Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

moving images from candidate to Featured pictures status

Who is supposed to move approved candidates from Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates into Wikipedia:Featured pictures ? Bevo 17:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the case of non-self-nominations, then the original nominator seems like the best idea, or any interested party once consensus seems apparent. For self-nominations, I think it should really be one of the seconders, and not the artist him/herself. --Gaz 14:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand as well the process. My pictures who have been approved after 1 week should i move them Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the pictures that doen't have a second on it, can i moved to "Current nominations without objections (so far)" ? ---Chmouel Boudjnah 10:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not the authority here, but I do have an interest in seeing that this process works. As I understand it, you can't move a self-nomination without at least one seconder. Inclusion should be without any objectors i.e. consensus. At some stage we must revisit early inclusions and pass them through the approvals process again. (including my photo of Brisbane!!). --Gaz 14:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks this is much understandable. Chmouel Boudjnah 23:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For Image:Indonesia-Bull.jpg and Image:operahouse.arp.600pix.jpg there is 3 yes again 1 and 2 again 1, what should i do ? Chmouel Boudjnah 13:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Look like after the revoting there is like 5 to 1 and 6 to 1 for theses 2 pictures, could a movers guru would do the move to Wikipedia:Featured pictures ? Chmouel 15:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Those images will get processed today. And, there is no special "guru" status needed to do the moving and archiving. You could do it if you want to. Directions exist on the relevant pages for doing the deed. - Bevo 15:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department?

Why the text "Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page!" in the article? Bevo 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dunno. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'll rip it out. - Gaz 13:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

I suggest that a paragraph similar to the following be included at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates.

Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below.

Opinions, anyone?? - -Gaz 06:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

looks good for me Chmouel Boudjnah 16:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think this page needs that type of clear purpose statement. Bevo 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done - Gaz 13:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the "shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating" should be downplayed slightly. While I would agree that the recent picture of natto was out of focus, IMO it represented the sort of picture that wikipedia needs the most (because very few people know what natto looks like). When listed for feature picture, however, it was criticised for not being dramatic enough -- as if a picture of natto could really hope to be much more dramatic. Of course it's important that a picture be good, but I think that featured picture should really emphasize the picture being "worth a thousand words" (i.e., its value to the encyclopedia) over it necessarily being "shocking" or "titillating" (i.e., its value as independently provocative art). -- Tlotoxl 11:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. We're talking primarily about the pictures here, not the articles (we don't expect everyone to read the whole of every article using the picture before voting). A good picture, considered on its own merits, is one that is visually interesting. Having a picture of natto is great, and should be encouraged, but when people look at the Featured Pictures page I think they're looking for something a little more exciting. Markalexander100 01:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I guess it's really a question of what we think should be accomplished. IMO there are lots of artistic collectives on the net, and I'd like visitors to the featured pictures page to think, "Hey, that's cool -- I can help out too with a few shots articles related to my area/work-school/interests" rather than get too excited about their artistic merits (though artistic merit would be nice, too). The text does also mention diagrams, but it seems clear to me that diagrams are at a definite disadvantage -- how can any diagram by as shocking or titillating (or instantly impressive or fascinating) in the same sense as a photo? And yet diagrams are just as useful in supporting the articles. -- Tlotoxl 04:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poll on future of this page

A poll on combining this page with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is underway at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Should this page combine with Featured Pictures Candidates? (poll). The poll closes on March 2. Gentgeen 17:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Expiraton period for entries here

I think there should be an expiration time for entries listed on this page. Maybe 90 days from the day they were first listed. Bevo 17:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

I have placed a proposal to merge this page with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates on that page, if you have anything to add to this idea (agree, object, etc) then go to that page and have your say. It has been requested that the pages not be merged until after February 20th, when Featured articles candidates will have worked through a backlog of votes taking place on articles from the old Brilliant Prose page (which were added before the current system of voting was implemented). fabiform | talk 00:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Voting has ended, the final tally was 2 in favor of merging, 9 against. fabiform | talk 17:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Visible images of candidates

