Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FPC)
Jump to: navigation, search


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
Emanuel Ninger $100 (1880).jpg Deception I - Jim the Penman (Emanuel Ninger)
Edouard Manet - The Balcony - Google Art Project.jpg Edouard Manet - The Balcony


Shortcut:

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hereford Cathedral set[edit]

Some eyes on this would be helpful too. It's going to fail due to insufficient votes. Please don't let the (extensive) discussion put you off. And If you want to oppose, please do so, I will say no more on the matter. ;-) It's better to know for sure what the consensus is than let it flounder under the minimum required votes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say renominate it in a couple weeks. I'd have voted Support had it not slipped through the cracks somehow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar[edit]

Hey—I'm new to FPC, but I have a collection of images at commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar that I believe has a few good candidates. I'm looking for advice on potential candidates from the several hundred uploads, perhaps a good set or two? Let me know what you think? I'm particularly curious about what videos and GIFs would work best. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll check back later this week. (@Sven Manguard, GamerPro64, I know you've expressed an interest before.) czar  03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, since you nominated one from Solipskier, perhaps you can take a look at the rest of the category, if you have a moment? I'm fine with doing the nomination cleanup and legwork—I'd just like some advice on worthy candidates czar  08:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I left an inquiry on the subject at your FTC nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to decrease the minimum number of supports from 5 to 4[edit]

