Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 16

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

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mustard

Please notice that the wrong picture was promoted: Image:Senf-Variationen edit.jpg . I wouldn't like it if I were the author of the original image ... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The edit had no support. MER-C, can we get this changed? Cheers. Samsara (talk  contribs) 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious that the original had the support of 11 editors resulting in overwhelming consensus and the edit just one, so MER-C must just have gotten the wrong one. Under that assumption, I've corrected the mistake. pschemp | talk 07:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree - the edit is an obvious improvement and that is why MER-C promoted it. If he was in doubt of which version it would have been put in the suspended nominations area (most editors wouldn't have had time to adjust their vote as the edit was added very late in the process). --Fir0002 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The consensus of the community on the voting page is crystal clear. pschemp | talk 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, considering that the only way to properly settle the matter – delist and renominate – is a no-brainer in favour of the noise-reduced version, is it really worth labouring the point? Having said that, there probably is a case for notifying users on the nom page (ie suspending) before promoting late edits. --mikaultalk 22:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it is worth it because our procedures need to be clear and consistent. In the interest of transparency, and so no one can accuse the promoter of going against consensus, I really think that in cases like this, the nom needs to be extended before a late edit is promoted. At the very least, the promoter needs to add a note saying why he ignored consensus, as is done with AFD's and the like. Otherwise you end up with exactly this issue... MEC-C has declined to explain, mistakes are always a possibility and it may be that people genuinely preferred the original. We can't make assumptions about how people *might* vote and then make decisions based on that. Right now, all we know for sure is that consensus was for the original version, so we have to go with that until something is decided/explained otherwise. pschemp | talk 03:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fir and Mikaul are correct. Don't change my closures without getting my comments first. MER-C 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you should have commented when you closed it if you are going against such a clear consensus...then this has been here for another week without your comment. You've even edited the page in that time and still didn't say anything. If promoting over consensus, the least you owe the community is an explanation, and to be fair, the nom should have been extended for further comment. pschemp | talk 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've re-promoted the edit in favour of the original as per above --Fir0002 11:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Until consensus is clear Fir, I'm changing it back. SO far, consensus is not clear. Relist it if you want it changed. pschemp | talk 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm usually not too fond of other people editing pictures to what they think might constitute an improvement. But this is a fairly clear cut case. As far as I can see Fir only worked on the background areas, evening out the lighting and removing noise in what should be a featureless backdrop anyways. So I'm all for promoting the edit, as this is an example of an obvious improvement. --Dschwen 14:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, but we need to get a formal consensus on this because the original was very clear for the unfixed version. When we go against the community decision, there has to be recorded reasoning. MER-C has still not given any comment, which he has a duty to community to do when he goes against it. So relist it, and get a real consensus. We don't do things by fiat here. pschemp | talk 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When I called the attention to this nomination I thought it was no more than a trivial mistake which would be corrected immediately. Well, I was wrong. In my opinion the job of the closer is to interpret the consensus of the reviewers in the light of the agreed guidelines. Most of times to reach a decision is an easy job and all he has to do is to use simple arithmetic (again, according to the guidelines). This is clearly one of those simple cases and I see no justification for treating it otherwise. And though I might agree with Dschwen that the edited version is a (minor) improvement over the original, this talk page is not the proper place to gather such a consensus. In the name of the transparency and credibility of the FP process, there is only one way to revert the decision, which is to propose a replacement in the WP:FPC page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tacoma Bridge collapse

To TomStar81 - you're not the only person who's seen a Hollywood movie. What we have here is a quality piece of amateur filmmaking, professionally edited. This footage was used in newsreels and the owner was kind enough to release it to the public domain. DurovaCharge! 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists aint Articles

There has been at least three nominations for FPC in about the last three weeks whose only use is in a List. We need to remember our definition of FPs:

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.

Lists are not articles - there's a reason that the category of Featured lists exists separately from Featured articles.

To put it in terms of books, a list is more akin to an index or table of contents, and does not need to be illustrated. This is highlighted by the fact that if they are illustrated, lists typically have a very high number of similar pictures at a very small size. None of these images ever adds much value to the list, and value would be identical with or without the image. Lists are simply used as a jumping off point to articles proper, which is where the image should be used if it's really adding value.

Thus, by definition, any image only used in a list automatically fails our Criterion 5:

Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.

I propose a change to the wording of criterion 5 to make this fact more explicit to people that may not realise that a list does not constitute an article. Something like ...understand an article. An article is a page that provides encyclopedic information on a particular topic, and does not include other Wikipedia pages such as Lists, Talk pages and Userpages. ...

