Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thanks for this 2 Pleasing to the eye 3 Sufficiently high resolution 4 Copyright 5 Gallery of "bad" examples 6 Proposed adjustment of criteria 7 New criteria added 8 New Example Image 9 Use of Maps as FP 10 JPEG images 11 Is 1000 pixels enough? 12 (For Maps) Be neutral, 13 Maximum size 14 Commons 15 Proposed rephrasing of "historical exception" 16 Adds value in ways other pictures do not... 17 Not being in SVG format as a reason to OPPOSE... 18 Requested move 18.1 Survey 18.1.1 Survey - Support votes 18.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 18.2 Discussion 19 It should be sharp? 20 High-res wording 21 Digital manipulation of photographic FP candidates 22 Criteria #8, Caption & Extended Caption

[edit] Thanks for this

I'm glad that this page has been made. I'm reasonably new here, and I found it quite odd that there was no clear guidelines page for featured pictures, like there is for articles and lists. I agree with all the suggested criteria, and I can't think of any major ommisions. This was my understanding of what a featured picture should be, but it's nice to have them laid out. Raven4x4x 11:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the comments This link is Broken 20:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasing to the eye

While I find this to be an almost essential aspect to FP's, some people seem not to. Is it fair to include this in the definition of what a featured picture is? As evident in some of the recent voting, some people claim to only be looking at what the image does for the article, and not necessarilly how nice, beautiful, striking, etc, the picture looks. I'm amazed anyone would not see this as essential as a requirement of being an FP, but since we can't seem to agree on this, is it fair to include this "pleasing to the eye" aspect as part of the definition of FP's? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To your first question, Yes. To your second, Yes. My opinion on this is based on the criteria that states the image should be an example of wikipedia's best. All of the rules seem to be based off the best goal. HighInBC 22:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sufficiently high resolution

Are there any specific numerical guidelines for sufficiently high resolution? --Christopherlin 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nowadays, 1000 pixels or more is generally required for support. I also added some other, more general quality criteria to the list. Feel free to add, edit or expand as fit, as per past image & voting discussions. --Janke | Talk 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "images under 1000 pixels are seldom supported" mean? Is the text trying to say 1000 x 1000 pixels? abelson 11:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've always understood it to mean 1000px on the longest edge, but in any case, it's a very rough guideline and individual circumstances are always taken into account. 1000px is too small for a modern cityscape, but it's big enough for a unique photograph of a historic event ~ Veledan • Talk 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I think which tags can be submitted and which can't should be explicitly listed, or at least spelled out more. Anyone agree? -Ravedave 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

N/m I was bold and figured out how to fix it. -Ravedave 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. This needed to be clarified. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the changes have clarified it. The situation can be stated fairly simply: any image whose license is acceptable for Wikipedia is allowed, except for Fair use images. I admit the old wording could have made that clearer, but your new version implies that people have to go and study WP:CF before they'll know whether an image can be nominated, which I reckon overcomplicates it ~ Veledan • Talk 18:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absense of further comments, I've had a go at making it unambiguous without sending anyone to read WP:CF. I've changed the links on public domain and Fair use to the pages which explain those concepts, and added a new link at the end to the list they both pointed to before. Feel free to revert if you think I'm off track ~ Veledan • Talk 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of "bad" examples

I added an explanatory line above the examples - feel free to edit or add to it! --Janke | Talk 05:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think the off center image is suitable, as off center can look good sometimes, and I don't think it's correct to limit composition to centered subjects. --Fir0002 www 04:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats true, although providing an example of what DOES look bad doesn't suggest that all photos exhibiting off-centredness look bad. Eg, showing an example of an image being overexposed doesn't mean that any image with overexposure looks bad. I'm sure its going to confuse newbies regardless though, as composition is notoriously subjective and can take a trained eye, which some people just don't seem to have. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you also add a well known copyrighted photo to the "bad" examples list to remind people that liscense is a factor for FPC-nominated photos? TomStar81 04:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we do that? WP rules forbids "fair use" on any page not direclty related to the subject of the copyrighted image. --Janke | Talk 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to do, the text should be clear enough as to what is accepted.-Ravedave 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed adjustment of criteria

