October.
We should ideally have:
Does anyone have personal contacts who might be suitable, or who could put us in touch with possible candidates? Please feel free to put your own name forward, if you are interested.
You can comment below, or on the WLM UK project talk page on Commons. Alternatively, you can email me privately using the 'Email this user' feature from my home page. Thanks for the help! -- MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion on SVG guidelines at commons:Commons talk:SVG guidelines. J Kadavoor J e e 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently the JPG versions of PlayStation 2 and GameCube pictures got promoted to FP instead of the transparent PNG version. I compared both versions in full resolution but I didn't notice any difference. In a thumbnail JPG had artifacts, PNG did not, plus transparent PNG looks nicer on a dark coloured infobox. Could someone tell me why the JPG version was selected? -- Mika1h ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking for a list of the raw numbers of un/successful FPCs from January 2010 till now. Are there any automated logs of this, or am I stuck with searching each month-page for the string "Promoted File:" ? Thanks :) – Quiddity ( talk) 21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to nominate a gallery of SVG of polyhedra models, or perhaps a gallery of rotating polyhedra? The images are technically sharp and have great EV (at least for the more common shapes). As an example with the Platonic Solids:
E.g., SVG:
E.g., animated:
If there's support for promoting either set of images, I'll go look for the other polyhedra ones to add to the gallery. Quanyails ( talk) 05:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also the issue where thumbnails of large animated GIFs frequently don't play properly on Wikipedia, even though they play perfectly well at full size. How large is "large"? According to the Village Pump, 12.5 megabyte GIFs do not scale well in thumbnails. In my own experience, however, a 2.37 megabyte version of File:Algol_AB_movie_imaged_with_the_CHARA_interferometer.gif did not play well as a thumbnail (scroll down to the file history). There are many other examples of large animated GIFs that, as thumbnails, play well in some browsers but badly in others. For example, see the red folding animations in Platonic solids on the Spanish Wikipedia. They are supposed to loop, but whether or not they do so for you will depend on your browser, the phase of the moon, whether you have sacrificed to the proper gods etc. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we upgrade our Featured Pictures pages to new-style galleries? I've changed one page to give an example, Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings, and would suggest the same code would work well in the others. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to moving forwards with converting all of the FP galleries? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this FP look upscaled? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
[1] Does this work? It gives a slightly different value. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The Triple Crown's
2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible. |
![]() |
— ΛΧΣ 21 07:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Despite the shutdown, downloading images from the LoC appears to be possible again. This may prove useful. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It is no longer necessary to not include File: It'll work whether you include it or not. I have tested this, it should work fine; let me know if there's any problems, though. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi image superstars:
Can you please review and fix " Fluorine". -TCO 98.117.75.177 ( talk) 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Refugees of Hamidian massacre. Three of the four supports are from editors who have a history of editing Armenia topics, and two of them have pretty much never had an edit to FPC before. Does anyone else think there may be meatpuppeting going on? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently bought a Canon 60D and was hoping to participate in FPC with some of my own photographs, assuming I can get the quality right. I'm fairly pleased with the image at the right, though owing to stitching issues (fairly minor, but still) I'm not planning to nominate it at FPC. I was wondering, however, if anyone here could give me some feedback on (say) equipment to invest in, angles to work with, composition, etc. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Where do I report suspected Flickr washing?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg and File:US-Fractional (1st Issue)-$0.05-Fr.1231.jpg are the same? 46.107.88.8 ( talk) 10:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Commons:Photo challenge has been created and needs you! If you are interested please come to the
talk page to discuss and help organise this new project. December 2013 has two themes: Coloured light and Silhouette. I hope you are able to participate. -- Colin ( talk) |
Photographers on this forum may be interested in this new project on Commons. Based on the "photo challenge" contests run on other photography forums, we've started one on Commons. Similar to WLM, but regular and smaller and with multiple themes. Some themes will try to get new content for Commons (and thus Wikipedia) specifically in areas where it is lacking, other themes are just for the challenge or fun. Colin° Talk 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been reviewing photographs here for a little while now and although we are promoting many quality scans that improve the encyclopaedia, I also fear we are missing the forest for the trees. I wonder if we could have a little contest or something, and try to find/make featured pictures for the most commonly viewed wiki pages, or even for featured articles that currently lack quality photographs.
