![]() | 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. |
Just a heads up: The Wikicup competition is talking about making a featured picture - and I don't mean just a nomination, a user-created/restored FP - worth less than a moderately sized did you know with a small bonus multiplier. This caps a competition in which featured pictures have been bashed for the last four months, with people claiming they should be pulled out of the competition because articles are supposedly more important, and that anyone doing well in the competition due to featured pictures is a sign that vigourous measures must be taken to put a stop to any such possibility happening again.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup&diff=next&oldid=608844421#Withdrawing
"While I think it's (for lack of a better word) weak to withdraw, I mostly agree with Hink. How much value does the FP have to wiki?' I don't think they should be disallowed, but there should be some limit. To be fair, you cold get points for a bunch articles through GT's, but GT's are only worth 3. As for bonus points, I think it helps level the playing field somewhat, but it's worth nothing that Hink's (and mines) editing area has limited bonus points opportunities."
There's quite a lot more in that line. At one point it's said that FPs have "little content involved".
Frankly, I think it's time to shut down the Wikicup. It's become toxic. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This nom is an hour and a half away from being closed. It would be nice if it could get another comment or two. Thanks, -- Jakob ( talk) 18:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank the regular and occasional FP reviewers. Without your patience (for some large and sometimes esoteric sets of material), success in the WikiCup2014 would not have been possible. I hope you found some of it interesting and learned something new (I know I have). More to come, at a more reasonable pace...-- Godot13 ( talk) 23:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Could we please get a few more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg
This featured image has a license tag on it ("This image is the work of Luc Viatour
Please credit it with : Luc Viatour / www.Lucnix.be in the immediate vicinity of the image. A link to my website www.lucnix.be is much appreciated but not mandatory.
An email to UserIconMail.svg Viatour Luc would be appreciated too.
Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me UserIconMail.svgViatour Luc to negotiate terms.") yet is marked as being in the PD, despite explicitly stating "it is not in the public domain". I am a little confused. If this image is not in the public domain, should be it a featured image, or even hosted on WP? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I know this is way below the usual size requirements, but I don't see in this case that there is any benefit in its being much bigger than it is. Would it be eligible for nomination? I don't want to bother if it would immediately fail on grounds of size.
217.44.130.43 (
talk)
22:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that creator(s) (including any later modifications by other editors aka retouchers) and original nominator (of successful nomination) should be notified as a requirement. Other Wikipedia processes have similar notification requirements. Comments welcome. Samsara 08:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In the case of this delist nomination, the creator was notified two days after the start of the nomination, and I don't see the nominator having been notified. Additionally, I've just inserted the link to the old nom, which was previously missing. I've also suggested to the nominator that the creator can be contacted through a number of means, including the email listed on her website, to draw attention to the identified fixable problems. I think there might be good cause for a suspension of the nom. Samsara 04:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As you may know, the length of nominations goes up to 13 days in December, due to fewer people being around, then drops back to 10 for the rest of the year. This left an awkward period where nominations started on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd of January would end before the ones from the 31st of January. I've fixed this by having all nominations from those days close just after midnight on 14 January. I think the code works, it's hard to test for other days, though, so let me know if any problems are noted on the 4th. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the adjacent picture for possible nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.150.143 ( talk) 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As this is a gray area, I would like to propose a rule for the rare occurrences where three or more co-nominators may decide to jointly put up an image or set of images for FPC. In the unlikely case of FPC nominations with three or more nominators, the number of support votes to pass should be twice the number of nominators. One or two nominators would not require any change in approach. Three nominators would require six support votes, four nominators would require 8 supports votes, and so on. It seems this would be the only way to allow for meaningful discussion and review of the merits of the nomination. Otherwise, five nominators (which could occur in the future based on a current nomination) has the ability to propose a candidate and pass it without any community involvement, short of mass opposition.-- Godot13 ( talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If a photo was uploaded from Flickr under CC BY 2.0, but the account and photo has since been deleted, will there be a problem nominating it? APK whisper in my ear 12:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The picture was not promoted at this discussion due to its lack of EV. Currently, the article in which it is used gives three paragraphs about the dome. Maybe the objections raised are no longer valid? -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 04:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate a few more eyes on this one. It's in that awkward limbo, just short of quorum, where you'd rather have a definite answer.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
09:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have done in past years, I will be nominating Commons 2014 PotY candidates (2014 Featured Pictures) that are of interest to the Greater Chicago metropolitan area. I am not judging any of these and am just asking you to give your opinions of the images that I find may be somewhat interesting to WP:CHICAGO.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few at the moment. Might be worth going through. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we need an update in the template, specially in the format section? Are those 10000X200/260 needed? Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the nature given flesh 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm venturing into a completely new area of Wikipedia, I beg your patience (I may be asking in the wrong area). I create article about historical recordings, and occasionally take pictures of the records from my collection. Does anyone think these have potential for featured picture status? For example: File:Little Marvel 2 sizes.JPG used on article Little Marvel. Thanks you! 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't all candidates be archived, regardless of the amount of votes they've received? I was surprised to see that this candidate was deleted Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl Reading a Letter by an Open Window - Google Art Project.jpg. – Editør ( talk) 17:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This got put up just before a flood of other nominations, and rather got buried. Could I beg a few more eyes on it? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not even a month has passed when we used to have over 60 noms in 10 days. As of now, 25 or less. Is it that our usual nominators are withdrawing or is it that our 5000th FP began a stable graph? - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have about a couple dozen QIs of streams and creeks on Commons that are in articles. It's obviously impossible to show the entire length of a creek in one picture since a) they tend to be long and not very wide, b)they aren't straight lines, and c) they are often obscured by forests and the like. It seems that many of the FP people are sticklers for showing the entire subject, so do any of these have a chance of passing? I have so many failed nominations that I wanted to ask here so it doesn't look like I'm disrupting the FPC process. -- Jakob ( talk) 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So what was our 5,000 FP? We apparently reached it, but I have no idea who the honor went to. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It was not even three months before Chris proposed a change in the rule about the number of edits. Though we may not follow Commons altogether as it is, do anyone fell that there is a necessity for a threshold of nominations per user, i.e. a single user can nominate a maximum of 5 or 7 nominations (including delists) at a time? I was against this till some days before, as you can scroll up and see, but have changed my mind since. - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC) @ Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@ Sagaciousphil, Sca, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons says: Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.
Hence I would say that only a maximum of five active nominations by the same user, including delists, are to be allowed. - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 09:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that, in the past two weeks, we've had an influx of three or so editors whose first or early edits were to FPC. It's rather... suspicious. Does anyone feel we should initiate a minimum number of edits rule, like on Commons? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ten days in, there looks to be a bit of support. Any thoughts of using wording similar to on Commons? "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. All editors can vote for their own nominations." Or do we want to go for more, say 100? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
On WP:ITNC, where this user also participates, instructions for Voicing an opinion on an item include the admonition –
This seems an eminently reasonable directive. If a user is in favor of including/promoting an item, it's incumbent on that user to share at least something of his or her reasoning with colleagues. (In some contexts, just a simple word or phrase will do.)
At present (13:00 UTC, April 9) on FPC, one user has lodged a total of 48 support votes containing no reason or rationale. That user appears to have simply voted in favor of every nomination in the current FPC queue, without once providing an explanation or argument. This does not support a collegial reasoning process, and IMO is not helpful to the project.
I suggest we adopt instructions similar to those at WP:ITNC regarding votes, and disregard or disqualify those that contain no rationale whatever.
@ Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@ Sagaciousphil, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: Comments? Sca ( talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I have voted simply "Support", mainly for photographs. I'm not an expert in photos, so I don't see the imperfections that experts do. I just support the nomination if the photo is interesting, seems to have EV, has fairly good composition, and looks clear and sharp. I was recently jumped on for saying an image was a good quality image, so I don't say that any more. If you would prefer that I not vote on photos at all, let me know. CorinneSD ( talk) 15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're up to 2,500 words. Any consensus? Should I pack up my troubles in my old kit bag and keep
smilin'?
Sca (
talk)
23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy almost-the-weekend. In light of the foregoing discussion, I could support a non-mandatory advisory requesting (or encouraging) users to explain support votes, and perhaps explaining that comments about specific aspects of an FP nom may be helpful to others – plus retaining the rule requiring them to explain oppose votes in terms of FP criteria.