It just struck me! This page (W:FPC) exists to nominate images for W:FP and yet we don't show the images. :-/ I'm working through the reformatting of each image to make it visible and to clean up the comments. I'm having trouble with the bullets in the lists. If I just use one level of bullets they overlap the image. Why is this so? - Gaz 08:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like what you've done to show the images. - Bevo 21:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I compliment as well, nice work !!! -Chmouel Boudjnah 23:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I must acknowledge that I had an "accomplice" (Fabiform) - Gaz 00:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We may want to separate the page into sections in the style of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, to allow for section editing.—Eloquence

Agree - I'll do it later (if Fabiform doesn't beat me to it) - Gaz 00:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This page is still quite small compared with Featured article candidates, do we need that extra level of organisation yet? What would we make the heading titles by the way? On FAC they are links to the articles in question, but since we just went "visible" we don't need that. (testing Eloquence's pipe tip). fabiform | talk 00:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd use the format "Media:Foo.jpg from bar". That gives us two advantages: 1) a link directly to the image file, which is useful for high resolution pictures (more space for the image in the browser window), 2) the context where the image is used, which can only currently be seen on the image page.—Eloquence 01:04, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
(1) makes sense, it complements (2) which is what we have at the moment. I suppose my objection that this page is too small to require this organisation is a little fallacious. We might as well start as we mean to go on, and I for one would love to see this page to grow as large and frequently visited as the article candidates page. fabiform | talk 01:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One thing we might want to copy from Featured article candidates is their rules on the length of time nominations stay here, and what to do with nominations that don't make the grade. We say they have to be here at least a week, but we don't give a time for how long nominations with objections should remain here before being archived. I don't see an archive either. And, should we adopt the new FAC rules of every picture needing two "second"s, regardless of whether it's a nomination or a self-nomination? fabiform | talk 00:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am really comfortable with the new visible images, section headings and table code. Really comfortable. I concur with Fabiform on the need for a set procedure from nomination to acceptance. I would hate to see this page cluttered with good-but-not-brilliant photos. Move 'em up or move 'em out. We will also (eventually) need some procedure to cull the slightly-less-than-brilliant photos from W:FP when we get too many in a category. Regarding number of votes I think we need consensus or near-consensus. Regarding length of time awaiting acceptance I think 14-90 days depending on how quickly it becomes bleeding obvious we have consensus (or not). - Gaz 13:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Joke: Do you think this would get voted in?
We could start with 90 days and work down from that if we get cluttered. - Bevo 02:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removal

Is a nomination for removal from the list appropriate on the candidates page? - Hephaestos|§ 01:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Out of curiosity, do you want to remove a recently added picture which was voted in, or one of the pictures which was added before the voting procedure was set up? I don't think we have a policy on dealing with removals at the moment, perhaps we should borrow that from featured article candidates as well?
I've been thinking that once this page is well used, we should go through all the images which were added before this nomination and voting procedure existed and vote on them all. What do people think of this idea? fabiform | talk 01:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One of the legacy ones, specifically USS Port Royal.
Yes, I think this page is being set up well. It probably can borrow a lot from the featured articles procedure. - Hephaestos|§ 01:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Proposal