Would like to hear other opinions or comments. --jjron (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite agree there. See List of brain tumor patients, which has value independent of the particular articles it references. That is to say, patients and caregivers are often interested in knowing who else has had this type of ailment. The list helps put a human face on the disease - and it certainly helps to have an actual human face. This has been a challenge during the two years the list has been featured because of the difficulties of finding an image that fits the following criteria:
  • Fairly recognizable (as opposed to borderline notability)
  • Long-term survivor (relatively rare with this class of disease)
  • Freely licensed
If I ever found a feature-worthy photograph to illustrate this list I'd nominate it in a heartbeat. This is a terrifying class of conditions - it's the leading cause of childhood cancer deaths in the United States. It's not the only list of it's type, either. Other featured lists that cover serious ailments include List of HIV-positive people, List of people with epilepsy, and List of polio survivors. They all need better images. DurovaCharge! 07:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you will attempt to style me as a heartless bastard, but I disagree. The criteria you state above indicate that the individual with this condition you would consider worthy of nominating for FP would also qualify for their own article, thus it's a moot point - the image would be in a real article so is featurable anyway. It really just goes to underline what I said, if the image is good enough and of sufficient encyclopaedic value, it will have a place in a proper article, not just a list.
I never said these lists have no value, I said they don't need to be illustrated (cf my analogy to indexes in books - I love indexes, but you don't need pictures in them). The brain tumour list you've linked to is different to lists of cities or buildings we usually get on FPC, as this list has only a single image, compared to most lists whose image use I've described above (incidentally that one image is entirely unnecessary, as with the HIV list with no image which actually looks more professional and unbiased; the polio list by comparison is starting to degenerate into the more typical list layout I talk about with a surfeit of unnecessary images). You seem to be thinking with your heart rather than your head; take out the emotive element re them being terrible conditions and consider them objectively. --jjron (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support re word. I agree with jjron, lists hardly need be illustrated and even if they are who could imagine that one of Wikipedia's finest images (aka an FP) should have it's only home there? If a photo is so well taken and has the desired enc value why isn't in an article as you'd expect it to be? --Fir0002 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support per jj and fir. de Bivort 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we're polling here, but I certainly and vehemently object to an inflexible rule on this point. The nature of the list bears consideration. DurovaCharge! 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the re-wording. I suppose that, hypothetically at least, an FP-worthy image could come up that was really only appropriate on a list... but if that did happen, I think we could decide as a group to temporarily ignore the rule and promote something that really deserved it. Right now, the vagueness of the standing wording is being misunderstood by a few well-intentioned nominators, IMO. Matt Deres (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Durova here - Lists are just encyclopedia entries with a different format and if a picture that is used there adds value, it should absolutely be eligible to be a Featured Picture. The form of organization of the text does not in any way make a picture less capable of illustrating something. If anything the wording should be changed to "Adds value to an article or list and helps readers to understand the article or list." so this kind of semantic game that is proposed above can be avoided. Lists benefit from illustrations too.pschemp | talk 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please seeWikipedia:Featured list criteria. If images didn't matter to lists, it's unlikely that the entire criterion 3 would be about images. DurovaCharge! 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Support reword I can't image how or why one of the best images in all of Wikipedia would only be suitable for a list article. I would gladly reconsider if someone could provide me with a good example. Even if it were rerworded, it is not like users actually let the criteria get in the way of their nominations. Whether or not it's promoted is really where the criteria come into play. If it is the only criteria that isn't met on an outstanding image, I'd venture to say it would be by the time voting is over. Cacophony (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Simple: the image provides great value to a specific list but the relevant article already has an abundance of other illustrations that are more pertinent to the main points of the article. DurovaCharge! 06:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a specific example. Like a picture of what? Cacophony (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How about List of tallest buildings in the world? Image:Skyscrapercompare.svg adds a lot of value to that list. As it happens, that image isn't a featured picture, and is also used in some (but not all) of the articles of the individual skyscrapers concerned; but it does seem to be an encyclopedic image whose most useful role is in a list. I think such images are probably few; but if non-qualifying images are proposed the voters can weed them out when they get here. TSP (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this idea and honestly can't see what all the fuss is about. If an image adds significant value to anything in article mainspace, it should be eligible for FPC, and this includes lists. It includes disambig pages, for that matter, there's just no reason to specifically exclude them. The fact is, the last time I saw an image come up which only appeared in a list, it was voted down because it didn't add value to the list – so where's the problem? The proposal seems like undue red tape to me; worse, it proposes to remove one of the most important criteria we have: An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. Maybe a footnote, after the "..understand the article" sentence, about the ineligibility of userspace images, might be useful; but according to WP:WIAFL and AFAICS, lists are perfectly valid places to add images. I'd be interested to find an image adding enough value to a list –and only a list– to pass FPC, but ultimately I can see no reason at all to exclude the possiblity. --mikaultalk 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, mikaul - I concur. --Janke | Talk 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Mick et al. There's no need to be explicit about excluding lists. The existing criterion already does the job adequately. If an image doesn't add any value to a list (and that's the only type of article(s) it's in), it won't get promoted. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm with Mick on this one.. shasYarr!/T|C 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"I'd be interested to find an image adding enough value to a list –and only a list– to pass FPC...". It's interesting that you say this and yet two sentences before quote the criteria about "encyclopaedic value", and that three people then agree without seeing the obvious contradiction (or perhaps more likely misinterpretation; I must say it's an absolutely bizarre statement that I can only understand as you having misread my initial statement - perhaps you don't understand the use of the ellipsis).
The undercurrent of my whole proposal here is that more and more people are nominating and voting for images with no regard to encyclopaedic value - it is clear from many comments on nominations that many voters don't check images in their article context. This lack of rigour seems to be further encouraging nominators to try to have this overlooked, downgraded in importance, or waived completely (to the ridiculous extent that a nomination was made last week where the nominator blatantly admitted the nom wasn't in an article and stated someone should create one so that the photo could become an FP!).
To get to the point, this sloppiness means "Featured pictures" risks degenerating into no more than "Pretty pictures", ignoring the most important Criterion about encyclopaedic value (on that point, can anyone say why this is Criterion 5, rather than Criterion 1?). People are trying to - and being allowed to - slip things through the cracks just because a picture is 'nice'. As Cacophony suggests, the change of wording wouldn't stop users from making dopey nominations, but it would tighten up the wording to cut out long repetitive discussions every time someone does it, as we could just refer them to the criterion, as we do say for the 'size' criterion. In the unlikely event that an undeniable exception came along, it could be exempted from that criterion, once again as is done for other criteria such as size on rare occasions. --jjron (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I understand & agree with your last two paras, but you still haven't shown any reason to change the wording as proposed, only that we somehow need to reinforce the criteria we already have.
The similar-but-different issue of images not appearing in the encyclopedia at all, or being posted up at FPC within minutes of appearing in an article, I've long argued for some firm criteria on. I'd certainly be interested in ideas aimed at helping the FPC process draw images from the encyclopedia, rather than become a vehicle for adding prospective FPs to articles. It's so fundamental to FPC that I'd support a move of #5 to top of the list, amended to require an image appear in article mainspace well prior to nomination. I'd move this discussion there first, though. --mikaultalk 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's a slight preference here for a reword, but no strong consensus. Given that I'll just leave it as it is and watch encyclopaedic standards slip away in favour of pretty pictures, as I'm not going to keep acting as policeman for every unencyclopaedic nom. --jjron (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming tool

