Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

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


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit


Shortcut:

Minimum image size[edit]

I was wondering... does anyone feel as if the minimum image size should be at least 1,500 pixels in either dimension, rather than in both dimensions? We currently ask for more than Commons, and some really nice FPs are below 1,500 pixels in one dimension (File:Hylobates lar - Kaeng Krachan WB.jpg, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I think it's generally understood that our requirements are tougher than Commons (although Commons voters are more nit-picky and arbitrary in their critiques, IMO!). We discussed 1500px in either vs both dimensions back in 2012 and decided that 1500px on the shortest dimension is the minimum, and I agree with it, personally. However, an allowance was written into the guidelines so we can still make an exception in certain circumstances and I think JJ's image would probably be one of them. It's only 60 pixels short of 1500, and is pixel sharp as he always downsamples his images. Not that I necessarily think he should, but it's his choice. Anyway, his image is a case in point, it got promoted despite being slightly below the requirements, because it was fundamentally a very solid shot and was more detailed than many images over 1500px. But to lower the bar sends the wrong message IMO. Better to keep the bar high and make the occasional exception than to lower it... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare COM:FPC and en:FP requirements; however, I will certainly agree that COM:FPC has become rather arbitrary. It has devolved into petty politics and mediocrity. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Diliff: Oh yes, that was passed after we started using the new criteria. Hmm... that's a valid point. Will have to think it over.
@Saffron: I was hoping that technical aspects (rather than aesthetics vs. illustrative value, which I agree is extremely different in the two venues) would be at least somewhat comparable. They are, after all, about objective aspects of the imagery (though perhaps not determined in an entirely objective manner). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
My comment was in response to Diliff's assessment of en:FP being "tougher". If it is, it is because of the EV requirement not technical standards. However, if things continue to slide over there we might as well merge QI and COM:FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, true, it is mainly the EV requirements that makes it tougher here. I would say that our technical standards are about the same as Commons, but as mentioned above, Commons is full of people who will analyse an image for the smallest details and faults, whereas I think (as mostly a community of Wikipedia contributors first and photographers second) we have a more holistic view of images. Another way of putting it: we tend to see an image for what it is, Commons FPC contributors see an image for what it isn't. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually Diliff, I don't think you are correct there. See recent two delists which are just examples of people finding faults and non-holistic thinking, rather than appreciating the "image for what it is". -- Colin°Talk 12:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
But I'm talking about the FPC community (well, what's left of it still actively participating), not one individual with an axe to grind. Having said that, I don't think the nominated images for delisting are particularly good and I'm not necessarily sentimental about old FPs that were promoted back in the day when almost anything that wasn't complete rubbish was promoted. I'd happily nominate some of my old images for delisting, some of which were praised lavishly at the time but would no longer stand out. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree they aren't the best images to make a stand on: I'm more upset by the misguided arguments put forward by the two supporters. We really have better things to do with our time that revisit old noms and take pot shots at old FPs. I'd happily support a rule that requires the image to have been superseded or disused. But really, there are people on all forums who can comment on the pixels of an image at 100% but not on an image as a whole. -- Colin°Talk 20:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I afraid whether JJ stopped contributing to Commons after the "license applicable to all resolution files" issue. He didn't upload anything after December 2013; may be due to some other reason. Jee 06:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe he's quite busy in RL, as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think it's more the fact that he's busy and not photographing many birds. I've sent him a message to find out why he's been quiet though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I'd prefer to have the higher resolution (with sensible exceptions, like video game images at their maximum supported resolution), as it encourages the release of higher-resolution images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I think a high basic resolution standard with flexibility for obvious exceptions is the right way to go. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't thrown my arms up and quit or anything. Life has just got me very busy. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

FPC urgents[edit]

Can people check these? There's a few on there that I'm a bit shocked aren't passing, particularly [really shouldn't say]. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the excellent annelid diagram is passing now, but it would be good if some of the other ones were. Lots of three- and four-support FPCs with no opposes, which, as I know from experience, are extremely frustrating to the nominator. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Jan_Vermeer_-_The_Art_of_Painting_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg[edit]

Can someone with access to a lossless crop tool remove the black line on the right and bottom edge? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. If you have Windows you can use the free tools cpicture or jpegtran. The cpicture tool has a GUI which lets you specify crop settings in a dialog box or to use the mouse to drag an area. Dragging with the mouse isn't so good for trimming 1px off the right/bottom, though, but it is great when combined with the lock-aspect-ratio feature for creating crops of your own pictures at various aspect ratios. It also has help grid lines for such things as the rule of thirds. The jpegtran tool is command line. They both product the same result in the end but the jpegtran tool has more options. I was initially puzzled that my crop produced a much larger file but I found that the -optimize option is needed to apply the (lossless) Huffman compression to the JPEG data and keep the filesize down. It seems that cpicture doesn't do that, resulting in bigger pictures. -- Colin°Talk 11:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@Colin:: Looks like it needs a smidgen more off the right, I fear, but that got the bit at the bottom. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There are several grey lines that only really show up at 400px on my viewer but are clear when the image is on a white background. I've taken off another 6px. -- Colin°Talk 15:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll install JPEGtran and hopefully do it myself next time. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Manet's Olympia[edit]

Or maybe you prefer THIS copy?