I propose that the various subsections within the main Nominations section be abandoned in favour of a simple chronological list. This means that self-nominations are treated the same as normal moninations, and that no resequencing is performed if a nomination becomes the target of an objection. New nominations go at the TOP (more easily seen). Nominations stay for at least 14 days and percolate to the bottom. Obvious "winners" can be popped from the middle of the list when their time is up. It is up to the nominator to clear up the "failed" nominations. (but I'm sure I'll end up doing some). - Gaz 10:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you create a Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test page with the current content to show us how that would appear? - Bevo 14:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not planning to change the look at all, just the sequencing. So you would still have the images flowing down the left side with commaents next to each, its just that the section headings Current nominations without objections (so far), Current self-nominations (needing to be seconded) and Nominations with objections (being resolved) would all be removed and all the images would just be under Current nominations, sorted as mentioned earlier. - Gaz 14:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll put together a mock-up as a Test page to see how it turns out, appearance-wise. I'll also create a Test page respecting the 14-day as Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test14 rule proposal. The more frequest culling might be important in an effective consolidated presentation. - Bevo 15:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test and Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test14 are now available for comment and editting. - Bevo 16:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My first thought was that this would be confusing, but looking at the test pages I've changed my mind. On the article candidates page, it's useful to have an objections section as articles need the time to be revised without being chucked off the page, but here, in general, images either make it or they don't. I've only seen one instance of someone cropping an image after it's been nominated here.
I prefer Test14 as I think the page is already becomimg cluttered with pictures that have objections from a few weeks ago and aren't going to be made featured. Since there now seem to be quite a few people who watch this page and comment on the images, I think 14 days is long enough - if an image has no objections after 14 days, then it gets featured, if there are objections, it gets added to the archive of images which didn't make it. Not letting the page get too long is important now that we're "visible", otherwise the page will put some interested people from contributing due to the time it takes to download. What do others think of this? fabiform | talk 16:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I like the aging filtering. At first we could just indicate the 14 days by a delimiter (see my simple change to Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test ) and then start enforcing the disposition of old nominations over the next week or so (at least giving a chance to transition the successful nominations to the FP page). - Bevo 17:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have just modified Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test to make the 14 barrier more obvious. If we use it this way I would want to see the images more than 14 days old hang around for a bit. If it gets toooo long then one of us can do some culling, but as long as the new images are at the top it shouldn't matter much how long it gets (within reason). This, of course, means that someone(s) will have to vist here regularly to move the 14 day barrier above the relevant image(s). Not a big problem as I have it on my watchlist. So... do we go with it? - Gaz 08:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Be bold and make it so! - Bevo 10:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


wrong end of the stick

I probably have the wrong end of the stick here, coming in half-way through a discussion, but I see a fair bit of talk above about "if after X days there are no objections" the picture in question should be promoted. This is fine by me: I'm not fussed about how many days and similar details (at least, not within reason). However, I think the emphasis ought to be on the positive, not the negative. In other words, I think it's more important that several people care about a picture enough to write something to say so than it is that no-one dislikes it enough to write an objection.

I guess the way I feel about promoting a picture is that we need no or very few objections and several positive votes in favour. Tannin 11:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's work some examples:

  • Picture A. 7 in favour, none against. This deserves to be a featured picture.
  • Picture B. 4 in favour, 2 against. This one doesn't seem to have a consensus.
  • Picture C. 3 in favour, none against. If only 3 people like this enough to vote for it, it probably doesn't deserve to be a featured picture either.
  • Picture D. 10 in favour, 4 against. This is a picture that moves people strongly, one way or the other. It probably should be a featured picture. (Even if I am one of the 4 that hate it!)

None of these examples should be taken as suggesting that I am favour of simply counting up the yes/no votes and deciding on the outcome. I think that the reasons for proposing or opposing a picture are often much more important than the numbers alone.

Anyway, that's just some rambling thoughts. Add milk and sugar to taste. Tannin 11:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Considering: "Picture C. 3 in favour, none against. If only 3 people like this enough to vote for it, it probably doesn't deserve to be a featured picture either." I would want to see the commentary before I decided if the picture is featured. - Bevo 11:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Bevo. Tannin

