Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WT:FPC

This is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates Wikipedia page.
If you wish to suggest an image that might be appropriate as a Featured Picture Candidate, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review.
Archive
Archives
  1. 12 Feb 2004 — 15 Nov 2004
  2. 15 Nov 2004 — 23 Jun 2005
  3. 23 Jun 2005 — 17 Nov 2005
  4. 17 Nov 2005 — 31 Dec 2005
  5. 01 Jan 2006 — 09 Feb 2006
  6. 10 Feb 2006 — 15 Mar 2006
  7. 16 Mar 2006 — 12 Apr 2006
  8. 12 Apr 2006 — 30 Apr 2006
  9. 30 Apr 2006 — 1 July 2006
  10. 1 July 2006 — 31 August 2006
  11. 31 August 2006 — 24 November 2006
  12. 24 November 2006 —

Contents

[edit] Unused featured pictures

Here is an incomplete list of featured pictures that are currently not used in the article that they are supposed to illustrate. Feel free to investigate... --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Day old chick black background.jpg (not used in any article, formerly used at Chicken)
    • This has been removed from the article with this edit for not being relevant to the section it was in, which was true. Probably could be reasonably re-added, probably best near the top as a general 'this is a chicken' shot, as it doesn't really depict any particular aspect of chickens. TSP 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Reincluded it in the article --Fir0002 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Madrid-metro-map.png (not used in any article, formerly used at Madrid Metro where it has been replaced by Image:Red de metro de Madrid.svg)
    • New one looks better; probably nominate that as a replacement. TSP 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Oceans.png (not used in any article, formerly used at Ocean)
    • Removed with this edit, per [comments] (by the remover; no-one else seems to have commented). Outdatedness seems to be the concern; it is missing the Southern Ocean (though there was also a concern that it marks some subdivisions of oceans as separate). Time for a more accurate redraw? TSP 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Piratey, vector version.svg (formerly used at Piracy, now used in International Talk Like a Pirate Day and List of fictional pirates)
    • Moved out in this edit, when List of fictional pirates became its own article; so, in a sense, still illustrating the same article content as before. I've always been a bit ambivalent about these images. They're very pretty, but I'm not utterly sure what they're meant to encyclopedically represent. I can see that an article's editors might be a bit unsure as to what to do with such an image. On the other hand, the article is hardly over-illustrated, so it could probably go back. I'd prefer to see more factual pirate images, though. TSP 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:UK Roundabout 8 Cars.gif (not used in any article, formerly used at Roundabout where it has been replaced by Image:Roundabout.gif)
    • The latter is just a downsampled version of the original, so I just deleted it. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually it was downsampled and flipped, presumably by an editor who felt that right-hand drive was more encyclopedic than left-hand drive. I've put the FP back, anyway, as there was no good reason given for the change. TSP 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Should they be readded? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If they are no longer on any pages and consensus on those pages was to remove them for whatever reason, then they will need to be delisted. However, if they just got knocked off by some random person, I would say put them back. howcheng {chat} 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there isn't any discussion for the Chicken picture, so I suppose it was "some random person". I haven't checked the others though. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image edits are getting out of hand

I'd just like to remind everyone that editing a compressed JPEG and re-saving as a JPEG yields a more lossy result than the original. As such, I would like to suggest that use of edits be significantly curbed in all cases except those in which the edit would significantly increase the objective quality of the image. For example, the edit to the Edison photograph unquestionably improved the image because it was a restoration, and is therefore acceptable. On the other hand, aesthetic edits like this one created to suit the editor's tastes do so not only at the expense of dissolving consensus based upon highly subjective personal preferences but also re-compress the image, resulting in data loss and more visible compression (or larger file size). Noclip 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at this recompression test first: Image:Original crop.jpg Saved for Web 80 quality 5 times, Saved for Web 80 quality Saved for Web 60 quality 5 times, Saved for Web 60 quality. Of course there will be a loss, but generally it's not very visible, if you look at the file size differences we're talking bytes --Fir0002 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for FP merit-discipline-tagging

Some valid points have been raised about the capability (or lack there of) of FPC to motivate contributors from less illustrated corners of the world. Spectacular or rare pictures are easily shot down on technical grounds, leaving a less equipped contributor from with the potential to reach places never covered before for wikipedia with out a chance of getting some acknowledgement.

We could tag FPC nominations and consequently the FPs. Tag them with an FP-type which classifies the class of merit it competes in. This would be like

  • originality/rarity
  • technical merit
  • scientific merit
  • aethetics(?)

The tags can be optional and even omitted if you think a picture scores in all areas. --Dschwen 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty interesting, but I wonder how it will be implemented? I mean there will be clear cut cases but I'm not sure if it will be that easy to isolate the merit. Some images could be aesthetic and scientific, but not original - bit of a problem. I guess they can have multiple tags - anyway I would support something like this by and large --Fir0002 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think of making a case when you nominate, and generating some signal templates. I.e. the picture was assembled from 10 macro shots to increase DOF and add {{FPC/technical}} to the nomination page and picture, or rare picture of secluded amazon tribe village plus {{FPC/rare}}. Something along those lines. When voting people can make their points whether a particular merit is justified or not, ideally leading to a discussion with regular support, oppose votes in clear cut cases and disagree on technical, disagree on rarity etc. leading to a tag shuffeling before the vote is closed. The voters should keep in mind that additional burden on the closers should be avoided. --Dschwen 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think originality fits in well, and perhaps enc and hist tags should be available too. I think it's a good idea. Good thinking. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expertise needed on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/American Buffalo Gold Coin

I closed this delisting as kept earlier today, but User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of the image hasn't been fully resolved. Could anyone here who knows about copyright please help in resolving this issue? Raven4x4x 12:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Year 2006 election

The election of the best Commons Featured Picture of 2006 - Picture of the Year 2006 - is to take place soon in Commons.