It’s all good to find a great scan photograph of some obscure little thing, but I wonder if we can focus some effort on places where it has the most impact (in addition to all the random esoteric stuff!). Maybe a rolling top 10 or something that we can try to find or take? I'm not sure if this exists on commons but the focus would be on encyclopaedic value over aesthetics of course. What do you think?
Mattximus (
talk)
18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I recently had a delist and replace nomination succeed and saw an issue with the way it was processed. Namely, the old image was replaced by the new one in the article space, and in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures archive. However, the image did not go to the top of the relevant subsection as new FPs usually do, and merely replaced the entry of the existing FP which was second-from-the-bottom in the Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds subsection. I had a brief edit war with Armbrust until he pointed out to me that the delist procedures specifically say "Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.".
I feel this is mishandling the new FP. Yes, it has been nominated as a replacement of the old image, but it is also a new FP image and I think it should be treated as such. It's trivial whether it was nominated as a FP independently of the delist procedure or not, it's still a new FP, it is not the old FP. The only reason I nominated it as a delist and replace was to keep bureaucracy to a minimum (obviously it failed this time around!). Also, the delist and replace nomination itself was not added to the FPC archive for the current month. Even though was is a delist and replace nomination and the FPC archive is intended for regular nominations, I think it should still be archived there as it does involve a new image being promoted and a record of the promotion of a FP should be kept. Also, I never received a notification on my talk page that the image had been promoted. I readily admit that Armbrust seems to have made no real error here, as he/she was just following the procedures.
To avoid this situation where the replacement image of a delist and replace nomination effectively 'slips through the cracks' in a number of ways, I propose that any replacement images should be treated exactly the same way as a regular FP. There are two ways to effectively do this:
I'm happy with either option as I can see benefits and drawbacks to either approach. But either way, I feel the procedures need some improvement. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
New d&r part of the delist closure procedure The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.- Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Add the replacement image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Remove the delisted image from the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
- Add the replacement image to the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and remove the delisted image from the same page.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use " Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Replaced section of Archived removal requests and the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}.
Creative Commons have recently clarified their licence wrt image resolution. Users who upload a small 640x480 JPG to Wikipedia/Commons under CC have in fact released the underlying "copyright work" under CC. So the licence applies to any other form of that "copyright work", including the 24MP JPG you may have thought was safely "All rights reserved" on your pro photo site. Even if your larger version must be purchased, there is nothing stopping someone uploading it here should they acquire it. This is a surprising development. It is unclear as yet how this affects other variants of a copyright work such as cropping an image, a short cut of a video or even a single frame from a movie. I know many photographers here donate large versions of their images anyway, but professional images are often donated downsized and this seems to kill that practice.
Please discuss at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Update. -- Colin° Talk 19:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. 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, 106 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! J Milburn ( talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the process to renominate a picture? The subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates with the same picture name already has the old discussion with the not promoted status because of low EV at the time. The top of that subpage has "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes." If the picture is now qualified with a very good EV due to new information. How do we renominate it without removing the old nomination? Z22 ( talk) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Godot's excellent work, money likely has enough FPs - and a large number of potential FPs left - that it would be worth creating a sub-catgeory for it. I'd suggest we put it under "Culture and lifestyle". Thoughts? Supporting votes, and any objections? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This one could use a few more eyes. It closes rather soon, and - as the rather long list in the FPC urgents shows - we're in a bit of a reviewer shortage. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. This isn't quite related to FPC, as I doubt I'd nominate these images ("avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" and all that), but can I have a second opinion about the aesthetics of pictures which use a partial bleach bypass? I think it gives a stark realism to the subject and, with all the (greyish white) ash, makes the subject stand out more, but I'd like a more experienced photographer's opinion. Two examples are thumbnailed here. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
How do people like these handled? I'm a little uncomfortable with how much of my stuff ended up in there - I had a very stressful day a week and a half ago, and tried to work through it by doing lots and lots of restorations, and it kind of shows; would I be better off cutting back a bit so that, say, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Armenian_illuminated_manuscript (1 vote away from passing, not mine) would have a better chance; or is it fair enough to leave mine in because I really, really hate close-call closures, which mean having to document things and hold them back for an appropriate length of time? (Also, not quite sure what to do with the astronomy images if I do hold back, since a complete set is impossible - the LoC only has a partial set in the first place.)