Tannin, I don't think that this page is busy enough yet to say that 3 is an unacceptably low number of comments, perhaps 2? And how are we counting the person who nominates - don't count it as a vote if it's a self-nomination, but count it as a vote if the image is nominated by someone else perhaps? (So a self-nom would need a minimum of three yes votes to make it, and a nomination would need a minimum of two other people supporting it?) fabiform | talk 16:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure I'm right about this, perhaps 3 is the right number. Just looking over the current nominations again, several have more than 3 seconds. fabiform | talk 21:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To take Tannin's anology a little further, in my original proposal I had neither end of the stick. I just wanted to get some idea whether we placed it on the table or leant it against the wall while we decided which end to grab. Having said that, I'm with Tannin & Bevo on the deciding part. We (the community) place the images here and let them stand until a decision makes itself painfully clear. Take Gallium for example, its a definte in, and was two days after it was listed. Conversely my Dominoes shot hasn't garnered enough support for me to accept that it is in. Even if it wasn't mine, I would be happy to leave it lay for a while just in case. Who knows, a dominoes club might suddenly feel the urge to contribute to Wikipedia. ;-) Other images, though, languish with no support AND no objections. I think this is due to people not wanting to be unkind. What to you say? "I object because your photo is crap!" No, you say nothing.
Getting back to the point at hand. I plan to resequence W:FPC Real Soon Now, as per the test page with a "pain barrier" at 14 days. I'll write up a modified header to explain the sequencing to newcomers. - Gaz 13:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I felt unkind objecting to an image, and I let many photos slide, to let others object to them. I'd like us to be restrictive -- the pictures really have to be great. I agree with much of the above discussion thus. — Sverdrup 16:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just realised that I will be away until about 12:00 23 March 2004 (UTC). If any of you want to do the resequencing then go for it. Gotta go now. - Gaz 07:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Nomination for removal" and " Recently removed pictures, and reason for removal"

These sections currently exist on this page, but don't fit the reason that this page exists (at least they are not covered by the explanations on the top of the page). These two sections seem to have "parasitic" residence here. - Bevo 03:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure what thats supposed to mean, but they should stay. This page is a mirror of sorts with wikipedia:featured article candidates and those sections are needed for later removals, when they are necessary. Quality standards must be kept, these are the best of the wiki, our "brilliant prose" (or "brilliant photo's, as it were..) Sam Spade 07:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
May I add that being a "candidate" does not necessarily imply being voted in. It can also mean being voted out. - Gaz 11:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Then that should be explained at the top of the page. There are no rules explained here to describe a process for impeaching a properly vetted image currently established in the Featured Pictures gallery. - Bevo 15:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


the " Recently added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures after going through due process here" section

Are we still using this section? The latest images that were promoted to the Featured Pictures list were not added to that section. - Bevo 15:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Criteria, Quotas

after recieving some particularly suprising and confusing objections to a couple of items I placed here, I would like to clarify what exactly ARE the legitimate criteria for images to be featured, are quotas a valid method of determining content (I feel strongly that they must not be) and what are we to do to persuade an objection based on seemingly random criteria? It would seem to me that some basic guidelines and procedures are in order. Sam Spade 03:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are currently no quotas imposed on the number of items in the subject matter categories in Featured Pictures. Also there is no prohibition on comments that give opinions about such hypothetical quotas. Here is the criteria at this time:
 1) images and diagrams are included
 2) must be beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating,
      fascinating, or in short just brilliant
 3) the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should
      illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add
      significantly to that article

- Bevo 20:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, thats quite helpful. The third was something I hadn't at all considered, and the first is also not entirely expected. Since art is mainly a matter of taste, in regards to 2) do we allow anyone of us to blackball any image? How many images do we want to have featured? How high or low should my standards be in objecting to images? Sam Spade 01:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It isn't required that an image get unanimous approval to get put on the Featured pictures page. So, it would be unlikely that a single opinion would totally prevent an image from becoming featured. I'd say that the standard for approving a picture should be very high (by definition). Be bold in expressing comments. Also the more clear the comment, the more it would be taken into account by the person bold enough to decide that a concensus had been arrived at and actually moves the picture to the FP list (an event that seems to happen somewhat mysteriously, either by the person nominating a picture or by someone else). There are several pictures right now that are "ripe" for the transition, but no one had done the deed. - Bevo 19:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Formatting issues

I'd do it, but I can't even figure out how to resolve the formatting issues we have on the page at the moment. Speaking of which, can someone more familiar w image management take a look? Sam Spade 20:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What formatting issues do we have at the moment? I just tweaked Sainte Jeanne d'Arc - was that what the problem was? fabiform | talk 21:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yep, thanks for fixing it so fast! :) Cheers, Sam Spade 21:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussions about the images

I'm thinking of adding a link to the Talk Page of each image (example below). Some of the nominations are attracting a fair amount of comment, some of which should more correctly be on the Talk Page. (see Zion Narrows, Dust Storm) Am I going overboard here?