We need your opinion and help to organize the event. There are still some things to do: deciding the dates, tuning up the rules, preparing the project page, making announcements, etc.

To participate, please check Commons_talk:Picture of the Year/2006. -- Alvesgaspar 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerospike engine

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Aerospike engine could use some more votes. It has been listed for almost three weeks now and no consensus has emerged yet. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools picture.

Over on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page we've been trying to think of something we could do on April 1st's front page featured picture. Obviously we want something that's either funny or unexpected - but still worthy of the title "Front page featured picture".

I know we'd welcome any suggestions you folks might be able to come up with.

My current best suggestion is to pick one of the Greg William's Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia cartoons. Does that sound like something you guys could go with?

SteveBaker 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll start if off with, sure! That guy is pretty darn good, and and the strips are hilarious (especially Redshirt, Hammerspace, and Pet Skunk). --Dschwen(A) 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's always this... :-D --Tewy 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is that we want to make all of the April 1st items be genuine featured articles/photos. The '42' image failed it's FPC - we have to find something that can pass the usual formal processes. The WikiWorld cartoons are actually well drawn cartoon - I think we could reasonably get one featured. Do you picture experts have suggestions as to which might have most visual merit? SteveBaker 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • They're all very good. For the 'improbable but true' angle, I'd tend towards Thagomizer, or pet skunk, or molasses. A couple of issues: first, none of the comics is used in any article; this is an absolute requirement to be a featured picture, and in a sense these cartoons (given that they include chunks of a Wikipedia article) aren't really suitable to illustrate one. Second, people might have an issue with the self-referential nature of the cartoons. TSP 04:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Urgh! I'd forgotten that they were required to be used in an article. Thagomizer would probably be a good choice because there is actually something to see at thumbnail size. So if not those - then what? Any other suggestions? SteveBaker 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • People always seem to think that the Animated horse or Pirate aren't really FPs... howcheng {chat} 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
            • How about the WM/WP logo? If not, Thagomizer is my first choice. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
              • The horse and the pirate have been kinda done-to-death - and the WM/WP logos are off-limits because of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. SteveBaker 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I thought it was the mad scientist and villain that been done to death. Regardless, the Thagomizer (I love that article BTW) picture is also self-referential. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the logos are not licensed under the GFDL. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this would be a pretty good choice for April Fool's Day's PotD but it has failed twice at FPC. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed - and if had passed as an illustration of parody religion, it would seem to be about perfect for april 1. Ah well ... Debivort 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah - that's a shame. Of course if it were re-nominated, the additional exposure it would get as a result of a couple of dozen April Fool folks voting for it might make it pass - but that's not a good reason to promote a picture to Featured status. SteveBaker 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's keep things friendly here

On three recent nominations I've noticed comments from various people that must be described as less than civil. Calling pictures 'crap' or 'ridiculous',making sarcastic references to April Fools Day, this is definately not what we need here. This is a gentle reminder to all who comment here to keep civility in mind. Raven4x4x 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Emphatically seconded. Whether you're an 'old hand' or an FPC virgin you have the same right to expect to be treated with civility and tact. On one hand we've had complaints here of an in-crowd and on the other we've had long-standing contributors feeling 'chased off' by snarky comments. In both cases, the rule is the same: don't bite the newbies, or anyone else. --YFB ¿ 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, comment on the image. Not the nominator. ~ Arjun 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
More like, do not misinterpret the nominator's choice. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, assume good faith and stay objective, but don't beat around the bush either. --Dschwen(A) 10:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FSC

Following this discussion, I've blundered wildly into the unknown and opened Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates for nominations, starting with that one. If it's a disaster we can always close it again, but I'd appreciate everyone's input to see if we can get the ball rolling. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to rename this page to "Featured media candidates". There's not nearly enough activity yet to sustain a separate page solely for featured audio candidates. If (when?) the different sub-categories of featured media start getting large they can be branched out into Featured pictures, Featured animations, and Featured audio, but until then, there should be one combined process. --Cyde Weys 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With separate criteria? Trebor 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
How could there be activity if FSC wasn't even open? Is it any surprise that only a handfull of non graphic media was ever nominated on Freatured Picture Candidates? I don't think so. The argument goes the other way: Promote FSC and it will (might) attract further nominations. Feature sounds prominently (i.e. on the MainPage) and you will atract even more submissions. Let's keep FPC about pictures. I don't think the bickering, nitpicking and rivetcounting capacities can sustain further media types anyways ;-). --Dschwen(A) 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal. --Tewy 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the flag has been raised, lets wait and see if anyone salutes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd support a Featured Media Candidates system distinct from Featured Pictures, but I don't think the former should include the latter. For one thing, Featured Media (audio, video, perhaps animations) are likely to be less accessible to many users than pictures. If I'm using a library computer, for example, then I can't listen to audio and there's a good chance I won't have the required codecs for video, or permissions to install them. Featured pictures have become established on the front page and I think they work well - they catch the eye of the casual viewer in a way that a link to a sound or video file (which may or may not work on first click, depending on the user's PC) wouldn't be able to. I agree with Dschwen that we can never expect large volumes of media nominations if we don't provide a (widely promoted) process to handle them. I took the initiative with Featured Sounds because that was what was being discussed at the time, but I wouldn't be opposed to expanding its remit to include videos etc. and changing its name accordingly. --YFB ¿ 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Keep the projects seperate, especially featured pictures. If there's a calling for sound and video files, then those can be a seperate project, or projects of their own. There's no need to reestablish featured pictures just to throw a few sound and video nominations into the mix. A featured media page would only serve as a folder, if you will, to the files of featured pictures, featured sounds, etc., and Featured content already does that. --Tewy 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think visual media and audio media can only be judged by wildly different sets of criteria. The skill sets involved in media creation and function in an article are just totally unrelated. That's why I think a separate FS system is needed: to develop the divergent standards for audio, and to really let us build the still I think very unrealized potential that audio can have in our encyclopedia.--Pharos 04:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nicely put, Tewy/Pharos. I agree with both of those statements. --YFB ¿ 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 - permission asked

The arrangements for the Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are almost complete, and voting will take place between 1st and 28th Feb. The competition will be widely advertised throughout the Wiki community, the aim being to draw more users in to the Commons project and to encourage the posting of more top-quality images. A single Picture of the Year will be chosen from all the images promoted to Featured Picture status during 2006.