So anyway:
Sca ( talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD ( talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD ( talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
So, here's where we are:
Sca ( talk) 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some useless talks. This is a section for voting. Discussions above. -
The Herald
the joy of the LORD
my strength
16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Can this be an FP?-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 06:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, We have File:March on Washington - Reflecting Pool.jpg, which is bigger and much better. Should we do a "Delist and replace"? Regards, Yann ( talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
Do anyone feels that we should, here at FPC, should have some coordinators as FAC and FLC have it? Someone like Armbrust (who 24X7 closes our noms), who could make out some clear cut consensus and the like sometimes. How do you all feel? -
The Herald •
the joy of the LORD
my strength
05:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SG-1000. It will expired in less than 12 hours, and it's currently failing on quorum. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I light of the fact that this FPC didn't even get a single user comment I'd like to propose that in such cases the FPC in question be either reintroduce to the lineup from the top of the page with a time stamp to reflect the new date of closure or moved to the section where more input is required to find consensus. I think it unfair that an FPC should fail do the lack of participation from anyone other than the nominator, and would like FPCs in such case to get at least on person's comment and/ or iVote before being close to help gauge where other people stand on the matter of the nomination. Would anyone here support such a proposal? (and for that matter has this even been proposed before?) TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a fundamental failure to be a featured picture that has to be sufficient grounds to delist, and we should write that into the rules. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone; thanks to an appearance at DYK, I've recently come across Commons user BigHead, who is professional photographer Augustas Didžgalvis. His portraits are fantastic (though he prefers a little less head room than is typically preferred at FPC), and cover some underrepresented topics. However, he uploads his portraits at a size of 1500 by 1000, so they're a little under our size requirements. I assume part of the motivation for this is that it isn't clear why much bigger than that would be helpful for a portrait, unless we're looking to count hairs missed while shaving or pores on the nose. I suppose what I'm asking is whether we feel that these images would be suitable to nominate here; I've included a few highlights below. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I take some pretty decent pictures, but I just use a mid-priced digital camera. Are the pictures that get FP all from professional cameras, or can they also be from ones that cost under $300? RO (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver I think you would struggle to create an FP with a compact camera, but you certainly don't need professional equipment. Until last year, I had an entry-level consumer DSLR bought in 2010 and have taken many featured pictures with it. The biggest factors on quality are the size of the image sensor (bigger is better) and the cost of the lenses. If you want a compact camera, have a look at something like the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100, which you might find at around $400 for the original version (there are newer more expensive versions of that camera). That fits a relatively large 1" sensor into a pocketable camera body. Alternatively, look at getting one of last year's (or the year before last) DSLRs. An entry-level Nikon or Canon DSLR with kit lens would also be about $400 if you avoid looking at the very latest models. And to be honest, the latest Nikon/Canon DSLRs aren't very different from those made a couple of years ago. If you can't spend more than $300 then it is probably best to look for a second hand DSLR. But beware the photography can get expensive as a hobby and before you know it, you'll have bought extra software for your PC and more lenses, a bag, tripod, flash, etc, etc. Photography is also more than just about the equipment, and FP demands more than just "decent" images -- they are supposed to be among the finest. -- Colin° Talk 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon proposes that to be the case. It's one of those stealth proposals - not notified anyone affected by it, just going around and trying to give the illusion of some support. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's monthly newsletter The Bugle (along with Ian Rose), and we're hoping to run a group interview in next month's edition with editors who frequently work on military history-related featured pictures. I've invited several editors to take part, but have doubtlessly missed some people. As such, I'd like to extend an open invitation to editors who are interested in participating to post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2015/Interview by 14 August. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
... as to how [ this] one got out front so soon. Sca ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Dpendery Appears to have put a significant amount of work generating a computer model of
Machine de Marly. Machine de Marly was an incredibly complex artifact (for its time) built in 1684 to pump water from the river
Seine to the
Palace of Versailles. Dpendery's images are posted in the gallery on
Machine de Marly#Description. I would like to nominate the computer model for Featured picture, but given that there are numerous views, I am not sure what to nominate. Should suggestions be given to Dpendery to improve on the presentation before an image is nominated? I would think that other views could easily be generated. Any recommendations?
File:Machineanim1.JPG,
File:Machmarly3D1.jpg,
File:Machmarly3D2.jpg,
File:Machmarly3D3.jpg. As well as this aninimation on
youtube
Thanks
Jim1138 (
talk)
08:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to pose this, but I would like to propose a vote on changing the voting proceedure with relation to supports. For opposes, the requirement is there currently to have to explain why, otherwise your vote is invalid. For some reason this is not the case for Supports. I am personally very "suspicious" (maybe not the right word) of a few editors who seem to support everything, without giving a reason, and often in complete contrast to the previous votes that state quite valid reasons for opposing. While this of course is entirely their perogative to vote how they see fit, it looks more like they either haven't bothered looking at either the nominated picture and comments, or see something that everyone else hasn't... By forcing said users to say WHY they are supporting, this would at least help other editors make a decision if they are currently sitting on the fence...
There also appears to be an editor who seems to support 7-8 noms in the space of a few mins, on regular occasions, further making me wonder whether they are even looking at the pictures...
So how do we go about putting this to vote? It's a very simple change, minimal effect to the process (especially as most editors already provide reasons), and can only be of benefit to the project... gazhiley 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Good day to you all, Due to my life taking a quite unexpected turn towards insanity (not literally, but overall much more busy with studies and work), my participation here at FP candidates has dropped considerably (I consider it more of a hiatus on Wiki at large.) I now have the time to return and resume helping judge the candidates of a high honor here at Wikipedia.
Now for the meat of the issue. I notice the criteria states that the minimum is 1500px resolution. Is there any other major changes concerning the criteria, rule of thumb, consensus, closing procedures, delisting, or has all stayed relatively the same over the past couple years? If nobody knows, readjustment wont be difficult. But, nonetheless, any answers are appreciated. Thanks! Dusty 777 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I already started doing this, but may as well say:
I'm going to go through the bottom few images in every FP category, and just check for, basically:
These will be nominated for deletion. I'll batch together anything with similar issues - do we really need fifty "Google Art Scan available to replace a much lower quality original" nominations? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jim Morrison (2) probably shouldn't have been promoted: It's been deleted on Commons now. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone tell me if my camera needs to be cleaned based on a picture?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
How many Featured picture candidates can one nominator have up at one time?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
See here for my new FP category proposal. JJARichardson ( talk) 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not an FPC question, but you guys are the picture file experts. A file has been up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Millennium Park. It has been deleted and undeleted pending moving it to a FU listing on WP. However, the source file has moved or something. Is there a way to search flckr.com for the original source file for File:Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is this even here? I thought it was discouraged to even upload Creative Commons or public domain photos to Wikipedia these days. Is this to give second chancers a last ditch hope to have their work featured after it fails on commons where there is a more professional and serious photography core? B137 ( talk) 07:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have recently replaced a Wikipedia featured image on Commons with a higher quality version, but there is some debate about whether the new version is substantially different to the original. Would someone be kind enough to take a look and advise as to whether it should be reverted to the original or not? Thanks Jason.nlw ( talk) 12:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
User "Charlesjsharp" has twice ( here and here) struck out my comments without any explanation. This is not acceptable. 109.151.59.86 ( talk) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion here. Samsara 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_we_move_full-length_movies_from_article_space_to_Commons.3F
While that discussion was kicked off by "think of the children!" concerns, full length movies have been nominated for featured status. I have never supported them because I'm unconvinced of their encyclopedic value, we wouldn't just dump the text of Hamlet into the article. We should take important extracts and contextualise them for the reader, we should do this with video too. - hahnch e n 13:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In the event an image has almost all the support it needs without any opposes why isn't added to the more input needed section? It occurs to me that this would seem a good place to add images that still need supports but have no opposition. I'm sure the issue's been raised before, so I am certain there is a reason why this isn't done, but I can't recall why and frankly its does seem like a good way to get the community behind images that are almost there - but not quite (disclosure: I'm off a second failed attempt that fell short by one Gad-Damn vote, so I'm suggestion and letting off a little steam here. Have a degree of patience with me if I seem cross with any replies). TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I closed it successfully after a good four months. Please let me know of any wrongs...- The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 15:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Could I get more eyes on this? It has 4.5 supports out of 5, an awkward situation. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Last year there was this nom [1] and it had a strange artifact in the beard area, visible at full size. At the time I was guessing an algorithm related issue. Then there was this nom [2] and it had a similar artifact in the upper/left area of the image, but not everywhere. So I thought the artifact might be lens related. Recently we have this nom [3], with no such artifact. The three images have relatively similar cameras, image size and file size. The f-stop of two images are similar. The focal lengths are 220mm, 90mm, and 32mm. So I am still thinking the artifact is lens related. Does anyone know what it is? clues, guesses? Bammesk ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it has to do with the optical coating, anti-reflection coating of the lens, the quality or the lack of it!? Bammesk ( talk) 15:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Stop promoting Theora files, or maybe stop evaluating video files, given the audience at FPC does not understand or care about video formats.