It'd be good if we could get a few people signed up to Wikipedia:Image renaming/Commons:MediaMoveBot so that we can deal with inappropriately named images instead of just whinging about it. Admins need not apply. Thanks. MER-C 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The CT

We still need additional votes for Wikipedia:Image_candidates#LARGE_Computed_tomography_of_human_brain. Please have a look! Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Closures, please

Now that we're far enough into February, would an uninvolved editor please close out the remaining January discussions? DurovaCharge! 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) DurovaCharge! 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

unrestored version; needs a home and a nomination please while I restore?

It'd be charming if we could get an appropriate FPC nom passed in time for Valentine's Day (to appear on POTD or some such on February 14)-- a rose, or a heart, or something with a romantic theme. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Good idea. DurovaCharge! 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The only one I found on LoC is a little small (646 x 912). It's a Victorian greeting card with a rose and a short love poem from 1888. Can you do better? DurovaCharge! 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I was actually looking for something in the unscheduled FPs to put on Feb 14, but I couldn't find anything appropriate. Which is fine, BTW -- this last year was the first time I was able to put holiday-related things on those days (Halloween with the skeletons and the Santa Claus pic for Christmas). howcheng {chat} 23:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sec, I've got one. I'll upload in a sec. Could one of you guys nominate if you like it while I start restoring? Want to get this in before GMT date changes. DurovaCharge! 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its a little weird to be uploading a picture with the express reason of finding an article for it to appear in. Maybe that's just me. Are you guys rewarding good images or looking for ways to win awards for images you have restored? Mfield (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Spikebrennan had a beautiful idea. And it turns out that Gabrielé Castagnola is a respected Italian painter whose works hang in museums. If that inspires a restoration and a new article, why complain? There's no cap on the number of images this site can feature; the more the merrier if they're actually good enough. DurovaCharge! 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I take your point but i think its still odd to be reversing the normal procedure this way. What's just struck me though is that if this image was a featured photo rather than painting I think it would almost certainly have been voted against due to 'poor composition' where the easel is cropped out and there is all that space on the right. That amuses me. Mfield (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the restored version? And there's interesting symbolism on her sleeve, a hint about the decision she's making. Seriously, although today's discussion is unusual, I often browse the LoC archives looking for striking images that might be encyclopedic and feature-worthy. I've reviewed about 150,000 images total between Wikipedia, Commons, LoC, and other sites. DurovaCharge! 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell cares what the procedure for the nomination is? Either it is FP quality or it isn't. Vote on the quality of the image, everything else is irrelevant. Cacophony (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons FPs

Are images that are FPs on Commons automatically featured here, or must they be re-nominated. MBisanz talk 08:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The criteria are totally different, A "beautiful" pic will make it on Commons, here we need "enc" = encyclopedicity, among other things. Please read the requirements (link on top of FPC page), thanks. --Janke | Talk 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Janke is correct, of course. Quite frequently, images that are FP at Commons are nominated here but do not pass because the requirements are different-- likewise, some en:Wikipedia FPs would not satisfy the tougher size requirements of Commons. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a good idea to send Commons FPs through peer review before trying FPC. DurovaCharge! 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Holiday FPs

What would people think of listing other holidays farther in advance, and seeing about lining up other FPs for them if an appropriate picture isn't already featured? DurovaCharge! 19:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fun idea - My view is that there are plenty of potential FPs out there, and a theme to encourage us to dig them up is just fine! de Bivort 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure - it could rapidly degrade the FP standards if we try get a picture through just because it illustrates a holiday --Fir0002 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So let's take the time in advance to research/restore or shoot material of true FP quality. DurovaCharge! 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and it won't degrade the standards because we'll just keep applying the same standards, no exceptions. de Bivort 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Fir0002. Oppose this idea. 'Holiday' FPs are hardly a necessity; if they’re available fine, but there’s no need to actively seek them. I also fear the typical systemic bias – that ‘holiday FPs’ will become more a case of ‘US holiday FPs’ (hell there's a bias here already - most countries don't even call things like Valentine's Day, St Patrick's Day, or even Xmas for that matter "holidays"). For example I’m willing to bet someone will seek out a suitable holiday FP for the 4th of July, but wonder who’s going to find one for the national day of say Senegal (if they have one). --jjron (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day - Do we have anything for this holiday? DurovaCharge! 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Ireland next week so I'll try to get a shot of some shamrocks, assuming the preference is for iconic rather than historical. mikaultalk 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you find, if it's FP-worthy, more power to you. :) DurovaCharge! 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We have the satellite pic of Ireland--I already posted a heads-up to this effect to POTD's talk page. Keep in mind that St. Patrick's Day is going to be observed on March 15 of this year, to avoid a conflict with Holy Week. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted [[1]] a while ago, but it didn't seem to take. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC) How about some crucifixion/resurrection of Christ artwork in time for Good Friday/Easter Sunday? See Category:Resurrection of Christ at Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikebrennan (talkcontribs) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Closures of Dengero

I've expressed concerns about the above user's closures of various noms, i.e. closing noms where he supported/opposed in (6/14 noms) and not adhering to the general time limit (11/14 noms). Even though I agree with the outcomes, I don't think it will be long before he might make a decision that may be overturned. That diff also demonstrates that he thinks FPC is a vote.

The concerned debates are:

Comments? MER-C 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was just trying to help ^^". Won't do it again =D. And yeah....I should've used "your opinion" rather than "your vote"....yet again, sorry ^^" Dengero (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, are we really so concerned about whether it is "vote" or "opinion"? I understand consensus as good as the next person (even tried to become a bureaucrat once), but I still call it a vote. This is just semantics and it isn't fair to hammer someone else for it. What we do is vote but the result is determined by consensus. It is also determined by voting (or else there would not be a mention of a minimum number of support votes). For example, my current candidate has a lot of support votes, but people just can't agree on a version, thus even though it's obvious the picture is liked, it does not have the minimum number of votes. -- RM 12:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The Monarch and the Veterans might have needed a bit more time to get a few more opinions. Also avoid closing ones that you participated in. The rest are fine. Everybody knows that opinions are sarcastically referred to as !votes. I don't see the upset. I'd encourage Dengero to do it again. Wikipedia:Snowball clause and c.f. commons:Template:FPX. Then we also had the "noms with short legs" discussion (permalink [2]). Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have no objection to temporarily de-featuring any of my noms so that the discussion can run its course. DurovaCharge! 12:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Per above comments, the ‘vote’ wording thing seems to be just playing semantics; we know what it means. Re early closures, I don’t have a big problem with noms being closed a day or so early if the outcome is clear, especially when FPC is as busy as it has been, but as Samsara says a couple that weren’t so clear cut could have left for their full time; I think most closers apply this rule of thumb, right? (Though this being closed after 2 days is of course absurd, for that matter as is this - pot, kettle?) Re closing ones you’ve participated in, again I don’t have much of a problem with that if the outcome is clear, but would avoid doing so on anything that is potentially contentious, or on anything you’d been involved with creating, nominating, editing or strongly arguing on. Commonsense can usually prevail here (from all sides). --jjron (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, indeed that was also closed in two days too lol. I suppose it was rushing valentines a bit. But still, oh well. Dengero (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback on photos

Hi there everyone. Yesterday I went for a photo session at Adelaide Oval to take pics of the Indian cricket team in action. My photography skills are not good so I made many attempts at taking pictures of the same thing but there were still deficiencies everywhere. Obviously I am not here to nominate for FP. I was hoping for people more skilled in photography to drop by my talk page and participate in a quick poll on which of the trials at the pictures are of the best quality available to be used in the respective articles. User_talk:Blnguyen#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_the_Indian_cricket_team_for_use_in_articles. Thanks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarity in thumbnails

Old style New style Old style Old style
First image Second image First image 1px larger First image 1px smaller


Unless it's something weird with my settings, the second Obama thumbnail (File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg) above is far clearer than the first (Image:Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg) - the images are effectively identical, less a stray hair and a blemish. I see the same with the images on their image description pages; but requesting the first Obama in an odd size (e.g. 121px) gets a 'new style' version, as per the third image. Any ideas? I can't find any other images that I can replicate the effect with.

If this is because of a thumbnails settings change, it's a vast improvement - does make judging alternatives a bit tricky during changeover, though. TSP (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the second image has been sharpened quite considerably (I can see it on the larger sizes as well). So I assume this is replicated in the thumbnail. What I do find really odd is that the 3rd thumbnail is much clearer than the first even though it is the same photo. To me, 2 and 3 look identical, and 1 is the blurred one. --liquidGhoul (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, just noticed the third one is a different sized thumbnail, that'd be all it is. Get more detail in it. --liquidGhoul (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
At 100% the two appear to be pixel identical to me. Try opening the 100% versions in two browser windows, with the same section visible in each, then changing from one window to the next. Apart from very small edits to two small areas of the image, the two appear to me to be identical. No sharpening is visible at 100%, only in the thumbnails.
Yes, the larger sizes on the image description page look different too, but these (apart from the 100% version) have also been through the thumbnailing filter. at 400px, Obama 1 looks fuzzy; at 399px, he doesn't.
The third image above is only 1px bigger than the others - not really a lot more information. I've added another that is 1px smaller, and the same effect is obvious. TSP (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
And that's why I suggested before that images which are nominated here should have their thumbnails purged! I just did that for the Obama image by the way. --Dschwen 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason is not the sharpening of the second image, but a change in the thumbnailing settings a few months ago. --Dschwen 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A plea for participation

Hey all - So we got a burst of nominations in the last couple days. Great! Now I'm asking all you FP regulars and lurkers to get out there and discuss the photos. Lots of the noms have hardly been commented on, and it would be a shame if consensus on them wasn't built simply because there were lots of nominations. de Bivort 17:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nude images

I noticed several pictures recently nominated with some form of nudity. I know it is not wikipedia policy to censor images but I suggest that images with nude content should be displayed on a different page with a disclaimer. After all, not everybody wants to see such images. Muhammad(talk) 13:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to object to this because of WP:NOT, obviously nude images probably will never go on the front page as the FP of the day but we shoudln't censor a production page because somebody might object to it's contents. Cat-five - talk 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What a joke. WP:NOT was never intended to apply to community pages, only to article content. Whatever the consensus is for this specific project will apply to this specific project, as determined on this talk page. The minute we start censoring articles, let me know, and I'll get my torch and pitch-fork. But whatever the FPC community decides is best for the FPC process will apply to this specific project page. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-19 19:03Z
Some of us do have conservative families here (eg. me). And after just one glimp on the page, I'm not willing to go back until the nominations are completed and taken somewhere else as I attend to my computer in the middle of the family room, and I have 2 younger brother and sisters. I think its better to censor those pictures like they did for the FP on masturbation. Regarding the actual recent nude pictures themselves, I suggest some nominators should be referred to peer review before contesting for FPC. Until then. Dengero (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I put the epeen in a hide box, purely because I don't want to see a guy jacking off every time I scroll through the noms. I'll hide the other nudes too for you and reference this section.. this isn't a matter of censorship, just of knowing what you're getting into :D\=< ([[User