I hope English Wikipedia users will support this initiative by granting permission for the following templates to be added to the top of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page, during February. The template will change slightly on 14th to announce the final (but still keeping the depth at 3 lines), as shown below:


 Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.
What is the best picture of 2006? The candidates have been chosen. Vote for your choice now in the final of the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Final voting to choose the 2006 Picture of the Year is open until 28th February.

Alvesgaspar 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Great idea :-). --Dschwen(A) 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't wait for give my 2 cents HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --Tewy 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcing Criterion #8

Hi, FPC regulars. I suggested an adjustment of the FP criteria several months ago, and Eloquence added it in July of last year without controversy. The new criterion is just that "The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page." Something just one short paragraph long, that the creators of images should find easy to hack together. Apparently, this requirement is not being followed, so I'd like to humbly ask FPC regulars (I hardly ever edit this page) to please raise the issue at nomination time. This should be an easy thing for any nominator to meet. Thanks very much.--Pharos 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point; I don't think it'll be too controversial. At present I get the impression that Howcheng gets lumped with the job of sorting out a caption a lot of the time. I'll take it into account in future. --YFB ¿ 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A late reply to this thread, but I'm not really looking for a whole POTD caption. Mostly, I'd like information about the image itself. If it's not long enough to fit a POTD blurb, I'll get more from the article the image represents. howcheng {chat} 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The motivation behind the change in criteria was just that the POTD blurb is often largely lifted straight from the article, making the Featured Picture box a clone of the Featured Article box, when it's supposed to represent something very different. I'm not blaming you for this, Howcheng (you certainly can't be expected to do everything), but I think it should be incumbent upon the nominators (who presumably are familiar with each image and topic) to write a decent extended caption at the time of nomination.--Pharos 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
That's especially true for wildlife shots -- oftentimes there's not much you can say about the photos themselves beyond, "A female such-and-such bird." I think I started emphasizing the photos themselves more sometime in mid-July 2006. It hasn't been a problem except for a few which needed further input from the nominator/photographer. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello. Can picture licensed under {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} be nominated? Thanks. - Darwinek 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, as long as the specified conditions are compatible with Wikipedia's copyright/image use policy. The conditions must not prevent commercial reuse or creation of derivative works. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, OK. How about this pic: Image:VysokePece1.jpg. Could it be nominated? I mean, is it FP material? - Darwinek 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I would have thought it'd be worth a try, although people may complain that they can't actually see anything of the blast furnace, just a lot of hot stuff. I'd probably support with an appropriate caption. --YFB ¿ 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • A better licence would be "Commons CC-BY-SA", since that specifies crediting. Basically, I think the licence could be changed to that. --Janke | Talk 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No, the license could never be changed without the explicit permission of the copyright holder, Třinec Iron and Steel Works. However, Darwinek corresponded with them very recently, so that might not be a problem.--Pharos 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FP replacement notification

I have replaced Image:Sahara satellite.jpg with the very similar but higher resolution Image:Sahara satellite hires.jpg at WP:FP. As far as I know, the images are based on the same data but there are some minor differences. The hires version is not perfect but it still offers much more detail than the other one. Let me know if you disagree with the replacement. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTY 2006 - End of Phase 1

Phase 1 of the POTY 2006 election is coming to its end.

If you didn’t participate yet or want to change your vote, you can still do it until 2400 Feb, 14 (today) at: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006.

Phase 2, to elect the winner and 2 runners-up, will start February 17 at: Picture_of_the_Year/2006/final. Alvesgaspar 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nominations getting stale

Hi All, I'd like to offer a gentle reminder that we should not forget to comment on nominations that have slid lower on the main FPC page. Often, important edits come up after the initial burst of comments, but then there is no further discussion before the nomination reaches the judgement phase. If we kept our eyes on all the nominations a bit more uniformly, it might also reduce the number of noms that need further discussion to clarify which edit will be promoted. PS - please take a look at the Starry Night nomination (about half way down the page now) - I think it's a good nomination that deserves promotion either in its original form or as an edit. Debivort 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skip to candidates link

Could we add a skip to candidates link at the top of the page like is sometimes implemented on talk pages to jump to the TOC? Basar 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I was bold and put one in. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Basar 07:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!  :o) tiZom(2¢) 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant! Meniscus 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition: results announced

Commons Picture of the Year 2006: Results

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User Nelro

Someone is voting with the signature Nelro, but it does not link to a user page and there is no page at User:Nelro. Will their votes be counted and how should they be advised? Pstuart84 Talk 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked about the anonymous comments at User talk:Nelro. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New FP Criterion

Hello All - here is a discussion topic: Should non-redundancy with previously existing FPs be a criterion? I feel that many people treat this as a non-explicit criterion, often in inconsistent ways.

  • For example, I would bet that the turgor pressure nomination was basically ignored because of the blood cell osmosis nomination. And yet, the redundancy was never used as the justification.
  • Yet in the case of the new lemon, the redundancy was explicitly given as a reason to oppose (among others such as page stability).