Theora is an outdated, its performance is worse than the non-free H.264 standard, and worse than the free VP8 and VP9 codecs. This means that for a Theora file to have the same quality as a WebM (VP8/VP9) file, it must be larger. If the files are the same size, and the source files are transcoded with the same quality settings, the WebM version will be better.
Compare browser support for Theora vs. WebM. WebM is supported on Android browsers, the most popular operating system in the world. Theora has no mobile support. Mobile usage on Wikimedia projects is roughly a third to a half of the total. Every time a Theora file is served to a mobile browser, Wikimedia must serve a WebM transcoded version. That WebM file will be transcoded from the original Theora upload, downgrading the quality further, it may also be limited in resolution as Wikimedia servers automatically transcode files only to a fixed set of resolutions.
Theora has poor hardware support. I have no real idea which devices have dedicated Theora hardware, Xiph.org is no help. I know that lots of devices have WebM hardware, including some of the most popular mobile chips like Qualcomm's Snapdragon. Hardware support means that there are dedicated circuits which will decode WebM video. Formats lacking hardware support means that the CPU will have to use its general purpose circuits to decode video, this increases CPU and battery usage.
None of this is new, Theora is years out of date, it has never been up to date, being noticeably worse than H264 even when it was new. I was uploading WebM files in 2013. I was opposing Theora FPCs in 2013. In that case, after I pointed out the original had been transcoded at a lower resolution and with an outdated format, the nomination was withdrawn. Yet in 2015, a file was promoted that had the exact same problems.
We should not be promoting Theora files as Wikimedia's best work. They should not be featured. At a minimum standard, video files should be WebM, and preferably using the VP9/Opus codecs. - hahnch e n 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Any chance of a few more eyes on this? It'll be the most annoying of near-misses if it doesn't pass (or at least get voted into a more ambiguous result), given it's just short of quorum because of a disregarded vote. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Our current minimum for featured pictures is "a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height" with some exceptions. Considering the continuing increases in the quality and size of digital photographs even from smartphone cameras, and the trend toward 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) displays, should we make the following changes:
The full set of revised size criteria would read:
"It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction.
-- Pine ✉ 04:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If a picture is not used in any article, then it can't be a featured picture? This rule is not good, if the picture is of best quality, is in public domain and identifies the subject properly. -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anybody take final decision to promote a picture or only administrators decide after voting is over? -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 03:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently stalled candidates include:
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Can pictures uploaded in commons be nominated or only those pictures uploaded in English Wikipedia will be nominated. Another thing is that if a picture in featured picture in Wikimedia commons then is it considered featured picture here, or any separate nomination is done here? -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 11:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict:]
@ Rainbow Archer: In order:
Hope that helps! Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Tried to rationalise Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others. Of them, two were miscategorised, five were Echinoderms, which I split off; the rest I organised a bit. We could possibly split off Nematodes, but, while it has four images, it's really only three subjects - C. elegans has two diagrams, which are a set. Seems a bit small. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask. I've taken some pictures which I would like to propose as FPCs once they've been in their articles (possibly also once I've fine-tuned the contrast etc). The problem is that I took them with a Canon PowerShot SX410 IS, which is compact and has excellent zoom (which means I can get pictures of things that we didn't previously have good pictures of) but has a relatively grainy sensor even at very low ISO speed. Are images like these too grainy: File:Freedom Monument close-up.jpg, File:MS Romantika MOB boat.jpg? (To be clear, I'm only asking about image quality. Composition, encyclopedicness, etc would be for an actual FPC. I just don't want to waste people's time nominating images that don't have a chance). Smurrayinchester 09:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign: NN3 MKII Starter Package for The Photographer.
The Photographer has taken many high quality photos for Wikipedia/Commons, and like many photographers here likes to take high-resolution photos by shooting lots of frames and stitching them together to create a panorama. However, this is very hard to achieve (particularly for interiors and buildings) without having parallax errors that spoil the stitching. The best way is to use a special panoramic head on a tripod. In addition to high-resolution photos, The Photographer also wants to create 180 × 360° panoramas which require a special viewer to appreciate them. Several photographers on Wikipedia/Commons are now creating such images and they are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there. I think that in order to photograph these 180 × 360° images, The Photographer needs to set his goals a little higher and aim to buy an 8mm fisheye lens in addition to the panoramic tripod head.
Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. -- Colin° Talk 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by @ INeverCry:, deleting a legitimate opinion with the comment "Remove unneeded ip nonsense", is a disgrace. If you disagree with my opinion then you can say so. Removing contributions just because you disagree with them is unacceptable. 109.146.248.113 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: My nomination for WP:FPN didn't come in the voting list. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerial photo of Mount Everest from the south. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 06:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are voting periods 13 days?! they have always been 10 days.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Season's greetings! This is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2017 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than eighty 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! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Gif file
in infobox on page HR 8799.
This was uploaded just two days ago - first time I've ever seen a moving image of planets outside our solar system! Someone please nominate it ASAP ("stable" after 7 days, IIRC), since I'm not too familiar with the nomination process...
Here's an interesting description: [8] -- Janke | Talk 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Together with some other German Wikipedians, I have created a project called Wiki Loves Music to improve the quality of musical instrument images on Wikipedia. As part of this project, the image on the right was recently donated to Wikimedia Commons by Yamaha. Before formally nominating it, I would like to hear from you to see if it has any change of being accepted. The reason for this is that I have no previous experience with images on Wikipedia. Also, is there another place on English Wikipedia where I can reach out to Wikipedians interested in high-quality photographs of objects like this one? Thank you, -- Gnom ( talk) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments and feedback on the planned international LGBT+ Wiki Loves Pride featured picture drive are welcome on the discussion page, see link.
The competition encourages high quality photographs from Pride events and other LGBT+ cultural related images to be released to Wikimedia Commons. The goal is to see a jump in the numbers of LGBT+ cultural related photographs nominated for Featured Picture status on all Wikimedia projects.
Help is needed to prepare a banner in your language! See banner translations.
Thank you! -- Fæ ( talk) 11:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've cleared my cache, tried two different browsers (Safari & Firefox), closed them & restarted, but my vote is not showing up on
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Cassius_blue. Oddly enough it shows in edit mode.
It's showing up now. 14:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts?
Atsme
📞
📧
14:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the interim publication manager for The Signpost. I'm requesting help from anyone interested in having FP content appear in the April issue.