We've had a number of nominations fail recently due to insufficient votes rather than any real opposition. I can't find the original discussion, but a number of years ago, I recall that we discussed this and decided to stick with five votes as we felt that contributions to FPC were on the rise and we could expect five votes for a worthy image. I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case currently as most nominations are struggling to get five votes. The biggest problem that I see is that we have mostly the same small group of voters who contribute to most of the nominations, and a few others that contribute sporadically. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be (the health of FPC would suffer even more without them), but the end result is that nominations pass or fail on the basis of a couple of regulars. Obviously, reducing the voting numbers isn't going to change this, but at least it gives a nomination a fair chance of succeeding. Looking at the current list of nominations, about half will fail not because there is significant opposition, but because of insufficient votes. It's been rightly argued in the past that this is often due to indifference and as such, the nomination probably deserves not to pass, but I'm not sure this is always the case. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I've just gotten interested in Featured Pictures lately and I will agree that there is a struggle for images to reach five supports. I'm all for decreasing the minimum to four. GamerPro64 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Just two months ago the supports were flowing free. I think it may be because people are going back to school, or the regular seasonal ebbs and flows. If this continues into October, I might agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed it looks like the usual summer lull. I would also give it a month or two before declaring it a problem. Samsara (FA  FP) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the votes were flowing freely mainly because of that small group of regulars. For example, Coat of many colours and Hafspajen were recently voting on nearly every nomination and are now conspicuously absent. As Colin mentioned above, we are dangerously close to not having sufficient members to really be seen to be a broad community. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's important to balance the desire to the desire to promote as many worthy candidates as possible with the need to ensure that a candidate receives broad enough support before succeeding. If changed to only 4 supports, it can have 2 opposes against it and still pass - which is too many in my opinion. Something I would be in favor of is the notion of net votes: supports minus opposes. We could make the threshold 4 net votes, so a candidate would pass with 4 supports against 0 opposes but fail with 5 supports against 2 opposes. (The threshold can be lowered if necessary.) Alternatively, or in conjunction, we could allow for relisting of candidates that have received few votes (the details of which could be worked out if people like this idea). -- King of ♠ 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The current system of minimum 2/3 majority in favour to pass seems to have served us well thus far. Samsara (FA  FP) 03:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be keen to lower the quorum requirements and think this is partly a summer lull combined with a general trend towards lower participation levels on wiki. There comes a point when the opinion of so few people really doesn't represent a community decision wrt the "best on Wikipedia". And lowering the quorum makes personal and wikiproject bias even more likely to influence outcomes. If it becomes a regular situation that great images can't get five people to review them, then this forum should be suspended, sadly. -- Colin°Talk 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm actually fine with the current system as well. Just saying that I would prefer what I have suggested to reducing raw supports to 4. -- King of ♠ 07:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Give it another month and see what happens. If the numbers remain the same I could support this but agree that, at the moment this doesn't seem to be a priority ...yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Happy to wait and see. I do appreciate that some of the slowdown can be attributed to summer holidays, but on the other hand, it's a dysfunctional project when it fails to function properly for 3-4 months of the year (summer and Christmas-New Year periods). Every year we have the same slow down and every year, nominations fade into the void without any real consensus. An alternative arrangement could be that (as is documented for the Christmas period) if a nomination does not have a greater than 1:2 oppose ratio (ie is not looking like failing due to opposition) but does not have the required 5 votes, it could be left open for an additional x days. I know this adds another layer of complexity for closers and I'd much prefer to keep the system as simple as possible, but it would certainly assist in getting the 'right' decision in periods of low participation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
May I point out that I am merely absent because off Coat's vigourous opposing off my nominations? And harrasment and uncivility. He is not doing any good to this project, it is just a lot of disturbance and not many good points. Maybe Sagaciousphil, if we ask her nicely or Belle, will be a replacement.Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it's disappointing that you feel that way about Coat. I caught bits and pieces of it but didn't really know enough of what was going on to get involved. Rather than stopping, perhaps we can somehow sort the issue out? Agree not to comment on each other's nominations perhaps? I don't think any of us should tolerate harassment but without going back and reading through it all (I'd rather not), I can't say who was to blame and I'd rather find a solution than a scapegoat. ;-) But problem noted and I hope we can sort it out without you disappearing for good. Would be nice to keep Belle around too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That they not comment on each others' nominations seems like a fair solution to me; I don't think Haf is interested in commenting on Coat's nominations seems clear. But this isn't maybe the best place for that: should these problems return it's probably best addressed on WP:AN, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. If you make "Ooooo pretty!" one of the criteria, I'll definitely be round here more often. Belle (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Preferably along with some insight into what makes it pretty and how it helps the article, sure. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am disappointed, too. And I did asked several times him to not to comment on my nominations, or stopp doing it - but it was unstoppable. And I NEVER commented on his, by the way, just mentioning it. No, you didn't understod, because you were not the target, Diliff. It was pretty violent harrasment, and not only here but at different talkpages, that you probably don't watch. Also possible different depths to it, that it would take time to explain... Not possible so sort out, sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can't sort out the original source of the harrassment or stop it from happening on all pages (although there are certainly avenues to pursue that), but we can at least try to make your contributions at FPC comfortable and ensure we don't tolerate it there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • An IBAN could be a simple solution for some of those problems. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Diliff. If he retuns, than I would suggest that nothing more than a simple support or oppose should be added by him to MY nominations, that would be a big help. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who want to wait and see what happens in a month or two. If the situation does not improve, I would be more supportive of the extended time (up to 4 additional days as we have done during the end of year holidays) per Diliff versus lowering the number of supporting votes required.--Godot13 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I will participate - if these conditions above are imposed - a simple yes or no from Coat, but nothing more - so I don't have to feel like sitting in the lion's den with each and every nomination... Hafspajen (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
I think that while we decide on an consensus for this proposal, some of us should probably look at the nominations in Template:FPC urgents. With six currently in need of reviewing its no wonder this thread was made. GamerPro64 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Not six...not any more . Somebody just forgot to remove two or three. Hafspajen (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be opposed. Truly exceptional images are getting plenty of support, which indicates those not getting enough support may have more to do with their content than the number of reviewers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That old argument is easy to make, but I disagree slightly with it. Firstly, 'exceptional' is very subjective and not necessarily a requirement for FP. If you mean something that truly makes your eyes pop then yes those images are quite rare and rightly so, at least for me. And yes when they do come around, they do generally get good support. But there are a lot of images that I would consider at or above the standard of similar FPs, but not necessarily 'wow' material for a lot of people. And for those people, they're inclined to pass over them rather than oppose, which is a normal response. But this is where the problem lies. In effect, a decision to not vote results in the same thing as voting oppose in many cases, but it's not a fair way of dealing with a nomination and it also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the criteria. It's just personal interest. I'm not suggesting we should become criteria-automatons, but I think it's important that we vote on as many nominations as possible, not just the ones that interest or wow us. Nobody is going to argue against a well reasoned oppose, but when silence is essentially an 'it's not interesting to me' oppose vote, then it's not particularly well reasoned vote, and nor is it helpful feedback to the nominator. If we reduce the number of votes required for an image to pass, it may also have the knock-on effect of pushing those lurking members to vote. If they genuinely believe it should not pass, then they may be more inclined to oppose when it's 'live'. And if they aren't interested in it but can't summon a legitimate reason to oppose, then perhaps rightfully they don't deserve the aforementioned silent oppose vote. ;-) Perhaps, or perhaps not, but as things stand, there's not much incentive for these people to vote. Silence gives them the desired result but the nominator is left frustrated. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not as bad here as on Commons, but people routinely argue opposes, reasoned or not. People and cultures that try to avoid open confrontation would much rather pass than vote oppose in that environment. As such, I think it is just as easy to say that failed nominations are the result of low participation. I've looked at the current list of urgents and went meh. Nothing there is bad, yet I don't care enough about them to vote either way. I am not suggesting they need to be spectacular either, just something more than good and/or adequate EV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In principle I am in favor of this, though King of Hearts makes a valid point. But these are !votes ("not votes") anyway, right? So if there's four in favor and no significant opposition (that is, just one against, or not much of an argument) it can pass--and I imagine that if you, in the current system, have one good "for" argument, four "per nom", and two well-argued "against" votes, it already doesn't pass. Is that so? I mean, don't tell me that at the end of the day you simply count votes here. In other words, if the vote is 4-2 (KoH's scenario), then it will depend on the arguments and the quality thereof. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, these are actually votes, and the 2/3 rule is a strict cutoff unless there are exceptional circumstances. What makes FPC different from other things like AfD is that it is an inherently subjective process. Ultimately it's a tradeoff. With consensus-based discussions, we allow for one person (the closer) to have a much greater voice than any of the participants because 1) we trust them not to abuse that authority, and 2) there are a lot of !votes that are made for invalid reasons, and need to be discounted. But with FPC, it's much harder to say that a reason is invalid, even someone just doesn't like an image, that's a perfectly fine reason to oppose (though explaining the specific objections is strongly recommended). Also it's difficult for one person to say whether an image with 10 supports and 5 opposes should pass.