Is it time to get consistent and resolve this? Debivort 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Redundancy with respect to an existing FP is going to be quite subjective and, IMO, something best to be assessed as part of a nomination. It would be a shame if people were discouraged from nominating pictures that potentially improved on an existing FP, simply because it was their (mistaken) belief that the existing FP made their nomination redundant. Pstuart84 Talk 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I tend to agree. Too many instructions and rules will obviate the need to present a compelling argument on a case by case basis. --Dschwen 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promoting FPs

It seems to me that there are a number of articles that should be passed, but that no one wants to do it because it is a lot of work. Would it be possible for us to cut down the work needed to pass an article or perhaps to automate it with a bot. I did it once, and I found that most of the tasks were simple enough to be automated. Basar 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if someone stepped up to do it but from my observations and my reading on how it is done (For various reasons I don't go within 100 blue links of it) it is a tedious and many times (depending on the number of pending listings) long job that is thankless for the most part and many times will elicit angry messages on your talk page from someone who disagrees with your decision. Cat-five - talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Veledan created a mostly automated program awhile back. IIRC, you basically decided if the image should be promoted or not and a few other options and then the bot handled the rest of the steps automatically. More discussion here. I have no idea what happened beyond that or if it all the bugs were squashed as I took quite a break from WP shortly after the bot's creation. I think I was got some kind of error message that Veledan wasn't able to solve. Someone might want to drop Veledan an e-mail. I also might have the code around someplace if we aren't able to get into contact with him. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the backlog is about halfway cleared now. I'll look at the rest tomorrow if I find time. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I had the bad experience of promoting 7 FPs in one go. It took me two hours. It's just too tedious. MER-C 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a "Featured picture set"

I think we should consider what a featured set is, since we had a couple of those recently. In my not-fully-fleshed-out opinion, a featured set should be:

  1. a sequence of images that illustrate the same subject
  2. in the same article(s)
  3. provide more information than a single image could, and
  4. be of the same format (also by the same creator??)
  5. not contain multiple versions of the same image
  6. be complete (comprehensive)

Also, a featured set should have a clear "lead" image which will be designated the featured picture and appear on the front page as PotD. It should be mentioned that the lead image is part of the set, and the set should be depicted in full on the image page. All other images of the set are given "part of a featured set" status, but not "featured picture" status.

Does this sound reasonable? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Here is an example of an existing set of featured pictures - each image page contains a gallery of the other pictures in the set but currently only the first image is tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the prime example I was thinking of. The current Bézier curve nomination would be another one. ~ trialsanderrors 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
oppose rule 2 These rules are well thought out. I'm not sure about them all having to be in the same article though, but on the same subject is important. e.g. you might have a set of 10 whale pictures that go on different whale species articles, but do not appear together in any of them. Rule 1 already covers them being on the same subject. —Pengo 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
added rule 5 Also I'd like to add a rule that the sets should be not include multiple versions of the same image. E.g. one of the "current proposed picture sets" includes both this and this. The set should include only one of these if it is to be featured as a set... (or Image:Human skull side simplified (bones).svg, which i think is better... but I digress). —Pengo 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible rule 6: The set of images should be a complete when this is possible. E.g. a set of images of the zodiac should not be missing Leo, and a set of face cards should not be missing the queen of hearts. Of course no complete set of mandelbrot zooms is possible, but a set of increasing zooms should not be missing a step. —Pengo 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose rule 2: If it's a big set of for example 10 images, it's nearly impossible to fit them in same article. It just doesn't make sens. I agree with others. --Arad 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the "lead" image needs to be found in an article, while the others can be excluded? Also, I feel we should have a "featured set member" template for use on the images that aren't the leader. They would have a customizable field to direct to the lead image.--HereToHelp 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here is Template:FeaturedPictureSet. It's incomplete, feel free to edit it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; will do. (edit conflicted) I also want to highly stress that the sets need to "feel" complete. The ones with infinite possible images (Mandelbrot, Bezier Curves) should not skip images and if possible, end at a non-arbitrary place (Mandelbrot ended at the Julia set). Those with non-infinite images (codons and amino acids, and [4], which I'd nominate if they all were SVGscommons:Electron shell, which I'll nominate as soon the procedure gets ironed out) should be complete. Also, they should use common stylistic elements. That seems obvious, since the Mandelbrot set used the same color scheme throughout, which is precisely what I mean by "common stylistic elements".--HereToHelp 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, how are we describing this in the criteria? First attempt:
A featured picture can be part of a featured set if the set of pictures is comprehensive, in the same format, and adds significantly to the understanding of the subject. Pictures in the featured set are marked with {{FeaturedPictureSet}} linking to the promoted featured picture. The whole set should be depicted on the featured picture site.
Comments? Opinions? ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the numbered list would be better than an overstuffed sentence at encapsulating this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removing backlog tag

I removed the backlog tag because: There really isn't a backlog long or otherwise. The large sets of .svg s are basicly closed and so there is no reason for such a tag. -Fcb981 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added before the SVG part, so it has nothing to do with it. --Arad 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Backlog tag or not, we need closers. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on older noms

Please comment on the older nominations, especially the ones in Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Older_nominations_requiring_additional_input_from_voters. Thanks, --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion bot testing

In case anything goes haywire, here's a heads up. I am testing User:Veledan's promotion bot that he put together almost a year ago. I am using my User:PS2pcGAMERtest account. If anything goes bad, I'll quickly revert myself. For anyone who doesn't recognize my name, I was quite active on FPC about a year ago. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new voting template