So far there is no Featured Content section. I was thinking, if interested, someone could create a Gallery instead, which is more free-form and easy to create. If there is a taker, reply here and I will leave simple directions. We are a week away from publication deadline, so please act soon if you want it in this issue. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The rules say five reviewers in support and the consensus of two-third in support. This produces a mathematical anomaly where an image with 4-0 in support (see my damselfly) is rejected whereas an image with 5-2 or 6-3 would have been promoted. This should, in my opinion, be changed. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 19:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This project is dying unfortunately due to a lack of contributors. There are few nominations and few votes cast. No responses to my comment above. This means that my nominations fall by the wayside as they don't reach the threshold. I can think of two possible improvements. The time allowed for nominations could be longer. I don't think it makes sense to reduce the number of votes needed although there is an inconsistency - see above. Another possibility would be to publicise the FP process under the POTD on the home page. Can that be done? Charlesjsharp ( talk) 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
And... FPC is now empty, with no active nominations. I wasn't really convinced at first about the project dying, but it's now clear that Charlesjsharp's concerns were very much valid. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I came to the talk page to start a similar discussion. Seeing this, I decided to post over at the village pump instead. See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Enwiki's_Featured_Pictures_process. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Should some basic quality be required for the target article? Today's mainpage POTD article, Väike-Maarja Church, is embarrassing: a tiny, poorly sourced stub, originally in pidgin English and still poor after two rounds of copy edits. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures#Picture of the day volunteers needed. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 07:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a limit on nominations, but given there's some attention on FPC amid figuring out short-term and long-term POTD coordination, it seems like a good time to have more than two nominations going on. (i.e. maybe more eyeballs and also perhaps a need for more FPs in general for the sake of POTD). So I've just added 4. If there are objections, just remove the most recent one or two and I'll restore them when the others expire. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkuser (on Commons) has confirmed that Livioandronico2013 has been vote stacking FPC noms on Commons and was socking as of today. While this user has participated in FPC here, he hasn't used his socks to vote on noms. Please keep a look out. I'm happy to block any double voting socks. MER-C 20:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I recently nominated an image for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lady at the Tea Table. However, I'm seeing other editors making their nominations on this article. Will someone with more experience move my nomination page to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates?-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Three of the items on the list are at four supports, no opposes (Carrie Chapman Catt, LED display, Under the chestnut tree). As the list is a bit long, it might be a good idea to try and pull them off the urgents list as soon as they hit five.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs 00:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, two passed.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs
04:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
“ |
|
” |
I'm aware these sorts of discussions can derail a nom, so... Let's do it here?
While I can't imagine that's a problem in this case, where the image is so well recreated, I think that's a little dangerous for OTHER nominations: What if the article editors reject the change, and we instantly end up with an unused FP? This seems a dangerous rule, especially for things like (for example) the Mary Cassatt image also being D&R'd at the moment, where there's a major change in appearance.
I think it's most dangerous where the image is rarely used. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 05:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but could I get a few more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more eyes on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Assassination of Lincoln and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Lorimer Worden with the Tiffany & Co Sword, but, y'know, it's December, participation is down. What happens, happens. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I should probably note that I talk about my work here (well, the parts relevant to the project) over at WP:Women in Red. If anyone feels, however, that there is the slightest bit of impropriety in how I discuss it, please let me know. My goal is to inform, not to canvass, but I worry any informing can lead to accidental canvassing. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 23:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone design a delist and replace? There's a facility in VI to do it. I'd be happy to support the current noms if the FP nominator (not the author) promises to delist once the new image is promoted. Can we agree to that and add to nomination guidelines? Charlesjsharp ( talk) 12:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg, an attempt to turn a nomination into a delist and replace ended with nothing delisted and nothing promoted, despite strong support for the image and strong support for delisting.
One might suggest that the nomination should have begun as a delist and replace, but if it had, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Corvus coronoides - Doughboy Head.jpg would have failed, because it was noted that the image being suggested as a replacement was well-suited to an Aboriginal mythology article it appeared in, more than the new image would have been.
One might then say that one should just not expect delisting to take place in a nomination, and that any attempt to try should be politely and firmly shut down. In Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg, people are refusing to vote for the image, because they feel the other needs delisted.
One could suggest delisting first. However, that has historically been a huge no-no, as asking for an image to be delisted on the promise of another being nominated later is... awkward, to say the least.
So... how to move forwards. First of all, I think we can dismiss the idea that there should only be one featured picture per article. Aida has five: Two original set designs from either the first or a very early production (I'm not sure), one photo from a modern production, an illustration of Verdi conducting the opera from press of the time, and (perhaps weakest but also the oldest FP) an American poster advertising the opera. Other than the last, I don't think anyone would really advocate against that sort of coverage, and all limiting the number of FPs would do would be to more or less assure that only one image per article was of top quality.
I do think they need to fill different roles, though, or at least have different content, but even with the birds under discussion, gender variance, juvenile plumage, and even just different angles might be enough to justify more than one FP.
I think there's two possibilities: First of all, we make an agreed procedure for handling a nomination that turns into a delist and replace. (I, at least, don't think they should go the other way, ever, because in a delist and replace nom, I believe that, say, four D&Rs and one delist means the image will be delisted. Delist is the predominant of the two. @ Armbrust:?) I'd advocate against this for one reason: Those first two nominations I linked... were a fucking pain in the arse. I tend to handle FPC urgents a lot of the time, so I was poking people on their talk page, asking them to clarify their opinions, to state whether they would be happy with it becoming a D&R, all that kind of thing. It turned a simple, straightforwards nomination into a confusing mess.
I think the better possibility is to simply state "play the ball where it lies". Don't disrupt a nomination, just either - if the image has been replaced already - start a delist yourself, or wait until the nomination closes and start a delist. Because changing a nomination half-way through is awkward, and requires chasing up everyone who voted, and has a high chance of the whole nomination getting closed in confusion.
Now, the downside of my suggestion is that very marginally-used FPs will hang on if we don't keep up on it, but there's a really simple solution:
Go to the file description page of the less-favoured image. Check the usages. As long as there's no usage where the old image would be preferable (for example, if it was being used to show wildlife in the location that the older image was shot at, but not the newer), you can clear out the usages, and then, frankly, the problem will sort itself out eventually. And if there is a usage where the old image is really well suited, well, then, it should remain an FP. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waldseemüller map says the image was promoted to FP, but I don't see any template. What happened? Thanks, Yann ( talk) 07:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Although some are technically first-class compositions, lately we've had a surfeit of small-animal photos and not enough of everything else under the sun, IMO. Sca ( talk) 14:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
While I don't agree with I can only nominate what I photograph
(lots of people nominate other people's images), that's typically something we do when we don't have a great prospect ready in our personal uploads. The "problem" is just that Charles is too damn prolific. :) I certainly can't blame him or anyone else for continuing to nominate wildlife as long as he has a steady stream of featurable pictures. Unless we're going to implement a requirement that for every X self-nominations, you must nominate 1 of someone else's, it seems like the only remedy is for others to nominate more, and/or to promote more of what's nominated. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've been trying to have some variety in my nominations and am especially looking out for images that are unusual both in subject and region of the world. One can keep an eye on Commons FPC and mine their FPs and FP creators for images to nominate. On a somewhat related note, we're going to have at least 24 successful FPCs this month. MER-C 10:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thinking more holistically, I've put together a list of topics that I feel are underrepresented in our current collection of FPs. Am I overlooking something? MER-C 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the Turgot map of Paris segments get promoted as a set. Well, surprised that people supported it, that is. It's a wonderful image, to be sure, but when there's a single big image and lots of smaller ones it seems like for enwiki's FPC process (as opposed to Commons), only the single one would make sense. Isn't part of the purpose of this FPC to produce images for the main page, to have images that can stand on their own? Most sets I'm familiar with are related, but not interdependent segments. We can hardly put one of the segments on the main page, right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: raising this here, as I suspect nobody watches the template talk page
I like the handy {{ FPC urgents}} template up at the top of the page. We've been wavering on the edge of having sufficient participation at FPC for some time now, and that can help draw attention where it's needed. I'd like to see its use standardized, though, rather than it used for listing the nominations of anyone who cares to edit the template. For example, for a 10-day nomination, I cannot imagine any definition of "urgent" that would apply to the first 5 days of that nomination. Thus my proposal would be for something to be in the last 5 days of the nomination and for it to be neither clearly passing (5+ support votes with <=1 opposed) nor clearly failing (at least 3 opposes and >= 3 supports). I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air, of course.