Bald eagle

Bald eagle
(Discuss this image)


Picture of a bald eagle from the public domain nominated by Ludraman

  • Lovely pic. Ludraman | Talk 21:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Great picture. I love it. →Raul654 21:31, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, until it is used in an article. - Bevo 16:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments people... - Gaz 08:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments about the page or process (and not any individual article) should be done on this Talk page. Comments about any particular image (no matter how lengthy) should remain on the main page in the section reserved for that image. - Bevo 18:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make my question clear. I'm inviting comments on the inclusion of the (Discuss this image) link next to every image. I'm suggesting that we do this to encourage people to add lengthier comments on the Image Talk page, and not in the W:FPC voting area. - Gaz 23:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's what I understood. It just doesn't make sense to me since the items won't be listed for that long anyway (fourteen days). We just simplified the nomination process. Let's not complicate it for the rare ones that need more comments than usual. - Bevo 02:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Nominations that were overlooked in the transition to the new format

Looking at Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test it seems that several nominations got lost in the transition to the new format. We need to do something to get the process resolved on these images. - Bevo 13:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

These images were moved back for consideration for another 7 days. - Bevo 16:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Image sizes on WP:FPC

Bevo, I have been intentionally making the width of portrait shots on WP:FPC smaller than landscape shots. The idea being that all shots should look about the same size (i.e. about 200px on the LONGEST edge). To keep the formatting of the page I have used the "width=220px" table option on portrait shots to keep the leftmost cells about the same width. - Gaz 15:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let me move this to the Talk page for WP:FPC and see what others think. Personally, I like the uniform width, as I think that allows the same amount of detail to show on all pictures. - Bevo 15:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position. Most images displayed here are roughly rectangular, with an aspect ratio of about 3:2 to 4:3. I would all images to APPEAR to be about the same size (for fairness), with the LONGEST edge to be about 200px. This means that portrait shots must be requested with a width of about 150px. Its all about giving each image a "fair go" at impressing the viewer. - Gaz 15:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

attempted addition

I tried to add an image to the nominations list, with unfortunate results. I reverted myself, but am confused as to what went wrong, as I tried to be quite particular, and made a few attempts. I admit I'm not that skilled w manipulating images on the wiki however. Sam Spade 15:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem was that the first line was ===[[Image:____|caption]]=== rather than ===[[Media:____|caption]]===. Picture placed. --Andrew 19:59, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks much Andrew Sam Spade 23:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
A new formatting problem. I didn't know I was this bad :( Sam Spade 23:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Unsigned votes

Recently, several unsigned votes have been registered. Do these count the same as signed votes? - Bevo 14:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GFDL only

Flight deck of the Airbus A320

I removed this candidate from the page as I think it is accepted that copyright images sould not be featured pictures. ed g2stalk 20:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

File:A320.flightdeck.750pix.jpg
Flight deck of the Airbus A320.
It's a great photo I came across at glass cockpit. Taken by Arpingstone in September 2003.--Neutrality 21:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it is a beautiful cockpit, I miss something in this picture, it is too static. Maybe pilots, or actually sky objects. -- Solitude 12:52, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose and propose removal. Unless we get evidence of permission from the copyright holder to release it under the GFDL it should be automatically excluded from featured pictures section. (This should really be policy, if it isn't already). ed g2stalk 13:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Someone please remove this pic (best if I don't do it now in case there's more discussion). I never claimed to have taken this pic - here is the stuff I put on the Image Description page:

The flight deck of the Airbus A320.
Reproduced with the permission of Airbus UK.
Picture prepared for Wikipedia by Adrian Pingstone in September 2003.
Perhaps the word Prepared made Neutrality think I took it - Adrian Pingstone 14:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recently removed pictures, and reason for removal