Copied from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sausage biscuit. --Tewy 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose E4T4A2 I realize the fact that this thing looks extremely unappetizing actually enhances the enc of the picture, but still, yuck. ~ trialsanderrors 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So about this new template...a little too black and white, don't you think? It reminds me of a straw poll. --Tewy 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, it helps focus on the key dimensions of picture quality, at least for me. And it also allows that pictures don't have to be perfect in all dimensions if they have other qualities that make up for it. Considering gradations in quality and multiple dimensions is the opposite of b&w, no? ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, although it initially struck me as taking a sentence and condensing it a few numbers, much like a straw poll condenses lengthy reasons into a single vote. I suppose it's fine if you supplement with good reasons. --Tewy 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No idea how the closing works here, but I hope it's by arguments and not by numbers or bolded opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The closing is supposed to be based on consensus. And with that in mind, I actually begin to wonder if pointing out the specific qualities of the image is really necessary. Wouldn't a number system actually divide the votes into those who think the encyclopedic value is very high and those who think it is somewhat high (and simultaneously for the technical and artistic values), as opposed to an overall agreement that the encyclopedic value is high? As far as I can see, the number system merely quantifies the voter's opinion, but doesn't actually provide any more information than is already described in words. --Tewy 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus means different things in different areas of WP. Not sure what the rest means, but I think it helps quickly conveying a comprehensive opinion so the written argument can focus on a specific aspect, e.g. something that hasn't been brought up yet. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In terms of voting, I view consensus as the general trend the discussion leans, which usually occurs when a moderately sized majority agrees on a point. But if the two sides are equally clashing, consensus has not been reached. My thoughts were that the number system would make opinions so specific that no one would be able to agree on anything. --Tewy 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Other opinions? --Tewy 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a general comment, I devised the scheme as a decision aid for myself. I certainly won't mind if others put it to use as well, but my reason for putting it in the template space are mostly of convenience. As to its general usefulness, I think it helps the discussion as long as it's used as a decision aid, and not a tool. So the closer should still look for bolded opinions and backing by arguments. ~ trialsanderrors 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Trialsanderrors, I'm not sure I see the point in rating images on Commons according to whether or not they're encyclopedic (the "E"). Especially, the template states that the encyclopedic score counts double. That would be useful for rating candidates for featured picture on any of the Wikipedias, but an important part of the identity of Commons is that it is not an encyclopedia; it is a repository of media for all Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews and several more. As an individual you're most welcome to rate photos any way you like, so if it helps you organize your thoughts by all means use it. But in my opinion it's important to avoid restricting featured-picture status to encyclopedia illustrations. Fg2 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not a template (or scoring system) for Commons. Here at en.wiki Enc is the primary criterion. Perfectly fine to transfer the idea to Commons but of course the scoring system should be adapted to Commons requirements. ~ trialsanderrors 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Trialsanderrors, I apologize! I thought I was at Commons:Featured picture candidates. You're absolutely right, and as I wrote, your criteria are entirely appropriate for the Wikipedias. Please accept my apology. Fg2 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Still a good objection, but of course not applicable here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks yuck and doesn't really show anything. You're either supporting or opposing. The rest should be put into your comment. --Fir0002 06:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a quorum. I can post in my comments what I want. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Umm who said anything about a quorum? As per discussion heading I'm stating that I'm opposing the new templates. You can use them if you want, but as I learnt myself there's no need to make them into an official template --Fir0002 07:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • This falls under I-didn't-read-any-of-the-discussion-here-but-I'm-opining-anyway bracket. There is no proposal on the table to make this into an official template. If others use it, that's fine with me, if not that's fine too. ~ trialsanderrors 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Adding it to the Template namespace is making it an official template. Userfy and subst it is my advice, but if you don't want to listen I'm sure that in a few weeks the TfD people will be banging at your door... --Fir0002 08:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption Issues

I haven't been frequenting this page in the last month or two, but I have noticed a concerning trend of placing captions in disproportionate importance. In particular, User:Trialsanderrors is making ridiculous demand on caption length. His claims are based on the need to prepare the image for the main page as POTD. The captions in question have everything a caption in an article should have, and are identical in detail to the thousands of successful nominations of the past.

This page has never been (at least in my mind) and never will be a page for getting "pretty pictures" onto the main page. What we are doing is looking for the technically excellent, the aesthetic and the unusual in photography. FPC is about identifying the best imagery available from Wikipedia's pages. And as such the purpose of the caption is to tell the voters what the photo is; basically the same caption as appears in the article.

But suddenly captions such as here and here and here etc etc which have all the information necessary to tell voters what the image is about, are being turned aside in favour of article rehashes such as this. Excellent photos are being opposed on the grounds of a caption!! Isn't that just absurd? A Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidate being opposed because of it's accompanying text?!

POTD is an entirely different department and should be handled by the "text" people. We are a collaboration by nature, and forcing the more photographically orientated users to come up with a great slab of text instead of getting people skilled in this area to do so is counter-productive and ineffectual. This page is independent of POTD!!!