I would like to propose an adjustment of point 8. A featured picture should not only "have a good caption" in the thumbnail inside the article, it should also have a decent extended caption covering the topic directly illustrated and (where appropriate) the means of production, for the image page and also for the Main Page on the day it is "Today's featured picture". Without some reasonable background information in a couple of lines of prose alongside it, I think we are depriving FPs of their full potential. For details, please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Mainpage caption as part of candidate nomination. Thanks.--Pharos 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Someone, maybe you, put it perfectly: The Main Page FP entry is just another Main Page FA entry: about a topic, not about the picture. Of course, not all pictures are going to have much more to say than the topic itself, but photos of historic importance, or paintings, or maps, or diagrams, should not simply have generic text that does nothing to highlight the picture. Should a diagram like Haeckel's get to Featured status just to have some generic text about how "Frogs are amphibians"? I'd rather the text focused on the frogs in the picture, and what was different about them. Bottom line: every main page FP entry should use the phrase "In this image" or "As shown here", or something along those lines. Right now, the text seems like it was written without the picture in mind, and the picture was stuck in at the last minute. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-15 04:53
• Can I ask that you please comment on the FPC talk page, as that's where the discussion is most ongoing. Thanks.--Pharos 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that someone has been bolder than I on this point. I hope this issue will be raised in future on WP:FPC discussions.--Pharos 10:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New criteria added

I've added a new criteria to the list: Neutrality (borrowed from WP:WIAFA). This applies specifically to maps. I've noticed that some maps do not show the distinction between claimed regions and undisputed regions. This loophole has to be plugged. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Example Image

I destroyed an image and uploaded it to serve as a new JPEG artifact example. Anyone so inclined is welcome to examine the old and new images and offer their input as to which is better. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the old image back in. The old image's strength was that no zooming is required. I think they can co-exist. -Ravedave 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Maps as FP

I can't deny this is influenced by todays FP (map of india). Unless its for historic purposes - maps demonstrating how something was im very much against the use of maps as FP. It leaves the entire process open to abuse and will invariably result in contributors from most countries/regions including regionalised maps of their areas with vote stacking to promote (which id say happened in this instance). Today's FP tells me nothing of value about india beyond its geographic divisions, saying its purpose is as a locator map (re its discussion page) is an admission the map in itself is of little value until it has context put on it. A pictorial representation has been nominated to FP status (#5 Add value to an article) with the acceptance the map will be used in the future as a means of adding value. There is an inherent acceptance in that logic that it adds less value as it is than it will when its used properly.

A featured picture is meant to add value in itself.

Im dissapointed with bcasterline's decision and rationale, but its done now.

Does the rest of the community believe in a map exemption clause for future pictures? unless

• a) Its historically informative (maps of historic fiefdoms/nations etc)
• b) Adds value in itself rather than as a possible template in the future

As the decision stands it would be seemingly acceptable to include not only a blank template map of the UK but of every region within the UK and every county there after. What possible value would that add?

Zaq12wsx 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vote on this particular image either when it was promoted or now. But in general terms, if it's an excellently-drawn map, I don't see any problem with making it a featured picture. I also don't see why it matters if we have a hundred of them, though I doubt that would happen. I certainly don't think we should make exceptions for specific types of image. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have faith in consensus to allow the good maps through and others not. I am very opposed to a map exemption, a featured picture is a featured picture. To apply special standards to an entire genre of images is not an option I would endorse while existing policy exists that can be used to prevent the type of abuse you speak of, namely, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. HighInBC 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPEG images

Are all jpg images not allowed to be FP? Because I believe Image:Solar sys.jpg should be FP, but I am wary about it being jpg due to rule number one of this page. I am trying to find the source to see if it is not jpg, but have not been able to find it yet. --WillMak050389 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is referring to artifacts caused by excessive jpg compression, not all JPGs. As far as I can tell the image you linked is free of them. IT s a good image, I would for sure submit it. -Ravedave 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is 1000 pixels enough?