The context is the addition of an image the day after it was nominated. I removed it and it was restored. If the standard is simply that it's unresolved, regardless of the time, I worry that the template would become unuseful or, again, only useful to the people who use it (which, granted, is going to be true to some degree regardless). Not intending to slight Adam, who added the image -- I can understand, especially given shoddy turnouts at many FPCs, the reasoning; I'd just like to see it standardized, if possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Is my restoration of File:Portrait of Commander C. R. Perry Rodgers, officer of the Federal Navy LOC cwpb.05822- Restored.jpg good enough that I could nominate it? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Of eighteen nominations, two are currently passing. That's... not a good ratio, and most of the ones that aren't simply don't have a quorum. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:14, 31 January 2019 (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. |
Just a heads up: The Wikicup competition is talking about making a featured picture - and I don't mean just a nomination, a user-created/restored FP - worth less than a moderately sized did you know with a small bonus multiplier. This caps a competition in which featured pictures have been bashed for the last four months, with people claiming they should be pulled out of the competition because articles are supposedly more important, and that anyone doing well in the competition due to featured pictures is a sign that vigourous measures must be taken to put a stop to any such possibility happening again.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup&diff=next&oldid=608844421#Withdrawing
"While I think it's (for lack of a better word) weak to withdraw, I mostly agree with Hink. How much value does the FP have to wiki?' I don't think they should be disallowed, but there should be some limit. To be fair, you cold get points for a bunch articles through GT's, but GT's are only worth 3. As for bonus points, I think it helps level the playing field somewhat, but it's worth nothing that Hink's (and mines) editing area has limited bonus points opportunities."
There's quite a lot more in that line. At one point it's said that FPs have "little content involved".
Frankly, I think it's time to shut down the Wikicup. It's become toxic. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This nom is an hour and a half away from being closed. It would be nice if it could get another comment or two. Thanks, -- Jakob ( talk) 18:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank the regular and occasional FP reviewers. Without your patience (for some large and sometimes esoteric sets of material), success in the WikiCup2014 would not have been possible. I hope you found some of it interesting and learned something new (I know I have). More to come, at a more reasonable pace...-- Godot13 ( talk) 23:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Could we please get a few more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg
This featured image has a license tag on it ("This image is the work of Luc Viatour
Please credit it with : Luc Viatour / www.Lucnix.be in the immediate vicinity of the image. A link to my website www.lucnix.be is much appreciated but not mandatory.
An email to UserIconMail.svg Viatour Luc would be appreciated too.
Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me UserIconMail.svgViatour Luc to negotiate terms.") yet is marked as being in the PD, despite explicitly stating "it is not in the public domain". I am a little confused. If this image is not in the public domain, should be it a featured image, or even hosted on WP? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I know this is way below the usual size requirements, but I don't see in this case that there is any benefit in its being much bigger than it is. Would it be eligible for nomination? I don't want to bother if it would immediately fail on grounds of size.
217.44.130.43 (
talk)
22:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that creator(s) (including any later modifications by other editors aka retouchers) and original nominator (of successful nomination) should be notified as a requirement. Other Wikipedia processes have similar notification requirements. Comments welcome. Samsara 08:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In the case of this delist nomination, the creator was notified two days after the start of the nomination, and I don't see the nominator having been notified. Additionally, I've just inserted the link to the old nom, which was previously missing. I've also suggested to the nominator that the creator can be contacted through a number of means, including the email listed on her website, to draw attention to the identified fixable problems. I think there might be good cause for a suspension of the nom. Samsara 04:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As you may know, the length of nominations goes up to 13 days in December, due to fewer people being around, then drops back to 10 for the rest of the year. This left an awkward period where nominations started on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd of January would end before the ones from the 31st of January. I've fixed this by having all nominations from those days close just after midnight on 14 January. I think the code works, it's hard to test for other days, though, so let me know if any problems are noted on the 4th. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the adjacent picture for possible nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.150.143 ( talk) 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As this is a gray area, I would like to propose a rule for the rare occurrences where three or more co-nominators may decide to jointly put up an image or set of images for FPC. In the unlikely case of FPC nominations with three or more nominators, the number of support votes to pass should be twice the number of nominators. One or two nominators would not require any change in approach. Three nominators would require six support votes, four nominators would require 8 supports votes, and so on. It seems this would be the only way to allow for meaningful discussion and review of the merits of the nomination. Otherwise, five nominators (which could occur in the future based on a current nomination) has the ability to propose a candidate and pass it without any community involvement, short of mass opposition.-- Godot13 ( talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If a photo was uploaded from Flickr under CC BY 2.0, but the account and photo has since been deleted, will there be a problem nominating it? APK whisper in my ear 12:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The picture was not promoted at this discussion due to its lack of EV. Currently, the article in which it is used gives three paragraphs about the dome. Maybe the objections raised are no longer valid? -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 04:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate a few more eyes on this one. It's in that awkward limbo, just short of quorum, where you'd rather have a definite answer.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
09:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have done in past years, I will be nominating Commons 2014 PotY candidates (2014 Featured Pictures) that are of interest to the Greater Chicago metropolitan area. I am not judging any of these and am just asking you to give your opinions of the images that I find may be somewhat interesting to WP:CHICAGO.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few at the moment. Might be worth going through. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 07:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we need an update in the template, specially in the format section? Are those 10000X200/260 needed? Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the nature given flesh 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm venturing into a completely new area of Wikipedia, I beg your patience (I may be asking in the wrong area). I create article about historical recordings, and occasionally take pictures of the records from my collection. Does anyone think these have potential for featured picture status? For example: File:Little Marvel 2 sizes.JPG used on article Little Marvel. Thanks you! 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't all candidates be archived, regardless of the amount of votes they've received? I was surprised to see that this candidate was deleted Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl Reading a Letter by an Open Window - Google Art Project.jpg. – Editør ( talk) 17:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This got put up just before a flood of other nominations, and rather got buried. Could I beg a few more eyes on it? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not even a month has passed when we used to have over 60 noms in 10 days. As of now, 25 or less. Is it that our usual nominators are withdrawing or is it that our 5000th FP began a stable graph? - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have about a couple dozen QIs of streams and creeks on Commons that are in articles. It's obviously impossible to show the entire length of a creek in one picture since a) they tend to be long and not very wide, b)they aren't straight lines, and c) they are often obscured by forests and the like. It seems that many of the FP people are sticklers for showing the entire subject, so do any of these have a chance of passing? I have so many failed nominations that I wanted to ask here so it doesn't look like I'm disrupting the FPC process. -- Jakob ( talk) 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So what was our 5,000 FP? We apparently reached it, but I have no idea who the honor went to. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It was not even three months before Chris proposed a change in the rule about the number of edits. Though we may not follow Commons altogether as it is, do anyone fell that there is a necessity for a threshold of nominations per user, i.e. a single user can nominate a maximum of 5 or 7 nominations (including delists) at a time? I was against this till some days before, as you can scroll up and see, but have changed my mind since. - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC) @ Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@ Sagaciousphil, Sca, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons says: Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.
Hence I would say that only a maximum of five active nominations by the same user, including delists, are to be allowed. - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 09:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that, in the past two weeks, we've had an influx of three or so editors whose first or early edits were to FPC. It's rather... suspicious. Does anyone feel we should initiate a minimum number of edits rule, like on Commons? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ten days in, there looks to be a bit of support. Any thoughts of using wording similar to on Commons? "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. All editors can vote for their own nominations." Or do we want to go for more, say 100? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
On WP:ITNC, where this user also participates, instructions for Voicing an opinion on an item include the admonition –
This seems an eminently reasonable directive. If a user is in favor of including/promoting an item, it's incumbent on that user to share at least something of his or her reasoning with colleagues. (In some contexts, just a simple word or phrase will do.)
At present (13:00 UTC, April 9) on FPC, one user has lodged a total of 48 support votes containing no reason or rationale. That user appears to have simply voted in favor of every nomination in the current FPC queue, without once providing an explanation or argument. This does not support a collegial reasoning process, and IMO is not helpful to the project.
I suggest we adopt instructions similar to those at WP:ITNC regarding votes, and disregard or disqualify those that contain no rationale whatever.
@ Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@ Sagaciousphil, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: Comments? Sca ( talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I have voted simply "Support", mainly for photographs. I'm not an expert in photos, so I don't see the imperfections that experts do. I just support the nomination if the photo is interesting, seems to have EV, has fairly good composition, and looks clear and sharp. I was recently jumped on for saying an image was a good quality image, so I don't say that any more. If you would prefer that I not vote on photos at all, let me know. CorinneSD ( talk) 15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're up to 2,500 words. Any consensus? Should I pack up my troubles in my old kit bag and keep
smilin'?
Sca (
talk)
23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy almost-the-weekend. In light of the foregoing discussion, I could support a non-mandatory advisory requesting (or encouraging) users to explain support votes, and perhaps explaining that comments about specific aspects of an FP nom may be helpful to others – plus retaining the rule requiring them to explain oppose votes in terms of FP criteria.