In any case, rambling aside, I'm quite happy to limit it to one or two of mine, if that's preferred. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, just want to bring your attention to this: Input wanted: orphan works. I'm pretty sure the issue of unknown and un-contactable copyright holders is something we deal with fairly regularly - particularly for users who restore older works, such as Adam Cuerden and Crisco 1492. Our input may be valuable. Julia\ talk 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility to introduce speedy closes, like at Commons? I see nominations that have absolutely no chance in passing, such as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Adana massacre (5 opposes, no support but the nominator) and wonder if we really should keep them running for a full week. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Um, just wanted to check - is there something wrong with these images; is it just that people would rather I nominate the rest all at once, or did the nomination just get overlooked at present? Because there's a lot of images to work through, and, since we have an article on the book of star charts I'm trying to get up to FA in the long run, I would like to know of any issues before they end up compounded over 20 more images. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I participated in this DR recently and opposed the deletion per the prevailing policies. But after discussing with the original author (not much as he is not a native English speaker) and reading the relevant discussions, I see some communication problems that affected our decisions. The author is a subject expert and we didn't contact him. We didn't contact the relevant project too. I discussed this matter with my colleagues in the same stream, and they too raise a similar concern. Biopics seems very disappointed (not only due to this matter alone); and expressed that "New and more images moved to Flickr".
I think this matter needs our attention as a generic way (for future cases) and we need to consult relevant people in case of any doubts. J e e 09:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, a new Commons deletion discussion is here. -- Colin° Talk 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The FPC urgents is currently full of things with 3 or 4 supports, no opposes, and which will likely fail if people don't vote. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
And we're back to the same state as previous. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
FPCs needing feedback
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Russell Lee (now with alt!)
|
I really shouldn't say which one, outside that it's not one of mine, but I had honestly been hoping to use one of the images in FPC urgents as the lead for the signpost report on featured pictures in a couple weeks, to the point of not featuring another image, but it's hovering at just under the five vote minimum, with no opposes. Can people please have a look at the urgents? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any way to edit the associated text for this group of 4 pictures by William Russell Flint. This is necessary because the article until a few minutes ago had incorrect information about his education. According to Oxford Art Online, he studied at the Royal Institute of Art, Edinburgh, not the Royal Academy of Art(s) in London. (And beware, Royal Institute of Art should not be wikilinked because that article describes an institution in Stockholm.) Colonies Chris ( talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If a FP disagrees with the article text, it does not have Encyclopedic value, and either it or the article is not verifiable.
Why was rhe picture promoted while failing both 5 and 6 of the criteria?
5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.
Why would a FP be promoted under these circumstances? Diagram of Jupiter is either using sources not used by the article or it is OR. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
I recently discovered that File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg had been missed for POTD (images promoted in the same week were run in 2012) and have scheduled it. If contributors here are aware of any older FPs (i.e. those promoted before 2013) which have not run at POTD, please contact me. I might have to dredge the FP thumbs page to catch some of them. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've fixed delist nominations so that including or not including File:
will not matter. The change is at
Template:FPCdel, with a change to
Template:FPCdel/init to remove the instruction to not use File:
- but please tell me if you notice any problems, and revert my last change (and only my last change: the penultimate one is from last year, and I believe is important.) in the meantime. Cheers!