I agree that if we are setting a minimun that 1000 pixels is fine. But, I have seen too many times people objecting to decisions made based on low resolution by yelling But it has 1000 pixels on one side! It meets the standards..

Perhaps we can reword this to say that while 1000 pixels along one edge is needed, that higher resolutions are prefered? Simply adding that higher resolutions are prefered stops people from claiming unfairness when someone objects based on image size.

What do other people think? HighInBC 22:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is what it said:

1. Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. Generally, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. Information on image size can be found here

And I have changed it to:

1. Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. Information on image size can be found here

HighInBC 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (For Maps) Be neutral,

It says: (For Maps) Be neutral

Should this not say(spelled properly of course):

(Especially in the case of maps) Be neutral,

If an image is clearly not neutral, this it violates WP:NPOV, the way the rule is worded seems to imply that only maps require neutrality. My understanding is that all images fall under WP:NPOV if they are being considered for FP or not. HighInBC 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It should just be "Be neutral" someone added that recently if I remember. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it a bit, I have left the mention regarding maps as it seems appropriate. If this is against consensus, please revert me after discusing the matter here. HighInBC 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum size

Ok, there is some talk about not choosing an image for FP because it is too big at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Orion_Nebula_mosaic.

The concern of some seems to be that very large images cannot be loaded well in a browser by people or at all by people with slower computers.

My response to this is:

1. Large images are not meant to be viewed in a browser, the wikipedia software automatically scales the images for use in a browser.
2. A warning at the top of the image page is enough to warn people
3. The Download high-resolution version button should do just that
4. A featured picture should be the best wikipedia has to offer and more detailed images are better than less
5. It is arbritrary, an old enough computer will crash on a 2000x2000 image, while the better computers of today can handle a 18000x18000.
6. Not making the larger picture FP will not stop people from clicking on it, only deleting the larger image will accomplish that.
7. The maximum size of files on wikipedia was increased from 8mb to 20mb, this coupled with the text of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb point 5 seems to indicate that the bigger the image the more prefered it is.

Please give your opinion on this matter. Do you think that a very large image should be scaled down and then used as the FP instead of the large one? Or do you think the highest detailed version of the image should be used? If such a limitation is to exist it should be in this criteria page. HighInBC 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We should make both a full-res image and a scaled version available. Very few of our users can handle 20,000px images, so we need to have something available for them. Which one actually gets the FA star is silly, since they're just scaled versions of the same image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Should we not strive to have featured pictures and FP candidates on Commons? I'd like to see a note added to the guidelines suggesting to nominators that their images are better uploaded to Commons than Wikipedia. –Outriggr § 06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I usually send them to the commons. But really anyone can move an image to the commons, just make sure it passes commons guidelines, upload it, catagorize it and put {{nowcommonsthis}} on the wikipedia version. Some admin should come by, check it is done right, then remove the original. HighInBC 13:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My interest is in educating the user, not whether or not there is a way around the problem. –Outriggr § 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. HighInBC 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rephrasing of "historical exception"

Currently, the exception to the high-quality criterion is phrased as follows:

The exception to this rule is the rarity or importance of the image being depicted. The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed. For example, the first photograph ever taken is of poor quality, but is one-of-a-kind, whereas NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images.

I've been seeing quite a few people invoke this to justify support for poor-quality images on the grounds of historical importance. For example, at one point someone defended a poor picture of a museum exhibit on these grounds. I don't think it was the intention of the exception to give a free pass to any vaguely historical image, but rather to justify truly one-of-a-kind pictures that couldn't possibly be taken again.

The main problem with the phrasing is the or in "rarity or importance". This shouldn't be an either/or thing, rarity is crucial. Importance isn't a proper ground for featuring an image if a higher-quality image of the same important subject exists. I propose that we rephrase it to this:

The only exception to this rule is in the case of one-of-a-kind historical images. If it can reasonably be considered impossible to find a higher-quality image of a given subject, low quality may sometimes be allowed. For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. Meanwhile, NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images, so a poor picture of the moon landing would not be accepted given that many others are available.