So anyway:
Sca ( talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD ( talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD ( talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
So, here's where we are:
Sca ( talk) 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some useless talks. This is a section for voting. Discussions above. -
The Herald
the joy of the LORD
my strength
16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Can this be an FP?-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 06:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, We have File:March on Washington - Reflecting Pool.jpg, which is bigger and much better. Should we do a "Delist and replace"? Regards, Yann ( talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
Do anyone feels that we should, here at FPC, should have some coordinators as FAC and FLC have it? Someone like Armbrust (who 24X7 closes our noms), who could make out some clear cut consensus and the like sometimes. How do you all feel? -
The Herald •
the joy of the LORD
my strength
05:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SG-1000. It will expired in less than 12 hours, and it's currently failing on quorum. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I light of the fact that this FPC didn't even get a single user comment I'd like to propose that in such cases the FPC in question be either reintroduce to the lineup from the top of the page with a time stamp to reflect the new date of closure or moved to the section where more input is required to find consensus. I think it unfair that an FPC should fail do the lack of participation from anyone other than the nominator, and would like FPCs in such case to get at least on person's comment and/ or iVote before being close to help gauge where other people stand on the matter of the nomination. Would anyone here support such a proposal? (and for that matter has this even been proposed before?) TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a fundamental failure to be a featured picture that has to be sufficient grounds to delist, and we should write that into the rules. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone; thanks to an appearance at DYK, I've recently come across Commons user BigHead, who is professional photographer Augustas Didžgalvis. His portraits are fantastic (though he prefers a little less head room than is typically preferred at FPC), and cover some underrepresented topics. However, he uploads his portraits at a size of 1500 by 1000, so they're a little under our size requirements. I assume part of the motivation for this is that it isn't clear why much bigger than that would be helpful for a portrait, unless we're looking to count hairs missed while shaving or pores on the nose. I suppose what I'm asking is whether we feel that these images would be suitable to nominate here; I've included a few highlights below. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I take some pretty decent pictures, but I just use a mid-priced digital camera. Are the pictures that get FP all from professional cameras, or can they also be from ones that cost under $300? RO (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver I think you would struggle to create an FP with a compact camera, but you certainly don't need professional equipment. Until last year, I had an entry-level consumer DSLR bought in 2010 and have taken many featured pictures with it. The biggest factors on quality are the size of the image sensor (bigger is better) and the cost of the lenses. If you want a compact camera, have a look at something like the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100, which you might find at around $400 for the original version (there are newer more expensive versions of that camera). That fits a relatively large 1" sensor into a pocketable camera body. Alternatively, look at getting one of last year's (or the year before last) DSLRs. An entry-level Nikon or Canon DSLR with kit lens would also be about $400 if you avoid looking at the very latest models. And to be honest, the latest Nikon/Canon DSLRs aren't very different from those made a couple of years ago. If you can't spend more than $300 then it is probably best to look for a second hand DSLR. But beware the photography can get expensive as a hobby and before you know it, you'll have bought extra software for your PC and more lenses, a bag, tripod, flash, etc, etc. Photography is also more than just about the equipment, and FP demands more than just "decent" images -- they are supposed to be among the finest. -- Colin° Talk 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon proposes that to be the case. It's one of those stealth proposals - not notified anyone affected by it, just going around and trying to give the illusion of some support. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's monthly newsletter The Bugle (along with Ian Rose), and we're hoping to run a group interview in next month's edition with editors who frequently work on military history-related featured pictures. I've invited several editors to take part, but have doubtlessly missed some people. As such, I'd like to extend an open invitation to editors who are interested in participating to post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2015/Interview by 14 August. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
... as to how [ this] one got out front so soon. Sca ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Dpendery Appears to have put a significant amount of work generating a computer model of
Machine de Marly. Machine de Marly was an incredibly complex artifact (for its time) built in 1684 to pump water from the river
Seine to the
Palace of Versailles. Dpendery's images are posted in the gallery on
Machine de Marly#Description. I would like to nominate the computer model for Featured picture, but given that there are numerous views, I am not sure what to nominate. Should suggestions be given to Dpendery to improve on the presentation before an image is nominated? I would think that other views could easily be generated. Any recommendations?
File:Machineanim1.JPG,
File:Machmarly3D1.jpg,
File:Machmarly3D2.jpg,
File:Machmarly3D3.jpg. As well as this aninimation on
youtube
Thanks
Jim1138 (
talk)
08:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to pose this, but I would like to propose a vote on changing the voting proceedure with relation to supports. For opposes, the requirement is there currently to have to explain why, otherwise your vote is invalid. For some reason this is not the case for Supports. I am personally very "suspicious" (maybe not the right word) of a few editors who seem to support everything, without giving a reason, and often in complete contrast to the previous votes that state quite valid reasons for opposing. While this of course is entirely their perogative to vote how they see fit, it looks more like they either haven't bothered looking at either the nominated picture and comments, or see something that everyone else hasn't... By forcing said users to say WHY they are supporting, this would at least help other editors make a decision if they are currently sitting on the fence...
There also appears to be an editor who seems to support 7-8 noms in the space of a few mins, on regular occasions, further making me wonder whether they are even looking at the pictures...
So how do we go about putting this to vote? It's a very simple change, minimal effect to the process (especially as most editors already provide reasons), and can only be of benefit to the project... gazhiley 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Good day to you all, Due to my life taking a quite unexpected turn towards insanity (not literally, but overall much more busy with studies and work), my participation here at FP candidates has dropped considerably (I consider it more of a hiatus on Wiki at large.) I now have the time to return and resume helping judge the candidates of a high honor here at Wikipedia.
Now for the meat of the issue. I notice the criteria states that the minimum is 1500px resolution. Is there any other major changes concerning the criteria, rule of thumb, consensus, closing procedures, delisting, or has all stayed relatively the same over the past couple years? If nobody knows, readjustment wont be difficult. But, nonetheless, any answers are appreciated. Thanks! Dusty 777 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I already started doing this, but may as well say:
I'm going to go through the bottom few images in every FP category, and just check for, basically:
These will be nominated for deletion. I'll batch together anything with similar issues - do we really need fifty "Google Art Scan available to replace a much lower quality original" nominations? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jim Morrison (2) probably shouldn't have been promoted: It's been deleted on Commons now. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone tell me if my camera needs to be cleaned based on a picture?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
How many Featured picture candidates can one nominator have up at one time?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
See here for my new FP category proposal. JJARichardson ( talk) 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not an FPC question, but you guys are the picture file experts. A file has been up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Millennium Park. It has been deleted and undeleted pending moving it to a FU listing on WP. However, the source file has moved or something. Is there a way to search flckr.com for the original source file for File:Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is this even here? I thought it was discouraged to even upload Creative Commons or public domain photos to Wikipedia these days. Is this to give second chancers a last ditch hope to have their work featured after it fails on commons where there is a more professional and serious photography core? B137 ( talk) 07:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have recently replaced a Wikipedia featured image on Commons with a higher quality version, but there is some debate about whether the new version is substantially different to the original. Would someone be kind enough to take a look and advise as to whether it should be reverted to the original or not? Thanks Jason.nlw ( talk) 12:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
User "Charlesjsharp" has twice ( here and here) struck out my comments without any explanation. This is not acceptable. 109.151.59.86 ( talk) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion here. Samsara 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_we_move_full-length_movies_from_article_space_to_Commons.3F
While that discussion was kicked off by "think of the children!" concerns, full length movies have been nominated for featured status. I have never supported them because I'm unconvinced of their encyclopedic value, we wouldn't just dump the text of Hamlet into the article. We should take important extracts and contextualise them for the reader, we should do this with video too. - hahnch e n 13:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In the event an image has almost all the support it needs without any opposes why isn't added to the more input needed section? It occurs to me that this would seem a good place to add images that still need supports but have no opposition. I'm sure the issue's been raised before, so I am certain there is a reason why this isn't done, but I can't recall why and frankly its does seem like a good way to get the community behind images that are almost there - but not quite (disclosure: I'm off a second failed attempt that fell short by one Gad-Damn vote, so I'm suggestion and letting off a little steam here. Have a degree of patience with me if I seem cross with any replies). TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I closed it successfully after a good four months. Please let me know of any wrongs...- The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 15:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Could I get more eyes on this? It has 4.5 supports out of 5, an awkward situation. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Last year there was this nom [1] and it had a strange artifact in the beard area, visible at full size. At the time I was guessing an algorithm related issue. Then there was this nom [2] and it had a similar artifact in the upper/left area of the image, but not everywhere. So I thought the artifact might be lens related. Recently we have this nom [3], with no such artifact. The three images have relatively similar cameras, image size and file size. The f-stop of two images are similar. The focal lengths are 220mm, 90mm, and 32mm. So I am still thinking the artifact is lens related. Does anyone know what it is? clues, guesses? Bammesk ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it has to do with the optical coating, anti-reflection coating of the lens, the quality or the lack of it!? Bammesk ( talk) 15:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Stop promoting Theora files, or maybe stop evaluating video files, given the audience at FPC does not understand or care about video formats.