As a conclusion I propose that the current criteria no 8 is modified so that the extended caption on the image page - note not nomination - is just a recommendation. --Fir0002 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Captions are needed sometimes. I think it's fair to ask for one when it's needed. Historical pictures and pictures of odd/unusual things especially need captions so the reader or assessor of the image can put it in context or understand what they're looking at. An image like the anti-Iranian jingoist image that could be considered racist or threatening was especially in need of a caption, not just for the front page, but to assess whether it was actually showing a specific significant event and had special encyclopedic value (it wasn't and didn't). Currently featured pictures do end up on the front page, and so each will need a caption anyway, and leaving it to "text people" as an afterthought simply doesn't cut it. Having said all that, I don't know why that photo of Golda Meir would need a special caption beyond text from her acticle, so the need for a specific caption can be challenged. Perhaps nominators should simply nominate the article to take the caption from (if they don't supply their own caption)? —Pengo 14:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fir0002 on this one. FPs don't need captions to fulfill their purpose. POTD images are taken from the pool of FPs and captions are added at that point. I know it does put the onus on Howcheng and anyone else involved in POTD but making it a requirement at the point of nomination is silly. A good caption would help others to understand its significance perhaps, I agree, but I don't see it as something that is needed. Individuals who want to understand the image and the context of it should visit the page(s) it is used in. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the issue a nice caption, or sufficient metadata? I see part of the purpose of FPs as a way to highlight content which is not text, and which can be used other places in other ways, not just in an encyclopedia or in the specific article they were uploaded for. Part of these images being useful if for them to have sufficient and clear metadata. This does not necessarily have to be in the form of a well-written caption, but I think relevant information on the subject and circumstances of FPs should be present on the image page. Mak (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there are two parts to a good caption: the image's information and the subject's information. The image's information includes when it was taken, if a filter or longer exposure was used, who created it, etc. The subject's information includes who the portrait is of, how large the animal can get, how many berries the fruit can produce, etc. The information for the image can be pulled from the metadata, the creator's knowledge, or even common sense. The information for the subject can usually be pulled solely from the article (because by name, the article is about the subject). In the past, the nominator has been in charge of just the image's information, and usually a very brief description of the subject. This new proposal, which I am against, makes the nominator fully responsible for both the image's and the subject's information. I think that the image's information should remain the sole responsability of the nominator, and the subject's information remain the responsability of POTD (and/or the nominator, if he wishes to help). The nominator should be required to be familiar with the picture and its technical aspects, but not necessarily familiar with the details of the subject.
Therefore, the condition for not promoting or delaying promotion of an image should be if the caption doesn't include sufficient image information (e.g. if the time it was taken was important, but left out of the caption). But as long as the caption on the nomination covers what is unique about the image, or otherwise details the image itself (sufficiently), POTD can be in charge of the subject's information, and supplement the nomination caption with information from the article. --Tewy 18:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked "caption" has been a criterion from Day One. And I think it's perfectly fine to put the onus on the nominator or, by extension, the support voters to provide the caption rather than to free-ride on the scheduler's efforts. It's quite telling that Fir's little diatribe completely ignores encyclopedicness as a picture criterion, something seemingly everybody else agrees upon as the main criterion for en.wiki. And in most cases enc can only be established by creating the necessary context (see the Agassiz statue, which could've fallen out of the sky from all we can tell from the picture). So anything that increases enc and cuts down on the rampant free-riding on Wikipedia is ok with me. On the proposal it should be downgraded to a recommendation, it's a guideline for crying out loud. I've never seen a case where criteria were enforced by the closers against the consensus of editors. Not that I would mind if that happened. The image page vs. nomination page comment is just truculent wikilawyering. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually it hasn't been around from "Day One" - FPC was a round for a looong time before that page was created, being guided only by the noble words of "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" (as well as adding significantly to an article) and sound common sense. The caption criteria was put in to stop captions such as "a dog" - favouring something a little more descriptive such as "an adult German Shepherd". At no point (until now I guess) was the caption placed in the role of POTD writeup. Did I ever say enc was not important? Of course not! I'm a huge fan of enc as one of the main criteria. You've certainly changed your tune from your POTD arguments to something a with a little relevance to this page - but you're still way out of perspective with the captions. Captions are good as far as they go, but even in your Agassiz example a brief example with a link to the wiki article would be perfect. And yes it is a guideline, but for crying out loud you are opposing a picture on those grounds! Now I'm sure most closer will have the sense to discount such votes but we should really lose some of the ambig created by having that wording on the criteria 8. Oh and btw, to save future embarrassment Trialsanderrors, you should really lookup the word "diatribe". --Fir0002 06:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the word diatribe means exactly what I meant in this context, you don't have to worry about my English skills. And I don't think there is any need for me to continue this discussion, because it is very obvious that your only goal here is to be pissy. Start a blog if you can't interact civilly. ~ trialsanderrors 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You could cut the hypocrisy with a knife! My concern above was anything but a diatribe. But I can understand it if you feel the need to discontinue this discussion - if I was arguing your side of the this I'd have given up long ago. However if you do feel like continuing, a response to the above would be appreciated. My goal is obviously not "to be pissy" as you so eloquently put it, but to stop this caption nonsense. --Fir0002 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But the way I interpret that criterion, the caption it refers to is the one in the article(s), not in the nomination. I completely agree with Tewy in that the photographer should have the obligation to provide the image description including details on the capture, technique and the subject if appropriate. It seems that you're taking it a bit far by suggesting that contributors who don't provide a suitable caption (Remember, the caption is essentially for POTD! Featured Pictures do not use a caption at all - they're merely categorised and thumbnailed) are free-riding on Wikipedia. As for determining 'encyclopaedicness', surely visiting the page(s) that the image is on will aid in this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to have your own interpretation. Mine is that the caption needs to establish enc, which in a lot of cases the article captions don't do. (If enc is established in the article, it's easy to just copy and paste.) The hard cases are the ones where historical relevance isn't apparent from the picture. But even then I find the effort minimal compared to the effort it takes to clean up and prepare the picture for nomination. And fwiw, my reading of the requirement that the extended caption should be on the image page is to ensure that the picture is explained even outside the context of an article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What happened to captions being needed for POTD? Suddenly we need them for enc - despite the fact that the page the image appears on will surely have more info then even the best rehashed caption. --Fir0002 06:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Let me weigh in on this as the POTD guy. Here's my ideal situation in terms of what I want for captions. I don't want rehashes of the article -- I can do that myself when I write the POTD blurb. What I want are details that are specific to the images themselves. For example of a caption I don't want, see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 29, 2005. Who is this girl? What is she carrying? Why is she working? Compare this with the second time this image appeared as POTD: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 1, 2006. Luckily, all of this text was in the source page from the Library of Congress.