talk:Froth|talk]]) 09:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK it's done. Try not to freak out about WP:NOT.. not everyone can be reasonable philosopher-scholars, there are limits to what's work / living room safe. I felt a little uneasy about hiding the topless african ladies (isn't that ironic, our society requires censorship of theirs) but it's not oversight or anything, just a little hide box. Left the kama sutra thing cause it's pretty tough to tell what's going on from a distance :D\=< (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear. I am strongly opposed to censorship of any kind, and I strongly dislike people with conservative attitude. Anyone feeling problem with nude images should not look at them or should go to some other wikis. I am strongly opposed to any kind of anti-liberal attitude. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're by any chance directing that to me in anyway, I am not offended. I am a perfectly fine mature adult, but please, consider some people might not be in the condition to see these pictures. It is not a matter of censorship. And I don't have time to react to it when it's the first time I log on before seeing those pictures. And like froth said, don't freak out on WP:NOT. I wont oppose to your liberalism, and I frankly don't care if you strongly dislike me (again, if you directed that comment against me) but please don't oppose to my conservatism also. We all have our views and ideas, respect them. Dengero (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at it from the other side, a person who do not want to see nude pictures for personal reasons should also be able to do so. Without hideboxes, they cannot do so as you have put the up there for a week, so must they refrain from the FPC and potentially skewer the viewers and thus the consensus? This is what hideboxes are for, voluntary viewership. Universal force-feeding is just as bad as universal starvation. --antilivedT | C | G 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, haha, my brain's drained and I couldn't find the phrase. You said it. Yes, the viewing of pictures should be a voluntary thing. So this is not censorship, just a voluntary viewership. Dengero (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good. A mixed solution with both conservatism and liberalism. I have no objection on it. But I will oppose any kind of censorship and conservative bias. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia? Are you joking? :) :D\=< (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd weigh in and say that just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean that they're going to put pornography on the main page. I think that both your expectations and your idea of a good picture are a little skewed. Furthermore, spamming the FPC page with nude pictures could run counter to WP:POINT. It all depends on your motivation (i.e. if you're disrupting the FPC page to prove that there's some kind of censorship going on). I appreciate the fact that you were up front about being a liberal, but it's best to keep WP:NPOV in mind as well. This isn't about politics. It's about writing an encyclopedia. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve on the hideboxes - but isn't it going a bit far hiding the Himba ladies? Anything OK for publication in National Geographic should be OK here... --Janke | Talk 11:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • i second that, I was just wondering about that while browsing the FPC page. --Dschwen 12:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (editing conflict, Daniel!) - I'm with Janke, it was gone too far hiding the ladies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This isn't about being objective and tolerant of other cultures- if it was, then the most grotesque shock images wouldn't be hidden because they're just pixels, just actions that can be performed on the human body with certain physiological and psychological consequences, etc etc. But it's about norms in our society, and computers in a family's living room, and me sitting here at work with people looking over my shoulder- I can only browse this page if there is no nudity, and the hide boxes don't inconvenience anyone else at all. I wouldn't dream of using hide boxes in article space, but when I just want to hop on wikipedia for a minute and look at the new FPC noms, this doesn't work! The simple fact is that the women are topless, and in America that's extremely taboo. Don't censor the content, but don't get me in trouble at work either. Hence, hide boxes in project space. :D\=< (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • See my suggestion below which is used on several images including Muhammed and a few others, it allows you to hide the images using css if you would like solely on your account (it only works if you are logged in) without censoring it for anyone else in the process. Cat-five - talk 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hide 'em all, if any - I'm opposed to the hide boxes, but why do white women need to be hidden but brown women don't? It smacks of some sort of colonial double standard to me. de Bivort 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nudity, while taboo in our culture, is perfectly respectable in their culture. They aren't exhibiting or acting sexual in any way. Also, "brown women" sounds a bit racist. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Isn't it more the difference between a shot focusing on a naked woman's genitals (and a closeup of a masturbating man's penis), and a shot of some women in an everyday situation whose clothing happens not to include breast covering? While I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, I think that one is something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia on a page not related to an explicit subject, where the other probably isn't. I admit that I might feel different if I thought the explicit images concerned actually had any merit or any chance of becoming featured.... TSP (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Is someone trying to experiment to see if they can actually get a risque image on the front page? That seems to be the only goal here. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I may have missed some pictures, but all I see is some images of native women & an illustration. If we can see it flipping through television channels (in the US), we can certainly have it here. Illustrations & native women are exceptions (according to the FCC). What's taboo to one culture (showing breasts) is every life to another. It's not sexualized. It's not inappropriate for daytime television. And it's not pornography. An image of a sex act, on the other hand, is pornography, and that would warrant a different discussion. However, for now, these images are perfectly fine. Wikipeia is uncensored, and, therefore, "not safe for work". If your work would disapprove of anything graphic or "inappropriate", you probably shouldn't visit an uncensored website on the Internet. =) нмŵוτнτ 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the css idea though? correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would work within WP:NOT and that's the way it's currently done on several other pages so that people aren't offended. Cat-five - talk 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the images of women in their native clothing that people have objections to, it's the pictures of nude sunbathers and people masturbating that are being objectioned to. You didn't notice those? TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said I am not making judgement calls I'll let other people do that, I just used a purely technical solution and tagged any images with nudity, the removal or addition to current or other images is a consensus issue. As implemented it is purely objective right now however if the consensus is to make it subjective then by all means. Cat-five - talk 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I apologize. I scanned quickly down the page, and I apparently missed a few at the beginning ("Female Pubic Hair" and "Man masturbating"). Without those, I thought to myself: "God! What's the big deal? Are they serious?" So, my mistake for not analyzing the page well enough. Anyways, I wouldn't wholly object to them being hidden at first (css proposal). I mean, people expect to find a picture of pubic hair in the pubic hair article, and they would probably avoid that in a public setting (where the screen can be seen). However, they wouldn't know what they were getting into here. Perfect solution! нмŵוτнτ 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