I think this is clearer as well as remaining in line with the original intent of the text above. Thoughts? I'd like to gather consensus before making the change. Redquark 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd support that re-write, although I'm not sure it should say "The only exception to this rule is...". I'd prefer it to be a bit more diplomatic and say "Typically, the only exception" as (correct me if I'm wrong) we prefer to keep them as strong guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules. Other than that, I think you do explain it a little clearer and leave less room for interpretation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. Okay, it seems that quite a few people have had time to read this page (judging from the voting below) and no one seems to object, and comments from established users in this recent nom seem to agree with the thrust of this change, so I've went ahead and changed it (with "typically" added). Of course, if somebody has a problem with it, by all means go ahead and revert to the old wording and we can discuss the objections here. Redquark 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adds value in ways other pictures do not...

Rule number 5 states: "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject."

I think that perhaps the first sentence should be re-phrased. From my observation about what has passed as FP in the past, I don't think that it has to add value to the article in ways that other images do not. For example, some articles have many similar images that all add value (or perhaps some don't due to redundancy, but thats another story) but the FP is the one that is technically very good as well as adding value to the article. Therefore the FP does not add value in ways other pictures do not. Perhaps we could crop it a little to something like "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article." That way there is no dependence on any other images in the article. Comments? Unless there are objections I may make this change in the near future. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any problems with this change. Redquark 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not being in SVG format as a reason to OPPOSE...

...Is a bullshit reason. —ExplorerCDT 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It should be sharp?

I think the FP guidelines need a slight rewrite to consider that not ALL photos need to be tack sharp throughout the entire photograph to be feature worthy. Often times it is actually preferable to have foreground and background elements OUT of focus to help enhance the emphasis on the subject of the photo. This is a well established principle of portrait photography and works in many other cases as well. Yet I see fine photos being dismissed with such cryptic notations as, “not sharp as per FP standards.” --Mactographer 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-res wording

Thanks to Redquark for fixing my edit. But I wonder whether "and even" can be removed. Can't see that an amplification is necessary there. "It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated; and even larger sizes are generally preferred." Tony 00:43, 7 January 2007 (U:TC)

"and" can be removed, sure. "even", though, I think serves a disambiguation purpose in that it means the phrase can only be interpreted to mean even larger than 1000px; without the "even", it could mean larger in a vague general sense (perhaps considering 1000px itself as "larger"). In the past phrasing, "while" served this purpose. Personally, although I value concision, I don't think it's necessarily beneficial to remove every little word like this -- they can subtly clarify and help flow. Redquark 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital manipulation of photographic FP candidates

I propose that we should add something along the following lines to the Guidelines for evaluating FPs. I'm posting here first, to see if we can get a consensus, before moving to the project page.

• Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, colour/exposure correction, and removal of distracting background elements. More extensive manipulations should be clearly described in the image text. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be seriously misrepresented are never acceptable.

There is a similar proposal over at Commons:Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Digital manipulation of FP candidate photographs--MichaelMaggs 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:RetouchedPicture. Nice guideline, but it shouldn't be limited to FPC, but every image used on Wikipedia. --Dschwen 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I don't think that removal of actual objects in the scene should be considered acceptable at all really. We've been through that discussion before. At the very least, any sort of removal of content from a scene should be disclosed, not just the ones that are done for aesthetic reasons. The only removal I consider acceptable without disclosure are things such as digital noise (as long as it doesn't significantly affect detail and even then, it might as well be disclosed as being noise reduced for aesthetics) and dust spots from digital SLR sensors and the like as those spots are not present in the actual scene. Other than that, good job and I agree with Dschwen, 'all images should follow that guideline for disclosure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Put "stitching" on the list of acceptable manipulations. Though I'm not sure what the point of all this is: you can easily "misrepresent" a subject without digital manipulation. And pretty much every image is tweaked one way or another. Stevage 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True, good point. The split-second the image is captured by a digital camera (or even film), the representation of the scene is manipulated in some way (eg camera noise, jpeg compression, white balance etc). We have to expect that, and disclosing details like camera, shutter speed, aperture, focal length etc would certainly help to evaluate the image. Some may say that its only the end result that matters, and to an extent I agree, but I do think that knowing what potential there was for technical improvement is also important in evaluating whether the image was as good as it could have been. The more details about the capture, the better IMHO. Coming from a photographic background, I tend to be interested in how a great image was captured, but it does still make sense to detail such things regardless. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The camera never lies" is a well known saying - well, compare these two shots: taken from 8" above ground and taken from nomal eye level - I took them just a few seconds apart. No retouching whatsoever! Which one represents the truth? Would the first one fool most viewers? Should it be marked as "manipulated", even if it's not? --Janke | Talk 07:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