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to note, this nomination has changed into a much improved nomination since its start - higher resolution, text-free copy, and so on. It's probably worth looking again. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
At WT:POTD there is a discussion regarding whether an image of Michele Merkin should run on the main page as picture of the day. If you are interested in weighing in, please comment at the discussion. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
By my reckoning, we've got some hundred or so images in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture. Does anyone else think it may be time to split this? Say, Religious buildings (mosques, churches, temples), other buildings, and other architecture (bridges, for instance). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Since we are heavily image-oriented, regulars of this page may be interested in this discussion. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Can people check these? There's a few on there that I'm a bit shocked aren't passing, particularly [really shouldn't say]. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 06:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone with access to a lossless crop tool remove the black line on the right and bottom edge? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I commented about today's Featured Picture on Wikipedia's Main Page at Commons:Village pump/Copyright here (at 11. Faithful representation) and a respondent suggested I post in this forum.
Whatever the merits or demerits of this image it is a derivative work which should be deleted as a copyright violation. The editor has simply warmed the original Google image some 30% or so in Adobe Photoshop. He said himself in the nomination discussion that he doesn't know what the original looks like. The result, piss horrible in my opinion, is a travesty of Manet's intentions and an infringement of the original photographer's moral rights. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Also ping Johnbod and Amandajm Hafspajen ( talk) 13:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is not that there are a number of images of varying qualities. That happens all the time with art images. When it comes to colour values the differences can be immense. But this was a Google Art Project image, images noted for their fidelity. The original comes from the gallery which owns it and the photograph was taken by a noted fine arts photographer. That Wikipedia can use it in US law depends directly on the image being a faithful representation. What an editor subsequently can't then do is to manipulate it in the way that has been done to produce an image which he personally thinks is superior (on his own admission he didn't even know what the original actually looked like, never having seen it). You don't have to be an expert to know that resulting warm cast is nothing like that of the original and that should matter in an encyclopaedia. The whole point about this painting was that the flesh tone was cold and cadaverous, described by critics of the time as "putrescent".
Done here. I shall nominate the image for deletion once (if and when) its protection is removed. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think, user Coat of Many Colours, that you should try to calm down. As I said, it is possible to replace it with the Alt. Hafspajen ( talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Johnbod. When I said I liked the blog photo, that's right. So I do, but it's just a snap and not a full blown repro and I only quoted it to indicate a general impression of the image. The original Google image was commissioned by the museum that own the work and executed by a noted photographer of the fine arts. The featured version is merely warmed in Adobe Photoshop to the editor's taste in pink, essentially trying to eroticise an image in a conventional way that was nevertheless conceived as odalisque i.e. exotic rather than erotic. It's really very patronising of the editor above to ask me to "calm down" (the "dear" lingering in the air ...) If an editor hasn't seen the original image, doesn't even bother to familiarise herself with the most basic critical comments about the image, then she shouldn't be editing its colour values in this way, and the community should be reigning her excesses in. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)::NO, ask an expert.
Hafspajen (
talk)
00:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The second image is the original Google image copyright RMN (Musée d'Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski and can be seen on the museum site here. It is a very good representation of a painting I know well. Regarding the skin tone it is pale and sallow (absolutely not warm), controversial at the time: indeed the most controversial thing about it (although the impressionists handling of skin tone was much praised - thus Mary Cassatt (strongly influenced by Manet) was highly praised for her flesh tones at her first show at the Fourth Impressionist Exhibition 1879). I'm currently away from my reference works but shall make an edit when I return some time around August, at which point I trust the original Google image will be linked in the article, otherwise I shall make a WP:BOLD edit myself. A feature of Manet's work was his love of the colour black and of dark tones in general, as can be seen for example in his A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. The Yorck image reproduced here by Hafspajen, with a pointed comment for my benefit it would seem, is derisory in the circumstances. I replace these Yorck images with better whenever I notice them. Their time is past.