So, I think that the caption should be necessary when it's not obvious from the article it goes in. For example, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World Map is one I opposed because we know nothing about this map. Who is Van Schagen -- is he a famous map maker? Is there anything special about this map? How does this compare with other maps of the same era? What's worse is that it's just in a gallery in the World map article. So what the hell am I supposed write about this image when it becomes POTD? At this point, I have nothing to say and so I just might end up skipping it because we get complaints when the POTD caption doesn't focus on the image.

On the other hand, wildlife/plant pictures don't need much of a caption beyond species identification unless the image is showing a particular aspect of the subject. The caption that's in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple osteospermum is totally unnecessary. For a short-n-sweet caption that works for me, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sather Tower -- buildings and viewpoint are identfied. A longer one that's good is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago River dyed green, focus on river -- buildings and viewpoint are identified, and a short explanation of why the river is green.

In the end, it's really on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that a caption written by the nominator is necessarily required because they might be so familiar with the picture that it's obvious to them what's going on. Hopefully by the end of the nomination period, questions about the image will have been raised and a useable caption will have been written. howcheng {chat} 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this assessment. I also don't see why the caption needs to be added by the photographer or nominator. This is a collaborative encyclopedia after all. It can be added by anyone who wants the picture promoted. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That's amazing! A complete 180 without admitting you're wrong! Just a few hours agao you where complaing about people "rampantly free-riding Wikipedia" and not putting enough detail into their captions! Oh well it looks like my concerns are being addressed, and I hope we won't be seeing "oppose - caption is not fit for POTD" any more. All that's left is making this a little more concrete by modifying criteria 8 - any suggestions? --Fir0002 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, I will continue to ask for extended captions and when asked what kind of captions I look for point to PotD as an example, and will continue to form a judgmnt based on the criteria. Anything that improves the quality of the FPC discussions is fine with me. ~ trialsanderrors 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine you can ask for extended questions all you want - but you cannot oppose a photo because it doesn't have a POTD caption. You can't just make up your own rules, and as shown in this discussion captions are not intended to be used for POTD. So there is no valid grounds for you to oppose the image. --Fir0002 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't be said much better than what howcheng said... --Janke | Talk 08:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: See my comments in the current prairie dog nomination. --Janke | Talk 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with howcheng: some photos need extended captions while others are self-explanatory, usually on a case-by-case basis. It might be fairer to vote good photos with poor captions as support with caption or conditional support or something along those lines. These will then indicate that the picture itself is FP acceptable but the caption needs tweaking/expanding/etc. A caption is easy to change, while a photograph is not. --Asiir 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As a reminder, an extended caption is part of the featured picture criteria:

Has a good caption. The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page.

I've only been opposing based on extended caption in cases where such contextual information is crucial for appreciating the significance of the image, but it is a valid reason to oppose any nomination. Of course, it doesn't particularly matter whether the nom starts with a good caption or it develops based on the input of everyone, but if no adequate extended caption ever comes around, that's a problem. Even if an image is fairly self-explanatory, a good extended caption is still an improvement.--ragesoss 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read this discussion? The whole criteria is what we are talking about! And as far as I can tell consensus is to remove this as a criteria and make it a recommendation. Certainly it's the consensus that in almost every case you can't oppose a nomination solely on not having an extended caption. --Fir0002 05:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I skipped around a lot in going through the arguments, and didn't read the opening post all the way through. In any case, even without criterion 8 as a requirement rather than recommendation, I think it's legitimate to oppose based on insufficient contextual information in many cases, especially for cases that are not user-created but rather historical and/or artistic in nature. Pinning down exactly what an image is showing you and why it's important is essentially an issue of encyclopedicity.--ragesoss 03:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I don't support weakening criterion 8. FPC, like other featured content processes, is intended not only to select Wikipedia's best work, but also to help bring the promising candidates up to as high a level as possible. With images, part of this is having as helpful, interesting and informative a caption as possible. Pointing to deficiencies in caption and context, and opposing if no one is willing to address them, ought to be perfectly valid, just as pointing out easily-addressed stylistic or formatting concerns (or lack of adequate images) is acceptable criticism at FAC.--ragesoss 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry but you're going against the tide, consensus here and over at Featured Picture Criteria is the captions are only need to provide the details a view needs to know what the image is about. So for my Clerid beetle nom, it just needs to say it's a clerid beetle of whatever species. We don't need to go into a description into it's feeding habits and reproduction habits in order to determine if it's a good picture or not. As such it is not a valid reason to oppose an image based on a simple caption. If for instance the caption was "a beetle" a conditional oppose would be appropriate. --Fir0002 09:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that I supported your clerid beetle. And I extended the caption because I thought more context made it better. I would have supported even with the short caption, because an well identified animal, with date and location of the photograph, is sufficient info to ensure encyclopedicity. But I'm still requesting, and think it would be a helpful addition, if the image page gave a clear way that someone could verify the species identification. And obviously, if the reasons for an oppose vote get addressed, then that vote no longer carries any weight. But it's not a bad idea to make a habit of calling info-based opposes conditional oppose to make it easier on people the closing nominations.--ragesoss 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why, unless the image is violating a criteria in WIAFP then you can't really oppose it. I guess you could but that would be obnoxious and then the closer would have to ignore it. As for verifying species identification I honestly can't see why that would be necessary. --Fir0002 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: I haven't read through the above discussion, but if anyone is looking for consensus, here's my two cents:

  • If we don't know what the picture is about, or why it's important, it may be hard to support it. But frequently someone other than the nominator finds that information and shares it with us. So it's not critical.
  • If we know what the picture is of and why it's important and valuable, then lack of a caption should not get in the way of making it a featured picture. Anyone can write a good caption after the event, and insisting that it be there before the nomination is just ugly feature creep. Keep the caption out of the nomination process - it just doesn't belong. Stevage 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A good extended caption is not just a POTD issue. As an encyclopedia, our images are worthless without good captions. Good extended captions should not come after the process — as they are an integral part of the image as used in the encyclopedia. The captions are educationally vital everyday, not just the day we need something for the POTD box.--Pharos 09:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
They most certainly are not worthless, what is harder taking a photo or stringing a few words together? And I'm not against captions, it's the ridiculous length people all of a sudden are demanding of the captions. Look at an article, how many images do you see with captions of over 20 words? The caption on the FPC nom should be identical to that used in the article unless further information is required from a wiki-link to the article it resides in. Remember FP's used in the real world will be in articles, and that's the way the general public will see them. --Fir0002 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We're not judging pictures by difficulty of creation, but by usefulness in the encyclopedia. An image without a good extended caption is of strictly limited educational value; when someone clicks on an image in an article, and discovers it's a featured picture, they rightly expect some decent background info on its topical context and creation circumstance. It is precisely because good extended captions should be relatively easy to create, especially when the photographer/image discoverer is actually around at the nomination process, that they are a requirement.--Pharos 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently some people are getting quite worked up lately when it comes to the issue of captions. While I agree that no rules sould just be made up to judge some pictures by it I also believe that a dash of common sense sould be used whe it comes to captions. True, FPC is about pictures, but it is not a backpatting community for a couple of photographers which is completely disconnected from the rest of wikipedia. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Captions can be useful on FPC to document encyclopedic usefulness and to give the voters a bit of background needed to judge the picture. --Dschwen 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital manipulation of photographic FP candidates

I have proposed some additions to the guidelines suggesting that major digital manipulations should be disclosed. Please comment on the proposals at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria#Digital manipulation of photographic FP candidates. --MichaelMaggs 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of featured pictures

Is it possible to review featured pictures? I recently (catching up on Signpost reading) came across this one: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World Map. I've studied several old maps in the past, and there are literally thousands of old maps out there. (Some website are [5]; [6]). I'm not quite clear what makes this map stand out from the others at Category:Old maps of the world (a mix of articles and pictures). And I absolutely agree that articles on some of these maps would be good. To actually look at this one in more detail - Image:World Map 1689.JPG - even a cursory inspection reveals that the corner artworks are showing the classical Greek elements of Air, Water, Earth and Fire. There is also a wealth of mythological figures and symbolism, as was common on maps at that time - here we have Zeus (Air), Poseidon (water), Demeter (Earth) and the Rape of Persephone (Fire), with Cerberus looking on and an interesting contemporary setting of war and conquest (it looks suspiciously like the English Civil War). Where is the caption for this picture being written? Also, I was very disappointed to see someone questioning the accuracy of the map - that misses the whole point of the Age of Discovery and the long history of the development of maps. We shouldn't be judging the map, but rather the quality of the scan and the map's historical significance. Carcharoth 12:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For an example of an equally, if not more interesting map, see here. The Library of Congress Map Collection is here. From this I think we can use these maps on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
We have a delisting process, if you feel a picture should no longer be featured. Alternatively, you can nominate as new candidates one or more maps which you think are of greater notability and that might add weight to a delisting nomination. If you wish to add to the caption for that image, you can expand the Description section on its image page (although you need to be careful that your additions don't constitute original research). The caption for the main page won't be written until Howcheng allocates it a date for POTD. --YFB ¿ 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'd actually prefer to find a source (needed to avoid WP:OR as you point out) and write articles for these maps, rather than write a caption for the picture. How many featured pictures are there, and how often are they reviewed? Carcharoth 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The official featured picture count is currently 730, they can be viewed at Wikipedia:Featured pictures. When someone sees an image there that they don't think meets the criteria, they can nominate it for delisting. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with an improved version of an almost-closed candidate?

MIckStephenson's edit
MIckStephenson's edit

We're close to decision-time for Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Killer_whale_mother_and_calf, where there is support based on content and opposition based on technical aspects, particularly sharpness & colour quality. A few days into the nom, MIckStephenson offered to try enhancing the photo, and at the same time I asked the photographer if he could make a better scan. I should have put the nomination into suspension then, but didn't think of it. In the past few hours, the photographer has told me he can't find the original photo, and upon learning this, MIckStephenson has done what I think is a good job of enhancing the version we have. (See User_talk:MIckStephenson#Killer_whale_photo) I'd like for MIckStephenson's edit to have a chance, if that's OK, without disrespecting the process. Should we add the new edit to the nomination, start a new nomination, or wait a while before re-nominating, or give up, or ... ? Kla'quot 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you already added the new version to the nomination page. I'll move it the nom to the "additional input required" section. Optionally, you can notify the opposers of the new version on their talk pages. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So how are we dealing with those kinds of cases in general? The Bézier curves nomination has been up for more than month now. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bezier curves

This nomination has been listed since February 21. There is still no consensus on whether to promote the combined version or the separate images as a set. Please comment. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • In general, I think we should leave the choice to the closer if there is consensus that the image should be promoted but no clear consensus over which one.
  • In this case, the promotion of the combined version might be hampered because it might not fit properly into the article itself. If we're actually serious about creating featured sets, this might be the case. There is some support for the notion that the cubic curve is the "lead" picture, and the others belong to the set. ~ trialsanderrors 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll promote it as a set tomorrow unless someone offers a compelling reason not no do that. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
go for it. Debivort 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good call. And can we pull the AFD nominations too now that they've been promoted to BJAODN? ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page talk discussion about featured pictures

Not sure where to leave this note, so leaving it here and at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Tomorrow's featured picture about suitability of some pictures - kind of an attempt to prepare a response in case there is any reaction to the forthcoming eye surgery picture and the later 'hawk eating vole' picture. Input over there would be appreciated, or pop over there and ask people to bring the discussion somewhere over here instead. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EFeatured_picture_candidates_3c66.html"