He he, excellent example. However I cannot agree with your reasoning that just because Photographers can manipulate by choice of framing and perspective that any kind of digital manipulation is permissible and should not be noted in the image description. Plus your example yields a fair chance of discovering the deceit (compare the size of the grass blades), while a digitally manipulated picture destroys evidence. --Dschwen 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wonder if we can move to some sort of consensus. This is an FP-related proposal, and although I'd be more than happy to apply this to all Wikipedia images, as suggested by Dschwen, I'll leave that for someone else to propose. I don't think we should add 'stitching' as an allowable manipulation, as in my view that ought always to be disclosed. Also, editors use the word in different ways; some mean stitching two shots together to create a panorama, others mean the boundary between the separate parts of a composite image.

What about the following?

• Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations should be clearly described in the image text. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be seriously misrepresented are never acceptable.

--MichaelMaggs 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I object!! Sorry for being late but I strongly oppose this suggestion and would really like to go into this in great depth but I've got a killer specialists maths SAC I'm struggling with and well I just don't have time. School finishes for the term this week so if you could please wait for another few days so I can have a chance to put my input into this discussion I would really appreciate it. --Fir0002 06:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Me too - I don't really know where all this came from, but it doesn't look helpful to me. Perhaps we could start with a problem, agree that it's a problem, then look at solutions, then choose a solution. I don't know what problem you're trying to solve, or how this solution actually solves it. Are you attempting to discriminate against digital manipulation? Are you trying to make image captions more informative? Let's start again, if you feel it's important. Stevage 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought we already established that there was a legitimate problem: namely that digital manipulation can sometimes misrepresent reality through deception or removal of content within the scene (through cloning etc). The latter is a different issue than cropping to remove content although that could also easily be considered misrepresentative if the crop was used to hide a particular reality. I would suggest that any such misrepresentative manipulation is probably inappropriate to any images on Wikipedia, let alone FPs, but if they must be used for whatever reason, such manipulation should be acknowledged. Hence, we're discussing the idea of putting this information on the guidelines and encouraging contributors to disclose such manipulations so that the issue doesn't explode when they are discovered on an image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this just for FPC? What is "is generally acceptable" supposed to mean - that a candidate with this type of editing may still pass? The wording above is excessively formal and heavy-handed. Why not just something like "Nominators are encouraged to disclose all digital manipulation that has taken place on an image. Excessive, blatant editing of an image, or misrepresentation of a subject is not welcome in a Featured Picture." Stevage 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• For one recent example of image manipulation on FPC, compare this original with the promoted edit. Liberal cloning there, ok or not ok? --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm in favour of such editing - we're primarily about producing nice images, not about recognising photographic talent. Someone did some similar edits to my Chambord image [Image:PanoChambord2 yfb edit04.jpg] but the promoted one had the original people in it. The edited one is the one I show people. Stevage 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have to disagree, at least in the encyclopedic context, that "we're primarily about producing nice images" - not so, if this means altering the factual nature of the subjects illustrated. The Egeskov example is interesting, however, as it illustrates what I'd say were two entirely distinct issues.

First, for Commons use (where this example appears) I'd be quite happy never knowing about the edit as the picture is much more "pictoral" without people draped all over it. I'm not interested in its factual accuracy in this context, I'm only more impressed with its artistic merit. To appreciate this, of course, I'd need to be informed of this somewhere in the image description, so for commons - even FPs - it's just desirable additional info and need not be compulsory. Really.