    Perhaps I'm getting a bit philosophical here, but in general you want a balance between objectivity and subjectivity. If something is too objective, it can produce clearly unsuitable results if a case comes up that the writers of the rules didn't foresee. If something is too subjective, it introduces too much variability and puts too much control in the hands of people who may find it difficult to act in a neutral capacity. Since AfD is more objective, we use a more subjective evaluation process, and for FPC vice versa. -- King of ♠ 04:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally believe that the reason for some of the lack of interest in participating is not due to apathy or disinterest. I too experienced some of the negative rise in atmospheric pressure over the summer, especially with one nominator. I have voted on some photos and paintings, but mostly 'support' because I do not have the technical background to back up an 'oppose' with a good reason, which is fair. Twice, I did vote 'oppose' and was badly wounded in long arguments and demands to strike my vote. There was argument and mockery against others as well, as Hafspajen has said above. I echo Saffron Blaze just above that some nominators argue opposes, even without good reason. It was just too unhappy an experience for me to continue, after I was mocked and talked about to other contributers in the thread in an attacking way. I have no personal preference over four or five 'supports', I don't suppose. I would love to continue to stop in and vote in favour of an awesome painting from time to time. I do have an artsy background of sorts...Fylbecatulous talk 19:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Although I'm certainly not trying to discourage you from contributing to FPC, I have to say, if you don't feel comfortable opposing, then that's a problem. We should all be able to express opposition without being intimidated into changing our mind (or into avoiding the project completely). I have from time to time fought my corner against what I saw to be irrational or unfair criticism, but I'd like to think I never made anyone feel too uncomfortable. Ultimately, it isn't about egos or being right at all costs, it's just about highlighting the best images and if we can't do that fairly and with the right checks and balances, then we're not really suceeding as a project. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 01:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
What was I saying. It is not working. Hafspajen (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That nomination certainly has drawn more attention than I would have thought. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't voted on a nomination in a long while, making this a little hypocritical (sorry to be part of the problem), but I'm in favor of this proposal. The community is shrinking and the number of members in the community willing to put up with sometimes obscure (often unwritten) rules of these processes and the above mentioned issues of harassment and challenged opinions doubly so. The process won't be hurt by having fewer nominations failed by default IMO. Cat-fivetc ---- 03:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we should do it, or do a recruitment drive. Half my current nominations are failing, and none are opposed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone who currently has a large set nominated that has taken six months of work (on and off) and created a featured list to explain the set, I have to disagree. The notion stated above that “the process won’t be hurt by having fewer nominations failed by default” is (IMO, and said respectfully) wrong. If satisfaction is not achieved with four votes required then what? Maybe there needs to be “Good Picture” criteria, or perhaps (drawing on what has been suggested above by KoH) four supporting votes with no opposition. My concern is that the term “Featured Picture” will mean less if the criteria is changed/eased. Believe me Adam, I’m frustrated too…--Godot13 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
When you mention making "Good Pictures", I have to point out that WP:Valued pictures used to be a thing. Its now gone the way of the dodo. Bringing it back could be an option though. GamerPro64 12:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we get enough reviews if we make notifications on the article or project talk pages. I prefer such reviews (from the subject experts) than mere technical reviews from the regulars (Commons is for that). Jee 05:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I do not visit WP:FPC that often, as I do not feel entirely comfortable evaluating the EV of nominations (as I am not an encyclopedian, but a media contributor), and quite frankly because when I do, it is because I try to self-nominate a picture. I also add my comments to a few noms if I feel I have something to add. I do notice though that it is now a much less active community here (as compared to commons:COM:FPC), than it was a few years ago. It appears to be dying. Almost nothing is happening and very peacefull. Maybe old reviewers should come out of their rabbit holes? I think the idea Jee had to actively recruit new active members by engaging regular editors on the talk pages of the pages nominations are used in would also be a good idea. At least for evaluating the EV side of things. The more technical aspects could then be the focal point of the few regulars here, and along the way, some more editors could get an eye for what makes an FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I could see that working as a notification-after-the-fact, otherwise it will just have the effect of drawing ill-considered supports of the "I like that bridge so I support the nom regardless of quality" kind. I'm also not sure if we're still actively nominating images contributed by Wikipedians, in which case, I believe we used to notify them when the image passed. WikiProjects dying has been a general phenomenon for some time now, unfortunately, not something unique to FPC. Samsara (FA  FP) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at many of the talk archives to see why many of the regulars are gone and never coming back. I'm reluctant to name particular names but there were a few who had hundreds (possibly over a thousand in one or two cases) of successfully featured pictures but just couldn't deal with the drama, backbiting, and overall nastiness that often occurs both in relation to specific noms and about the whole process here on this talk page. Some of them moved to Commons but for the rest, it is IMO a great loss to Wikipedia that they were driven away. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I used to be a regular here and see no drama in what's happening now. Projects are born, grow and die quite naturally without a special reason, other than the boredom of its participants and the lack of new blood. Maybe the initial enthusiasm of those editors (including myself) could be revived through some new challenging initiative, but I can't see how. As for the proposal of David, I would keep things as they are. PS to @Cat-five:: there are no authors with thousands of FP. The one with more promotions is maybe Diliff himself! Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect JJ Harrison or Fir0002 have more featured pictures than me (high 100s, low 200s I think). I'm only on 168 currently. But slow and steady wins the race, eh? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing Fir has more than that, he used to be a prolific nominator to the point that people asked him not to nominate so much so others would have a chance. My memory may be faulty but I remember most of his noms succeeding too. The other person I was thinking of was GMaxwell, who had fewer noms, but also had a very high success rate. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong but I don't think Fir0002 has more than the low 200s. Actually if this is accurate and up to date, he has 162 featured pictures, or 190 if former FPs are included. Gmaxwell wouldn't have more than 10-15 FPs at most, I would say. I recall a few of them but not many. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That probably is right, it just feels like more for some reason, same with GMaxwell. Cat-fivetc ---- 09:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it's actually me, Durova, or Godot13 then. I have over two hundred and fifty; not sure of the exact number because I know my list before 2013 is very, very incomplete; Durova claims 288, but I think she claims a lot of things I don't claim, like nominations without restoration work put in. Godot probably has over 200 this year alone, albeit mostly in large sets. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's just gloommongering. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't participated here for quite some time. I look in from time to time, but don't see much to catch my eye or worth investing my time in. There are some great photographs but most of those have been through Commons FP. There are a lot of historical photos, paintings, diagrams, etc, which is great and encouraging for that aspect of Wikipedia. But as a photographer, those aren't images that I have much interest in reviewing in my limited spare time. Currently we have some photos of "frozen fog". I'm sure there are lots of nice pictures of frost and fog and it is hard to think why any one should be held up as special for the articles. Where are the photographers? I don't buy the argument that people have left due to bad atmosphere or harassment: that always has and always will flare up on forums. I think Alvesgaspar is right that we're at some natural low but combined with lower participation on WP overall, perhaps the forum is in terminal decline. What's the attraction for a photographer to take and nominate his/her images here rather than at Commons? On Commons, you don't have the hassle/stress of having to take a "lead image" and there is currently a much more active community to get advice/encouragement. Considering Commons is the picture repository for WP, what really is the purpose of this forum? Is the emphasis on encyclopaedic value a bonus or a handicap? -- Colin°Talk 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • All good points, and a subject worth discussing... My thoughts are that it still serves a purpose in that it provides a source of images for POTD, which is a significant part of the main page and valuable for Wikipedia. Apart from that though, and in terms of highlighting good images for the sake of it, I also question what it is that the images should achieve here. Colin is right that for a photographer, Commons is a far better FP project because there are less restrictions on what is considered to be featureable, and more emphasis on a compelling photo regardless of its ability to illustrate a given article. And there are also many more participants and more robust critique. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to abandon this project either, because I do take many of my photos primarily for their encyclopaedic value, and not just because they're 'pretty'. I do wonder where the photographers are. Interest seems to be low and has been for many years. In terms of regular quality photographers, I could count on one hand (or perhaps generously, two) the number of photographers who have participated here since I've been involved (2005), but at least back then we had a large volume of interested contributors. Consider my first featured picture. Ignoring the fact that back then, good photography was rarer and people were more easily impressed. ;-) At least we had a lot of people involved. Unless we can somehow encourage more photographers, or at least more contributors that have an interest in photography, all this will not amount to much more than naval gazing. Unfortunately getting that kind of contribution is beyond the scope of this project. It's a huge job to turn things around. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Video review - whole thing to be watched?[edit]