I commented about today's Featured Picture on Wikipedia's Main Page at Commons:Village pump/Copyright here (at 11. Faithful representation) and a respondent suggested I post in this forum.

Whatever the merits or demerits of this image it is a derivative work which should be deleted as a copyright violation. The editor has simply warmed the original Google image some 30% or so in Adobe Photoshop. He said himself in the nomination discussion that he doesn't know what the original looks like. The result, piss horrible in my opinion, is a travesty of Manet's intentions and an infringement of the original photographer's moral rights. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The author, Manet is dead for more than 100 years ago. It is not copyright violation. The artistic side might be discussed with our art experts Ceoil, Johnbod and Amandajm. If our experts agree with you then you maybe can ask that the picture should be replaced with your preference, right. Hafspajen (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Also ping Johnbod and Amandajm Hafspajen (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Copyright concerns aside (the Foundation has followed the US copyright line that faithful reproductions of 2D objects [like scans] do not attract their own copyright), I knew this was going to happen and was half-tempted to nominate this for delisting instead of running it. I seem to recall writing that I preferred Google's scan... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC) (I knew I did) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If experts agree that Pale alt is more faithful, than it could be possible to just go and replace it. The file is perfectly OK, | 5,876 × 3,976 pixels. Hafspajen (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it was Kaldari and the cat. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The issue here is not that there are a number of images of varying qualities. That happens all the time with art images. When it comes to colour values the differences can be immense. But this was a Google Art Project image, images noted for their fidelity. The original comes from the gallery which owns it and the photograph was taken by a noted fine arts photographer. That Wikipedia can use it in US law depends directly on the image being a faithful representation. What an editor subsequently can't then do is to manipulate it in the way that has been done to produce an image which he personally thinks is superior (on his own admission he didn't even know what the original actually looked like, never having seen it). You don't have to be an expert to know that resulting warm cast is nothing like that of the original and that should matter in an encyclopaedia. The whole point about this painting was that the flesh tone was cold and cadaverous, described by critics of the time as "putrescent".

Done here. I shall nominate the image for deletion once (if and when) its protection is removed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I've already replied at Commons; the project (and one would assume Wikipedia as well) does not recognize author's moral rights.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think, user Coat of Many Colours, that you should try to calm down. As I said, it is possible to replace it with the Alt. Hafspajen (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I think one would have to show the image intended to alter the work for it to be "derivative", which I don't think is the case. I note that the 2nd warmer version that is now FP was made as a result of comments on the original nomination. I haven't seen the picture for years, but none of these images look quite right. I notice that the picture in the blog that Coat of Many Colours likes seems to have about as "cadaverous" flesh as the FP one, but a stronger pink in the maid's dress, a stronger contrast with the white, and generally looks more attractive. I share Coat's concern over images of paintings not checked to the original. Personally I question whether google art derived images should be allowed at FP, excellent though they often are. What does the community add? Other google art images of paintings I know well seem rather too restrained in colour. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


  • If I compare these with the blog picture ( the one that Coat of Many Colours likes )- the blog picture sheets are light blue. Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are several works in art history that I only know by reproductions and photos, books, copies and webbsites. I really feel that this is a general problem, and I don't really know how this can be avoided entirely. And even if I only have seen an artwork in a book (or several), and go to see that artwork at the museum, it is often a surprize. So I really don't se how we can avoid it, when it is a general problem concerning practically all art books and publications. Unless we avoid artwork altogether, and that would be the worst possible solution. Hafspajen (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC).