Second, for Wikipedia (where the edited version also appears) I would object to any undeclared edit as it obscures, manipulates and downright invents (however minor) factual details - the step on which the foreground people were sitting, the shape of the entrance to the right, even the rocks on the riverbank to the left - such that, were I looking for reference for entranceways to Danish castles, I would definitely want to know about it. As it is, the image page is tagged to declare the manipulation; in cases like this though, I'm inclined to go so far as to argue in favour of a more prominent warning, possibly on the article page, to this effect.

Re: COM:FP, I'm inclined to say that good digital manipulation is no less impressive than skilled in-camera work form the pov of photographic skills. I used to think the same about deft darkroom work and this is no different. In commons (and only in commons!) if an artist would rather not disclose his/her "trade secrets" we should respect that decision. mikaul 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're veiw on COM:FP is bang on, but it shouldn't be restricted to com - it belongs on en as well. Even if you were familiar with the castle you'd be hard pressed to tell that any manipulation had occurred! And who is really gonna care that the shape of a brick is slightly wrong - it's a picture of a castle for crying out loud! --Fir0002 06:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to put the proposal in context: the aim is to make it clear that large-scale hidden manipulation that results in an image which is materially deceitful or misleading is not welcome. But provided the manipulation is disclosed in the text, anything goes. It's all to do with trust. The problem to be solved is that Wikipedia and Commons have recently had photos proposed for FP status which were undisclosed composites, resulting in misleading images that were much less encylopedic than they appeared. One image was promoted on Commons and then immediately demoted whan the deception came to light: Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Male and female superb fairy wren.jpg. The same image was rejected for FP status here as the deception was fortunately discovered before the vote closed: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2007#Superb fairy-wrens. --MichaelMaggs 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it makes the motive for this guideline much clearer. The main impression I came away from the "fairy wren" controversy with is that that no-one wants to be taken for a Conan Doyle ;). I see the Commons guideline is already in place, where I think it's pitched about right, although there is one unresolvable contradiction; if some form of substantial manupulation is sufficiently well-done, as stipulated in the opening statement, you will never be able to detect any undescribed or mis-described manipulations which may have been perpetrated. As I said, I think this is way less important for COM:FPC anyway. In contrast, WP:FPC (and WP images in general) really should be very up-front about factual innacuracies in uploaded images. In this context there really is no excuse for any deliberate material deceit; in some ways we almost need an extension of NPOV to cover those images which are expressly encyclopedic in nature. I'd support something tagged to the end, along the lines of, "For use in the encycolpedia, images should be as literal and unaltered as possible, and greater credence will be awarded to those in which this is judged to be the case", effectively adding a plus-point in consideration of images for FP. The WP Special:Upload page should also feature the Template:RetouchedPicture as an option for all uploaded pics. mikaul 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My view on this discussion is the same now as it was back here when this issue was discussed in great length. I see no problem whatsoever of cloning etc as long as it does not alter the main point of the image. So in the case of the castle above, removing the people is fine because it is illustrating the castle, not the people or it being a tourist destination. A photo is merely an illustration, nothing more. To take such a puritanical view on image manipulation is simply ridiculous. Again to take the example of the castle above, by the logic of saying it's unenc if it's got no people in is to say that the original is unenc because it doesn't have the exact second the image was captured included. Because unless you have the exact second it is unenc because a second or two later the people can be in a completely different position. Even the captured exif time might be wrong (wrong time setting in the camera's clock - doesn't say time zone etc etc) so a minute or two later the people might have gone altogether! So you just have to settle for the fact that a photo is just an illustration, and as such if it hasn't dramatically altered the castle (which it hasn't) then the edit of the Egeskov is completely OK IMO --Fir0002 06:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But what abot where it has dramatically altered the main subject, as with Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Male and female superb fairy wren.jpg? That's what this is about, not the removal of a couple of small people in the backgound. The castle example comes under "removal of distracting background elements" which is not affacted by this proposal. --MichaelMaggs 06:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria #8, Caption & Extended Caption

There is a discussion on this criteria and voting on featured picture candidates here. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Caption_Issues Once there is a consensus here as well (or resounding silence), I'll change the criteria. Enuja 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus is pretty much attained as regards to the community feeling that caption do not have to have be suitable for POTD, although it is a recommendation. --Fir0002 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)