Theora is an outdated, its performance is worse than the non-free H.264 standard, and worse than the free VP8 and VP9 codecs. This means that for a Theora file to have the same quality as a WebM (VP8/VP9) file, it must be larger. If the files are the same size, and the source files are transcoded with the same quality settings, the WebM version will be better.
Compare browser support for Theora vs. WebM. WebM is supported on Android browsers, the most popular operating system in the world. Theora has no mobile support. Mobile usage on Wikimedia projects is roughly a third to a half of the total. Every time a Theora file is served to a mobile browser, Wikimedia must serve a WebM transcoded version. That WebM file will be transcoded from the original Theora upload, downgrading the quality further, it may also be limited in resolution as Wikimedia servers automatically transcode files only to a fixed set of resolutions.
Theora has poor hardware support. I have no real idea which devices have dedicated Theora hardware, Xiph.org is no help. I know that lots of devices have WebM hardware, including some of the most popular mobile chips like Qualcomm's Snapdragon. Hardware support means that there are dedicated circuits which will decode WebM video. Formats lacking hardware support means that the CPU will have to use its general purpose circuits to decode video, this increases CPU and battery usage.
None of this is new, Theora is years out of date, it has never been up to date, being noticeably worse than H264 even when it was new. I was uploading WebM files in 2013. I was opposing Theora FPCs in 2013. In that case, after I pointed out the original had been transcoded at a lower resolution and with an outdated format, the nomination was withdrawn. Yet in 2015, a file was promoted that had the exact same problems.
We should not be promoting Theora files as Wikimedia's best work. They should not be featured. At a minimum standard, video files should be WebM, and preferably using the VP9/Opus codecs. - hahnch e n 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Any chance of a few more eyes on this? It'll be the most annoying of near-misses if it doesn't pass (or at least get voted into a more ambiguous result), given it's just short of quorum because of a disregarded vote. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Our current minimum for featured pictures is "a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height" with some exceptions. Considering the continuing increases in the quality and size of digital photographs even from smartphone cameras, and the trend toward 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) displays, should we make the following changes:
The full set of revised size criteria would read:
"It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction.
-- Pine ✉ 04:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If a picture is not used in any article, then it can't be a featured picture? This rule is not good, if the picture is of best quality, is in public domain and identifies the subject properly. -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anybody take final decision to promote a picture or only administrators decide after voting is over? -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 03:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently stalled candidates include:
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Can pictures uploaded in commons be nominated or only those pictures uploaded in English Wikipedia will be nominated. Another thing is that if a picture in featured picture in Wikimedia commons then is it considered featured picture here, or any separate nomination is done here? -- Rainbow Archer ( talk) 11:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict:]
@ Rainbow Archer: In order:
Hope that helps! Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Tried to rationalise Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others. Of them, two were miscategorised, five were Echinoderms, which I split off; the rest I organised a bit. We could possibly split off Nematodes, but, while it has four images, it's really only three subjects - C. elegans has two diagrams, which are a set. Seems a bit small. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask. I've taken some pictures which I would like to propose as FPCs once they've been in their articles (possibly also once I've fine-tuned the contrast etc). The problem is that I took them with a Canon PowerShot SX410 IS, which is compact and has excellent zoom (which means I can get pictures of things that we didn't previously have good pictures of) but has a relatively grainy sensor even at very low ISO speed. Are images like these too grainy: File:Freedom Monument close-up.jpg, File:MS Romantika MOB boat.jpg? (To be clear, I'm only asking about image quality. Composition, encyclopedicness, etc would be for an actual FPC. I just don't want to waste people's time nominating images that don't have a chance). Smurrayinchester 09:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign: NN3 MKII Starter Package for The Photographer.
The Photographer has taken many high quality photos for Wikipedia/Commons, and like many photographers here likes to take high-resolution photos by shooting lots of frames and stitching them together to create a panorama. However, this is very hard to achieve (particularly for interiors and buildings) without having parallax errors that spoil the stitching. The best way is to use a special panoramic head on a tripod. In addition to high-resolution photos, The Photographer also wants to create 180 × 360° panoramas which require a special viewer to appreciate them. Several photographers on Wikipedia/Commons are now creating such images and they are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there. I think that in order to photograph these 180 × 360° images, The Photographer needs to set his goals a little higher and aim to buy an 8mm fisheye lens in addition to the panoramic tripod head.
Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. -- Colin° Talk 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by @ INeverCry:, deleting a legitimate opinion with the comment "Remove unneeded ip nonsense", is a disgrace. If you disagree with my opinion then you can say so. Removing contributions just because you disagree with them is unacceptable. 109.146.248.113 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: My nomination for WP:FPN didn't come in the voting list. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerial photo of Mount Everest from the south. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 06:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are voting periods 13 days?! they have always been 10 days.
Bammesk (
talk)
01:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Season's greetings! This is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2017 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than eighty 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! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Gif file
in infobox on page HR 8799.
This was uploaded just two days ago - first time I've ever seen a moving image of planets outside our solar system! Someone please nominate it ASAP ("stable" after 7 days, IIRC), since I'm not too familiar with the nomination process...
Here's an interesting description: [8] -- Janke | Talk 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Together with some other German Wikipedians, I have created a project called Wiki Loves Music to improve the quality of musical instrument images on Wikipedia. As part of this project, the image on the right was recently donated to Wikimedia Commons by Yamaha. Before formally nominating it, I would like to hear from you to see if it has any change of being accepted. The reason for this is that I have no previous experience with images on Wikipedia. Also, is there another place on English Wikipedia where I can reach out to Wikipedians interested in high-quality photographs of objects like this one? Thank you, -- Gnom ( talk) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments and feedback on the planned international LGBT+ Wiki Loves Pride featured picture drive are welcome on the discussion page, see link.
The competition encourages high quality photographs from Pride events and other LGBT+ cultural related images to be released to Wikimedia Commons. The goal is to see a jump in the numbers of LGBT+ cultural related photographs nominated for Featured Picture status on all Wikimedia projects.
Help is needed to prepare a banner in your language! See banner translations.
Thank you! -- Fæ ( talk) 11:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've cleared my cache, tried two different browsers (Safari & Firefox), closed them & restarted, but my vote is not showing up on
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Cassius_blue. Oddly enough it shows in edit mode.
It's showing up now. 14:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts?
Atsme
📞
📧
14:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the interim publication manager for The Signpost. I'm requesting help from anyone interested in having FP content appear in the April issue.