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Johnbod. When I said I liked the blog photo, that's right. So I do, but it's just a snap and not a full blown repro and I only quoted it to indicate a general impression of the image. The original Google image was commissioned by the museum that own the work and executed by a noted photographer of the fine arts. The featured version is merely warmed in Adobe Photoshop to the editor's taste in pink, essentially trying to eroticise an image in a conventional way that was nevertheless conceived as odalisque i.e. exotic rather than erotic. It's really very patronising of the editor above to ask me to "calm down" (the "dear" lingering in the air ...) If an editor hasn't seen the original image, doesn't even bother to familiarise herself with the most basic critical comments about the image, then she shouldn't be editing its colour values in this way, and the community should be reigning her excesses in. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you better ask him why, before you speculate on the editor's taste in pink, essentially trying to eroticise an image. You don't know why, this is just reasoning based on inconclusive evidence. And yes, Wikipedia discussions should be conducted in a calm, polite way, not the way it is done here; without accusations and assuming this and that; and without irony like the "dear" lingering in the air kind of expressions. Not helpful. Wikipedia:Assume good faith & Wikipedia:Civility & Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. And both Armbrust and Crisco are men, and most trusted editors, and Crisco is a most trusted administrator too. So this kind of remarks and the community should be reigning her excesses is most unhelpful. Especially after Crisco's comments. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to ping. The second image, the rather dark one, is the most true to colour. The third one is too cream. The first is just ghastly. But the painting itself is notoriously hard to reproduce well because of the intensity of the overall contrast, and the fact that there is very little shading on the figure to give it three-dimensional form.
  1. The dress on the servant is pink, of the delicate, baby-pink variety. It does not have a slightly "apricot" hue. The colour of the dress is a good guide to the colour of the flesh.
  2. The colour of the flesh is touched with a paler tone of the same pink. If this isn't apparent, then the colour isn't right. Her nipples are slightly pinker than the surrounding flesh.
  3. The shadow on every white area is grey, not blue. The lowest sheet is slightly yellower.
  4. There should be a definite colour contrast between her pale pink flesh, the greyish cream of the silk shawl and the white of the bed linen.
  5. The servants face and the body of the cat are almost invisible against the dark background.
The second image is the best, colourwise. But it is a bit dark, even when I turn the brightness on my screen right up. It could be adjusted, but only a little, to the point where the whitest part of the lower pillow becomes stark white, but without loosing the slight flush in her cheeks. It is going to look different depending on the brightness at which people set their screens so it probably needs to be optimised for a medium setting. Amandajm (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, then per Amandajm (thank God someone is keeping to topic) we need to replace the current with the one Amandajm called second (Pale alt.) [New the shadow wasn't blue...] Hafspajen (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. We can D&R as well (considering this is the FPC page rather than the main page, that's still on topic). Next time someone asks for an edit of a painting, and opposes if that edit is not done, I'll just withdraw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::NO, ask an expert. Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: the first is just ghastly. You should be happy to know then that Yorck Project scans are pretty much rejected on sight at FPC now, as they are so drastically unfaithful. A few years ago, however... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The second image is the original Google image copyright RMN (Musée d'Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski and can be seen on the museum site here. It is a very good representation of a painting I know well. Regarding the skin tone it is pale and sallow (absolutely not warm), controversial at the time: indeed the most controversial thing about it (although the impressionists handling of skin tone was much praised - thus Mary Cassatt (strongly influenced by Manet) was highly praised for her flesh tones at her first show at the Fourth Impressionist Exhibition 1879). I'm currently away from my reference works but shall make an edit when I return some time around August, at which point I trust the original Google image will be linked in the article, otherwise I shall make a WP:BOLD edit myself. A feature of Manet's work was his love of the colour black and of dark tones in general, as can be seen for example in his A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. The Yorck image reproduced here by Hafspajen, with a pointed comment for my benefit it would seem, is derisory in the circumstances. I replace these Yorck images with better whenever I notice them. Their time is past.

The French version of this article uses Google Art Project 2.jpg which looks to me a slightly more satuarated (but not warmed) version of the original Google image. I don't really see the need for that. Regarding the remarks about brightness, this is a problem compounded by modern LED screens. If you like to have your screen tilted up towards you i.e. to say its bottom edge closer to you, as I do, then the resulting image is darker than it should be, a constant source of irritation to me.

Needless to say I don't need nor require Hapjean's strictures about my behaviour at my age. I'm sure it was meant with the very best of intentions from someone I'm guessing is rather young (but I shan't be back to check, persuaded that the acquaintance is not one I should wish to further nor appropriate). I use "she" habitually and generically as pronoun. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My name is not HAP-Jean, and age about like Crisco. And I wish we could stop being personal all the time. Those restrictions are Wikipedia guidelines and ALL editors shall follow them, I haven't invented them myself. There are no exceptions. Hafspajen (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, here are some images the other Wikis are using in their Manet articles...

Just compare. Hafspajen (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the name. I'm not familiar with it and I have limited visual acuity at my age. Regarding "being personal", it was you who first made a "personal" remark to the effect that I didn't understand copyright law. Well I'm surely not an expert but I have made a determined effort to familiarise myself with it since starting to edit Wikipedia, so that was a pretty pointed remark, as was your challenging remark about the Yorck image you posted and a number of other remarks you make. Regarding the selection of images you post (and incidentally the French article does not use the Yorck image but rather Google 2 as I remarked above - it's their Manet article that uses the Yorck - as for the Dutch FA image it dates from 2008), I'm repeating myself but the issue is not at all that images of art works vary very widely in their fidelity, we do all know and understand that and we do the best with what's available. The issue is that a very fine image of this particular art work was tinkered with so gratuitously in the way it was, and in deference to Carl Lindberg posting at Commons I'll forbear from commenting further. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In the article's "External links" I've linked the SmartHistory (Brooklyn) video of the painting here. This is a conversation recorded in front of the painting and the video has the correct tonal values for the painting (but not the image on the web page below the video window). It discusses Manet's treatment of the flesh tones in some detail and notes the criticism of the time that the painting was that of a cadaver. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we do the best with what's available. Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
But in this case at issue one of you, for no good reason I can fathom, felt dissatisfied with the best available and took it upon themselves to improve it to their own satisfaction without troubling themselves either with the artist's intentions or indeed with what the painting actually looked like. Now that's what I call self-entitlement and no brownie points for guessing whose side I'm on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)