I just read that the 25 min movie has been replaced with a longer version. I'm wondering if reviewers are expected to have watched each version in full, or if we're generally willing to trust uploaders (for instance, that quality is consistent throughout). Samsara (FA  FP) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to, I'll ping the previous supporters to reevaluate their vote. GamerPro64 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Update - I went ahead and just pinged them. GamerPro64 22:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Twas just another 20 seconds, so no problem here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Just want to add that it crashed my computer twice, is this just me or is this our security, that is too high, or what? Actually both videos did, so I don't know how they look like. I mean, I can't really vote - because I can't check them. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What browser did you use? I have to change from Safari to Chrome to watch videos here so it could be the reason for it. GamerPro64 18:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, have to ask about our browser or security system - I am not good att this kind of things - maybe Monday. Hafspajen (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not a security problem but a codec problem related to the webm format, which I used because it is royalty free: Safari is not natively compatible with the new html5 standard. It should not be too difficult to find the needed add-on for Safari, depending on your browser version (see www.iskysoft.com/convert-webm/play-webm-mac.html for example). Chrome, Firefox and many other browsers support webm natively. Please note webm and ogv are recommanded formats on Commons. I used to transcode the videos in webm to ogv (not sure it would help for the Safari browser) but was strongly suggested to stick to webm in the case of files downloaded from YouTube, where this format is native. Hope I made myself clear. Cheers, — Racconish ✉ 20:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FP? #7[edit]