I propose removing this section from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Instead of using it, I propose that now that we have the Archives, we just continue to archive the discussions of delisting there. - Bevo 14:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed without opposition. Section is removed from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 10:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting (left-aligned table within another table) doesn't work in Safari: the votes overlap the image. Since Safari is the default Macintosh web browser this might inconvenience many readers. Would anyone object if I changed the formatting? Gdr 14:25, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Could you make up a sample on a test page first, making sure it works okay on safari. Then I'll test it on firefox, konqueror, IE, and opera. We've had problems on this page before with one browser or another not liking a seemingly okay formatting, so we should avoid fixing it for one and inadvertently breaking another. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Test. Layouts 2 and 3 work fine in Safari. All 3 layouts work in Internet Explorer and Opera. I like layout 2 best, but if you like the vote bullets to line up, then layout 3 is fine too. Gdr 15:20, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
All okay in firefox, opera7, and konqueror 3.2.3. Layout 2 (but not 1, curiously) is broken in konqueror 3.1-15 (which is what most Redhat linux 9 users will have). So layout three is the only one that seems to work on all out browser test set. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Form 3 it is, then?
James F. (talk) 18:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks like it, but I'll wait a day to see if there are any objections. Gdr 20:49, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

General observation

I just wanted to point out how educational it has been in recent months, seeing the comments for and particularly opposing all the nominated images. I'm learning slowly how to take better photos, and detailed and explicit comments about what doesn't work and why are very helpful. Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Transition to the new archives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/Archive-05 has been retired. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criteria: bias for home-grown?

(William M. Connolley 20:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I would like to suggest that the criteria be amended slightly so that there is a bias towards home-grown (ie, taken (or, in this case of diagrams, created) by wikipedians) pictures, as opposed to uploaded from fair-use. The reason for this is that I think the pics should reflect something of wikipedia. I'm not proposing a ban on other candidates, only some bias: which has to be made explicit: either that home-grown pics get by on fewer votes; or that people be expected to judge fair-use ones more harshly. The later would probably be better.

I don't think we should be featuring fair use images at all. Are there currently any that are not under some form of free licence? Angela. 20:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I suspect this is already reflected in peoples' voting habits. --Twinxor 15:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I may have mis-spoken. I mean to oppose taken-by-wikipedians to not-TBW. But there wasn't a good term so I picked FU.

Biological cell

The following comments were moved to talk by user:Quadell.

  • Demonstrates the awful waste of a good software package when employed by the colorblind. Denni 02:21, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
I object to this cruel remark, let's be nicer to each other please - Adrian Pingstone 21:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My best friend is red-green colorblind, and it is a kind of running joke with us about who's going to help him pick the paint for the next trim job. My comment was not meant to be cruel, and if I hurt someone's feelings, I apologise. Nonetheless, the picture is marred, in my opinion, by the use of colors that are unnecessarily muddy and idiosyncratic. Denni 02:19, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Clitoris

Neutrality and Cantus, please stop reverting each other. We should discuss this image _here_ before putting it on the main voting page.

In my view, it is an obvious troll by Cantus, and clearly unsuitable for Featured picture status, based solely on its licensing status. — David Remahl 01:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then why do we still have that image on the Clitoris article? Everybody who defended that picture there, now start hyperventilating at the thought that it might --gasp-- be featured! "Oh no! this could get Wikipedia blocked from schools", "This is very offensive!" All arguments I made much earlier in Talk:Clitoris but nobody seemed to agree. I absolutely LOVE double standards. --Cantus 01:53, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Come again? No-one started to hyperventilate, and the above quotes seem made up out of thin air...Your attempt to prove a point failed. Any image with such shady copyright status would be removed from featured picture candidates. On Clitoris it is quite possibly fair use; not so on FPC. — David Remahl 01:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My point was SOUNDLY proved. Sorry that makes you mad :) --Cantus 02:05, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Are you still trolling? How do you figure it was proved? The only action taken that I saw, was Neutrality's reversion of the nomination, the reasoning for which he has provided below. — David Remahl 02:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The argument, typically, is that one might expect such an image on the relevant page, but not here. Evercat 01:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia has double standards, admit it :) --Cantus 02:06, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured pictures:

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. While we tolerate some degree of fair use, a simple image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use), and showcasing other people's work without their permission may be considered unfair.
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yup. Thanks for clarifying ever further that Wikipedia has double standards. That's why I love Wikipedia. --Cantus 02:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you obviously are trolling...— David Remahl 02:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pollen and Gerbera

Anyone notice what happened to the nomination for Pollen and Gerbera? It was just above 'SEM image of pollen'. I'm guessing it got swollowed in some Wax Play refactoring. -- Solipsist 18:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Got lost in the wax play here [1]. I just re-inserted it after wax play. Seems it was cut out for 5 days. Thanks for noticing that -- Chris 73 Talk 23:29, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Re-nom?

(William M. Connolley 18:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)) We have 2 pics up re-nominated. This seems wrong: if a pic fails there should be a minimum period (3 or 6 months perhaps) before its allowed in again. Perhaps (to prevent accidental ones) a note on the pic's page should link to the FPC discussion?

Agreed. But I don't think an explicit waiting period is required - this would be instruction creep. I suspect it is just a difficulty with spotting when an image has been nominated before. If someone thought a picture was good enough to nominate once, chances are someone else will think the same way next week. A pointer to the right archive on the picture page should be enough. There was some discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_pictures#Featured_Picture_template. -- Solipsist 19:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voting on old featured pictures

Many of the pictures now going through the nomination for delisting process were added to the Featured Pictures list before Featured Pictures Candidates was invented, undemocratically AFAIK (if there was some voting back then I haven't been able to find it). IMHO all of these pictures should be put up for vote again, either as nominations for delisting, or even better, normal nominations as if they were never made FPs in the first place.

I have compiled a list of images that are not linked to from any of the FPC archives. If any of the images below have had some debate on their inclusion, please say so. ed g2stalk 01:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I was just discussing this issue yesterday, I think they should all go through the regular nominating process, that is the only fair way to get them to stay. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm now I'm taking a second look at these images, I actually remember voting on some of them, must be a bug in the "what links here" feature. Let's see what I can find. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:46, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Well I found 5 at least in the archive, I think the best thing would be that someone makes a rough first selection, and nominates the images he dislikes for removal and the good ones for promotion, as there are some images here I'm 99% sure will not pass our current standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I found another five that I've crossed off the list. There's probably some more as I can also remember voting for some of them. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that quite a list. Renominating these makes sense, but could lead to voter fatigue. If we do it, I would suggest a phased approach with a block of 4/5 images each week. -- Solipsist 09:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If we leave this list for a day or two, then we can start adding them in small blocks with a boilerplate warning along the lines of:
This image is already a featured picture but is being renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process. If you believe this image's featured picture status has been voted on before, please provide evidence below.
ed g2stalk 14:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems that all the original archives of the older nominations are deleted. The only remnant that I can find is this talk-page: Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures candidates/Archive-05 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The numbered archives have been deleted because a monthly archive was created, every nomination before March 2004 can be found in Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Old Archive. As far as I know, nothing has disappeared. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Image:Gold Coast (from The Spit).jpg (created in March 2004) is the one that I'm sure I remember we voted on, and I can't find it in the new archives. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm that is exactly the one I was confused about as well, I remember it well but it's just gone. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like it was promoted by User:Tannin on 19 March - [3] and here is the last record of voting [4] -- Solipsist 11:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, once we have settled the issue of finding archives for pics and making sure they don't dissappear any more, lets go ahead and renom (fp or removal) with a message in order to allow the appropriate archive to be created. Cavebear42 17:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So we're now left with 17 pictures. I propose we put these up in 3 groups of 4 and a group of 5. Putting through one group every week/fortnight, what do you think? ed g2stalk 21:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, at the moment the nomination page is not too crowded, I think we can start this right now. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)