css proposal

I think a better solution is give them each a div tag so using you're monobook.css (User:<username>/monobook.css) you can hide them by marking the tag as displaynone, I forget the exact way of doing it but I'm sure someone can help you if you need help on knowning how to do it. Doing it this way means that if you browse while logged in and you have it set the images will not appear at all (on the page that is tagged which would be the nom pages and included in the main fpc page) . On the serverside it's very easy and just a matter of adding a div tag to each of the nominations, I'll be happy to take care of doing it and writing up easy instructions on how to make it work if it has support.Cat-five - talk 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done this without judgement btw so everything is hidden from the African ladies to the statue of David, if you want to fight about what to hide or not hide feel free but I don't feel like getting involved in that fight.

I have gone ahead and tagged each one, to hide them log in and go to your css file at [[User:<your username>/monobook.css]] and add the following line.

 #nsfw { display:none; } 

When you are logged on from then on the images will not show up on either the main FPC page or on each nomination's page although if you go to the image page they still be there and show up same with if you browse while logged out. Cat-five - talk 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

    • The
 #nsfw { display:none; } 

should be added to the monobook.css page by editing the page. Right? Muhammad(talk) 19:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you edit the page and add it there, although to make it take effect you may have to do a clean reload (at the top of the css page should be instructions on how to do that in whichever browser you're using). Cat-five - talk 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if it's display:none, it's still being downloaded and stored locally on your work computer. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-19 20:10Z
Okay, this leads me to a question I've been holding in for a long time: Why are people getting on Wikipedia project space during work on those computers? I've always wondered this. Don't they have, you know, work to do? =) нмŵוτнτ 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Some jobs actually let you browse the web at the job, not many but some. Cat-five - talk 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not the issue though,the issue was people not wanting people in their living room or at work seeing them looking at dirty pictures when they went to the FPC page, if you're afraid about what may be in your browser's cache then browsing WP (or the web in general) is probably not the best choice. With all due respect it would be ridiculous to censor anything objectional on Wikipedia because people are afraid of what might be found in their cache and that's exactly why we have WP:NOT to prevent people from trying to do just that, and even if it doesn't apply as a policy to community pages (a point I won't argue) then it's still a guiding principle of Wikipedia as a whole. Cat-five - talk 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, WP:NOT does not apply to project pages, and it is ludicrous to claim that it does. The rules for a project are determined by its members on its talk page. Their only concern with article-related changes is when such a change actually impacts article content and conflicts with WP:NOT or other article policies. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-19 21:20Z
Haha, I was just making a joke. Well said, though. That's exactly how I feel. I mean, it's reasonable for someone not to want a giant penis pop up on their screen when on the project space, but the cache is a completely different issue. Plus, I think if it was stored, a reasonable explanation could be given to a boss, demonstrating that you went simply went to this page (showing him the history to prove that it was here). нмŵוτнτ 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning is this, even though we aren't censored I am in favor of giving a reasonable level of help to anyone who has legitimate concerns such as viewing at work or in the family room which is in my opinion what the css solution is, entirely removing the image to a separate page though in my opinion crosses the line into WP:NOT territory and would be a very bad precedent. I'm not trying to do things unileraterally although I will strongly go to the line in defense of not censoring the page for everyone, however unless I am wrong the FPC community in general seems to be in favor of a solution where it isn't censored for everyone but anyone who needs to not view the images be it for work, home, religious reasons, legal reasons, prudishness, etc... can hide the images from view. Even though all current fpc's with