The French version of this article uses Google Art Project 2.jpg which looks to me a slightly more satuarated (but not warmed) version of the original Google image. I don't really see the need for that. Regarding the remarks about brightness, this is a problem compounded by modern LED screens. If you like to have your screen tilted up towards you i.e. to say its bottom edge closer to you, as I do, then the resulting image is darker than it should be, a constant source of irritation to me.
Needless to say I don't need nor require Hapjean's strictures about my behaviour at my age. I'm sure it was meant with the very best of intentions from someone I'm guessing is rather young (but I shan't be back to check, persuaded that the acquaintance is not one I should wish to further nor appropriate). I use "she" habitually and generically as pronoun. Coat of Many Colours ( talk) 04:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Just compare. Hafspajen ( talk) 09:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering... does anyone feel as if the minimum image size should be at least 1,500 pixels in either dimension, rather than in both dimensions? We currently ask for more than Commons, and some really nice FPs are below 1,500 pixels in one dimension ( File:Hylobates lar - Kaeng Krachan WB.jpg, for instance). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
FPCs needing feedback
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Russell Lee (now with alt!)
|
We're currently in a slow period, so a lot of things could use a few more votes. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Would like some eyes here, if possible. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Some eyes on this would be helpful too. It's going to fail due to insufficient votes. Please don't let the (extensive) discussion put you off. And If you want to oppose, please do so, I will say no more on the matter. ;-) It's better to know for sure what the consensus is than let it flounder under the minimum required votes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey—I'm new to FPC, but I have a collection of images at commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar that I believe has a few good candidates. I'm looking for advice on potential candidates from the several hundred uploads, perhaps a good set or two? Let me know what you think? I'm particularly curious about what videos and GIFs would work best. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll check back later this week. (@ Sven Manguard and GamerPro64, I know you've expressed an interest before.) czar ♔ 03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I just read that the 25 min movie has been replaced with a longer version. I'm wondering if reviewers are expected to have watched each version in full, or if we're generally willing to trust uploaders (for instance, that quality is consistent throughout). Samsara ( FA • FP) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I find it quite often that noms have nice captions, but when you go to the pic's page the description is let's say limited. Can this be more strictly enforced? Nergaal ( talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could I get a few more eyes on this one? It's nearly at quorum, but not quite, and I'd prefer a more definitive result. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If you believe (like I do!), that W.O. Reeds' quality panoramic photograph of the Monroe Street Bridge under construction deserves and can achieve featured status, then I would encourage you to nominate it for me so it can be recognized as an excellent image.
This restored version of the image is already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia (nomination page here) and the unaltered original is featured on the Wikipedia Commons [here Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg]. I see no reason why this cant easily achieve featured status on English wikipedia as well. It is far more relevant and would get more recognition and exposure there. This picture is most relevant to the Monroe Street Bridge article and the deck arch bridge articles.
This picture deserves to be nominated because the image has very high historic value; the picture was taken in 1911 and captures the construction of the historic ( NRHP listed in 1975) Monroe Street Bridge in Spokane, WA. As you can see from the article, it would become the largest concrete deck arch bridge in the United States at the time of its completion and the third longest in the world. The image itself contains dimension and specifications info. of the bridge to further enhance its historic, technical, and encyclopedic value. This image also has a high resolution (3617 × 735 = 2,658,495) and was cleaned up nicely, especially for a photo that is over 100 years old! If the historical and interest value and quality of the image wasnt enough to justify a nomination, I personally think it is a beautiful image of beautiful bridge emerging. I find the falsework centering in the center of the image drawing my eyes to it in a mesmerizing way. It looks like a vortex. Thank you for reading through case for someone taking the time to nominate this image as a featured picture candidate! 75.106.229.140 ( talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Like Adam above, I'd love a few more eyes here. There was a stitching issue which has been addressed -- Muhammad (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