I find it quite often that noms have nice captions, but when you go to the pic's page the description is let's say limited. Can this be more strictly enforced? Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm of the opposite opinion actually, I don't really see the point of nomination captions. They don't usually add much to the nomination as we can work out what the image is about by visiting the articles and by reading the nomination reason. A detailed caption is not really necessary for the image to have EV either. It often helps, but is not required on every occasion IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Nergaal's arguing for a full description on the file description page, Diliff. There have been cases where, for example, the article captiob identifies the year and subject of a photo, but the file page doesn't. (I don't believe I've seen that at FP, mind, but I have seen it.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I think I remember seeing some noms with lots of extra details (which are really nice btw) but if you went to the pic page it would contain only the licensing info and a meager description. I would prefer if FPCs would encourage more expansive descriptions on the actual pages of the pic. For example, TFPs have a nice short paragraph, and personally I would prefer something like to be on the actual FP pages. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See {{POTD/2014-09-14}} for an example the TFP blurb vs the actual info at commons:File:Point Pinos Light during reconstruction (2013).jpg#Summary. Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, remember TFP is a summary of the related article. Picture descriptions probably shouldn't have quite as much detail about the subject as an article on the subject, though they must clearly identify it and so on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And, again, POTD is a different process, with its own standards. The person who schedules the POTD (and writes the blurb, me since 2013) generally looks at the bolded article, although other information may be drawn upon (such as the background on the painting of A Midsummer Night's Dream which is due next month). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I think possibly the most important point to this discussion is that if a picture is used on one article with its original caption, and on a second article with a less expansive caption or without a caption, then if the first article gets deleted, most editors will not be able to access the deleted content, and without this additional information, may find it harder to place the image in appropriate contexts on the remaining article, or in other future article where it may be relevant. So I think all relevant information about an image belongs in the image description page, whether it be used in captions elsewhere or not. Also consider the inter-wiki aspect. Samsara (FA  FP) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
While that's certainly true, the examples being brought up aren't about the image, but about the subject of the image. A photograph of Franklin Pierce will benefit from information on where it was taken, who it was taken by, when it was taken, and the like. It won't benefit much from a three-paragraph summary of Franklin Pierce's career, which, arguably, would hide the more relevant information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Were you replying to me specifically? Because I don't see the examples or how they relate to what I wrote. Slightly puzzled. Cheers, Samsara (FA  FP) 00:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal was talking about Today's Featured Picture blurbs, which are generally more-or-less summaries of a relevant article. I think that's far more detail than would be appropriate, since it's mainly not information related to the image itself. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The OP starts with I find it quite often that noms have nice captions... Samsara (FA  FP) 09:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like someone to nominate File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg[edit]