So far there is no Featured Content section. I was thinking, if interested, someone could create a Gallery instead, which is more free-form and easy to create. If there is a taker, reply here and I will leave simple directions. We are a week away from publication deadline, so please act soon if you want it in this issue. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The rules say five reviewers in support and the consensus of two-third in support. This produces a mathematical anomaly where an image with 4-0 in support (see my damselfly) is rejected whereas an image with 5-2 or 6-3 would have been promoted. This should, in my opinion, be changed. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 19:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This project is dying unfortunately due to a lack of contributors. There are few nominations and few votes cast. No responses to my comment above. This means that my nominations fall by the wayside as they don't reach the threshold. I can think of two possible improvements. The time allowed for nominations could be longer. I don't think it makes sense to reduce the number of votes needed although there is an inconsistency - see above. Another possibility would be to publicise the FP process under the POTD on the home page. Can that be done? Charlesjsharp ( talk) 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
And... FPC is now empty, with no active nominations. I wasn't really convinced at first about the project dying, but it's now clear that Charlesjsharp's concerns were very much valid. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I came to the talk page to start a similar discussion. Seeing this, I decided to post over at the village pump instead. See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Enwiki's_Featured_Pictures_process. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Should some basic quality be required for the target article? Today's mainpage POTD article, Väike-Maarja Church, is embarrassing: a tiny, poorly sourced stub, originally in pidgin English and still poor after two rounds of copy edits. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures#Picture of the day volunteers needed. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 07:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a limit on nominations, but given there's some attention on FPC amid figuring out short-term and long-term POTD coordination, it seems like a good time to have more than two nominations going on. (i.e. maybe more eyeballs and also perhaps a need for more FPs in general for the sake of POTD). So I've just added 4. If there are objections, just remove the most recent one or two and I'll restore them when the others expire. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkuser (on Commons) has confirmed that Livioandronico2013 has been vote stacking FPC noms on Commons and was socking as of today. While this user has participated in FPC here, he hasn't used his socks to vote on noms. Please keep a look out. I'm happy to block any double voting socks. MER-C 20:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I recently nominated an image for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lady at the Tea Table. However, I'm seeing other editors making their nominations on this article. Will someone with more experience move my nomination page to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates?-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Three of the items on the list are at four supports, no opposes (Carrie Chapman Catt, LED display, Under the chestnut tree). As the list is a bit long, it might be a good idea to try and pull them off the urgents list as soon as they hit five.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs 00:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, two passed.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs
04:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
“ |
|
” |
I'm aware these sorts of discussions can derail a nom, so... Let's do it here?
While I can't imagine that's a problem in this case, where the image is so well recreated, I think that's a little dangerous for OTHER nominations: What if the article editors reject the change, and we instantly end up with an unused FP? This seems a dangerous rule, especially for things like (for example) the Mary Cassatt image also being D&R'd at the moment, where there's a major change in appearance.
I think it's most dangerous where the image is rarely used. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 05:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but could I get a few more eyes on this? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more eyes on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Assassination of Lincoln and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Lorimer Worden with the Tiffany & Co Sword, but, y'know, it's December, participation is down. What happens, happens. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I should probably note that I talk about my work here (well, the parts relevant to the project) over at WP:Women in Red. If anyone feels, however, that there is the slightest bit of impropriety in how I discuss it, please let me know. My goal is to inform, not to canvass, but I worry any informing can lead to accidental canvassing. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 23:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone design a delist and replace? There's a facility in VI to do it. I'd be happy to support the current noms if the FP nominator (not the author) promises to delist once the new image is promoted. Can we agree to that and add to nomination guidelines? Charlesjsharp ( talk) 12:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg, an attempt to turn a nomination into a delist and replace ended with nothing delisted and nothing promoted, despite strong support for the image and strong support for delisting.
One might suggest that the nomination should have begun as a delist and replace, but if it had, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Corvus coronoides - Doughboy Head.jpg would have failed, because it was noted that the image being suggested as a replacement was well-suited to an Aboriginal mythology article it appeared in, more than the new image would have been.
One might then say that one should just not expect delisting to take place in a nomination, and that any attempt to try should be politely and firmly shut down. In Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg, people are refusing to vote for the image, because they feel the other needs delisted.
One could suggest delisting first. However, that has historically been a huge no-no, as asking for an image to be delisted on the promise of another being nominated later is... awkward, to say the least.
So... how to move forwards. First of all, I think we can dismiss the idea that there should only be one featured picture per article. Aida has five: Two original set designs from either the first or a very early production (I'm not sure), one photo from a modern production, an illustration of Verdi conducting the opera from press of the time, and (perhaps weakest but also the oldest FP) an American poster advertising the opera. Other than the last, I don't think anyone would really advocate against that sort of coverage, and all limiting the number of FPs would do would be to more or less assure that only one image per article was of top quality.
I do think they need to fill different roles, though, or at least have different content, but even with the birds under discussion, gender variance, juvenile plumage, and even just different angles might be enough to justify more than one FP.
I think there's two possibilities: First of all, we make an agreed procedure for handling a nomination that turns into a delist and replace. (I, at least, don't think they should go the other way, ever, because in a delist and replace nom, I believe that, say, four D&Rs and one delist means the image will be delisted. Delist is the predominant of the two. @ Armbrust:?) I'd advocate against this for one reason: Those first two nominations I linked... were a fucking pain in the arse. I tend to handle FPC urgents a lot of the time, so I was poking people on their talk page, asking them to clarify their opinions, to state whether they would be happy with it becoming a D&R, all that kind of thing. It turned a simple, straightforwards nomination into a confusing mess.
I think the better possibility is to simply state "play the ball where it lies". Don't disrupt a nomination, just either - if the image has been replaced already - start a delist yourself, or wait until the nomination closes and start a delist. Because changing a nomination half-way through is awkward, and requires chasing up everyone who voted, and has a high chance of the whole nomination getting closed in confusion.
Now, the downside of my suggestion is that very marginally-used FPs will hang on if we don't keep up on it, but there's a really simple solution:
Go to the file description page of the less-favoured image. Check the usages. As long as there's no usage where the old image would be preferable (for example, if it was being used to show wildlife in the location that the older image was shot at, but not the newer), you can clear out the usages, and then, frankly, the problem will sort itself out eventually. And if there is a usage where the old image is really well suited, well, then, it should remain an FP. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waldseemüller map says the image was promoted to FP, but I don't see any template. What happened? Thanks, Yann ( talk) 07:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Although some are technically first-class compositions, lately we've had a surfeit of small-animal photos and not enough of everything else under the sun, IMO. Sca ( talk) 14:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
While I don't agree with I can only nominate what I photograph
(lots of people nominate other people's images), that's typically something we do when we don't have a great prospect ready in our personal uploads. The "problem" is just that Charles is too damn prolific. :) I certainly can't blame him or anyone else for continuing to nominate wildlife as long as he has a steady stream of featurable pictures. Unless we're going to implement a requirement that for every X self-nominations, you must nominate 1 of someone else's, it seems like the only remedy is for others to nominate more, and/or to promote more of what's nominated. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've been trying to have some variety in my nominations and am especially looking out for images that are unusual both in subject and region of the world. One can keep an eye on Commons FPC and mine their FPs and FP creators for images to nominate. On a somewhat related note, we're going to have at least 24 successful FPCs this month. MER-C 10:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thinking more holistically, I've put together a list of topics that I feel are underrepresented in our current collection of FPs. Am I overlooking something? MER-C 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the Turgot map of Paris segments get promoted as a set. Well, surprised that people supported it, that is. It's a wonderful image, to be sure, but when there's a single big image and lots of smaller ones it seems like for enwiki's FPC process (as opposed to Commons), only the single one would make sense. Isn't part of the purpose of this FPC to produce images for the main page, to have images that can stand on their own? Most sets I'm familiar with are related, but not interdependent segments. We can hardly put one of the segments on the main page, right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: raising this here, as I suspect nobody watches the template talk page
I like the handy {{ FPC urgents}} template up at the top of the page. We've been wavering on the edge of having sufficient participation at FPC for some time now, and that can help draw attention where it's needed. I'd like to see its use standardized, though, rather than it used for listing the nominations of anyone who cares to edit the template. For example, for a 10-day nomination, I cannot imagine any definition of "urgent" that would apply to the first 5 days of that nomination. Thus my proposal would be for something to be in the last 5 days of the nomination and for it to be neither clearly passing (5+ support votes with <=1 opposed) nor clearly failing (at least 3 opposes and >= 3 supports). I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air, of course.
The context is the addition of an image the day after it was nominated. I removed it and it was restored. If the standard is simply that it's unresolved, regardless of the time, I worry that the template would become unuseful or, again, only useful to the people who use it (which, granted, is going to be true to some degree regardless). Not intending to slight Adam, who added the image -- I can understand, especially given shoddy turnouts at many FPCs, the reasoning; I'd just like to see it standardized, if possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Is my restoration of File:Portrait of Commander C. R. Perry Rodgers, officer of the Federal Navy LOC cwpb.05822- Restored.jpg good enough that I could nominate it? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Of eighteen nominations, two are currently passing. That's... not a good ratio, and most of the ones that aren't simply don't have a quorum. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)