We've had a number of nominations fail recently due to insufficient votes rather than any real opposition. I can't find the original discussion, but a number of years ago, I recall that we discussed this and decided to stick with five votes as we felt that contributions to FPC were on the rise and we could expect five votes for a worthy image. I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case currently as most nominations are struggling to get five votes. The biggest problem that I see is that we have mostly the same small group of voters who contribute to most of the nominations, and a few others that contribute sporadically. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be (the health of FPC would suffer even more without them), but the end result is that nominations pass or fail on the basis of a couple of regulars. Obviously, reducing the voting numbers isn't going to change this, but at least it gives a nomination a fair chance of succeeding. Looking at the current list of nominations, about half will fail not because there is significant opposition, but because of insufficient votes. It's been rightly argued in the past that this is often due to indifference and as such, the nomination probably deserves not to pass, but I'm not sure this is always the case. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't participated here for quite some time. I look in from time to time, but don't see much to catch my eye or worth investing my time in. There are some great photographs but most of those have been through Commons FP. There are a lot of historical photos, paintings, diagrams, etc, which is great and encouraging for that aspect of Wikipedia. But as a photographer, those aren't images that I have much interest in reviewing in my limited spare time. Currently we have some photos of "frozen fog". I'm sure there are lots of nice pictures of frost and fog and it is hard to think why any one should be held up as special for the articles. Where are the photographers? I don't buy the argument that people have left due to bad atmosphere or harassment: that always has and always will flare up on forums. I think Alvesgaspar is right that we're at some natural low but combined with lower participation on WP overall, perhaps the forum is in terminal decline. What's the attraction for a photographer to take and nominate his/her images here rather than at Commons? On Commons, you don't have the hassle/stress of having to take a "lead image" and there is currently a much more active community to get advice/encouragement. Considering Commons is the picture repository for WP, what really is the purpose of this forum? Is the emphasis on encyclopaedic value a bonus or a handicap? -- Colin° Talk 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As a warning to others: If you work primarily on images, stay well away from the WikiCup. The entire competition has been one long complaint from three or four entitled people about how dare anyone who work on pictures look like they might win or do well. Six months of abuse, because some of the people who work on articles apparently do not appreciate images, and think their contributions should be the only ones that matter.
Do not sign up. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This has had some new images added: Please have another look. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Something seems to be broken with the archiving of this page. Just now I was looking for an item I thought† I'd posted here in mid-2014 from a different IP address, I found that the latest archive link was to Archive 34, but there was a gap of over a year between that and the oldest section now on the page. I then looked to see if there was an Archive 34, and there was, but it was not linked.
I further noticed that Archives 1 through 31 were each identified by a range of pair of dates, while the most recent archives were only identified by number. I decided to manually edit the archive links to add the missing one and convert the latest ones to that style. However, when I did this, I realized that the closing date shown for Archive 31 is wrong, while Archive 32 overlaps with both Archives 31 and 33 in date. Specifically:
Archive Earliest section started Last section started 31 2 August 2010 25 January 2012 32 10 March 2011 24 April 2012 33 13 April 2012 9 January 2013
The overlap between 32 and 33 is minor, but not for 31 and 32. Just checking section titles I don't see any duplicated section titles between these three sections, so it's not that something was somehow archived without being removed from the talk page itself. I haven't looked to see if there's a pattern of how the sections in the different archives interleave.
†It wasn't in Archive 35 either, though; I guess I posted it somewhere else. -- 174.88.135.88 ( talk) 05:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
While surfing and scrolling down the featured images, I came across many old FPs which were far below the current requirements of a features picture. Some are unaffected by the quality problem, but they are below the minimum resolution.
File:Flying mallard duck - female.jpg and
File:St Vitus stained glass.jpg are some of the stunning images which we have, but are far below the required requirements. So what I have in my mind is some kind of Delist and Replace drive where the images which are below the resolution requirements can be delisted/delisted and replaced with a higher resolution version. Of course there are some occasional Delist nominations, where Godot13 and Crisco does it (mainly), but we can have a united nomination where all the such images are first classified into some page, like say,
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/D&R drive and then go for the consensus individually. This will increase the speed and reaction time for the FP contributors and voters. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Herald (
talk •
contribs)
15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)