The Monroe Street Bridge under construction, 1911

If you believe (like I do!), that W.O. Reeds' quality panoramic photograph of the Monroe Street Bridge under construction deserves and can achieve featured status, then I would encourage you to nominate it for me so it can be recognized as an excellent image.

This restored version of the image is already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia (nomination page here) and the unaltered original is featured on the Wikipedia Commons [here Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg]. I see no reason why this cant easily achieve featured status on English wikipedia as well. It is far more relevant and would get more recognition and exposure there. This picture is most relevant to the Monroe Street Bridge article and the deck arch bridge articles.

This picture deserves to be nominated because the image has very high historic value; the picture was taken in 1911 and captures the construction of the historic (NRHP listed in 1975) Monroe Street Bridge in Spokane, WA. As you can see from the article, it would become the largest concrete deck arch bridge in the United States at the time of its completion and the third longest in the world. The image itself contains dimension and specifications info. of the bridge to further enhance its historic, technical, and encyclopedic value. This image also has a high resolution (3617 × 735 = 2,658,495) and was cleaned up nicely, especially for a photo that is over 100 years old! If the historical and interest value and quality of the image wasnt enough to justify a nomination, I personally think it is a beautiful image of beautiful bridge emerging. I find the falsework centering in the center of the image drawing my eyes to it in a mesmerizing way. It looks like a vortex. Thank you for reading through case for someone taking the time to nominate this image as a featured picture candidate! 75.106.229.140 (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we might be able to get a larger copy off the LoC. I'll check. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, slightly bigger. I can get it to around 800px high, but that's still actually considered relatively low resolution for a panorama. Great image, though. I'll upload the bigger copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Quaker Guns[edit]

Could I get a few more eyes on this one? It's nearly at quorum, but not quite, and I'd prefer a more definitive result. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chehel Sotoun Inside, Isfahan.jpg[edit]

Like Adam above, I'd love a few more eyes here. There was a stitching issue which has been addressed --Muhammad(talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)