nudity are marked with the span tag I think a community consensus should be gotten as to how to handle such images in the future whether to non transclude them (again which I am strongly opposed to), mark them as has been done now, leave them be, or another solution, obviously policy creep is bad but this is something that may need at least an FPC specific policy. Cat-five - talk 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The human body has been a subject of serious painting, sculpture, and photography for thousands of years. I see nothing wrong with featuring superlative images or with having them on the main page. That said, exploitive and gratiutous nominations of low quality material are only likely to exhaust the patience of the editors who participate here. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Bad idea, maybe - I don't know how and what your css does, but the images (that may offend some people) are now back on the FPC page. Any system of hiding Viewing possibly objectionable images should be opt-in, not opt-out. So, to see the hidden images you must actively request them, either as with the clickable "show" link, or by a preference setting. Porn and nudity is OK where it is enc - as many have stated - but I'd be careful about displaying them here - especially snowball images. --Janke | Talk 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that seeing the images should be opt in? Currently you have to opt in to hide them, doing it the other way around would be entirely against the WP ethos of covering everything and not censoring Wikipedia for everyone for the sake of a few. Cat-five - talk 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Mea culpa - I meant opt-in to see them. To answer your question: Yes and no - but we should definitely not cover "everything", as you seem to think I'm implying. So let me explain: I feel that the recent images "pubic hair" and "masturbation" ought to be hidden here on FPC, and "opt-in available" with a mouse click, as they were yesterday. In their respective articles, I don't mind at all them being fully visible. Reason: People come to FPC to see and vote for great pictures, and, as mentioned by others, young family members may be present in the same room. If you go to masturbation then that's your own choice, and you should expect such pictures, but I'd prefer to keep FPC as "clean" as possible - Where to draw the line? see my comment about National Geographic above. One mouse click to opt-in? That's not censorship! --Janke | Talk 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree 100% with Janke's comment immediately above. I have children wandering about who really don't need to see the masturbation shot, in particular. (I'm browsing on a computer in an open area of my house.) -- Moondigger (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the image of a guy holding his penis was not an exciting surprise while sitting at my desk this afternoon, surrounded by about 15 people. The css is nice and all, but a hide-box helps everyone (especially those of us not always accessing the site from home or while logged in). - auburnpilot talk 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the hideboxes are the exact definition of censoring WP to suit a minority of viewers in a minority of situations as well as a violation of the spirit if not the (arguable) letter of WP:NOT. The CSS solution in my opinion is the only one that doesn't break what WP and FPC is supposed to be about while allowing people who may need to not have pictures of guys masterbating show up on their screen at work or in their family room, if anyone has a better solution that doesn't involve arbitrarily hiding them from that would be great though. Cat-five - talk 02:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT does not apply to this page and we would not be "arbitrarily hiding them" or censoring anything. We would be hiding them from plain view for a very clear purpose, and I don't believe making them one click away violates the definition or spirit of any guideline or policy. - auburnpilot talk 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Cat-five's assertion that such a thing would be "censoring WP" is absolutely ridiculous. WP is an encyclopedia. FPC is not. A single click requirement to view those images on the FPC page is both reasonable and perfectly compatible with WP:NOT. -- Moondigger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think racy noms are a big enough problem to have to classify nominations and worry about some people not being able to see nominations. The Woman pubic hair and the masturbation nom were out of line. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has seemed to have laid-up on the nude noms and so long as it stays that way, these css protocols would be heavy overkill. That said, if User:Otolemur crassicaudatus decides to nominate images as utterly nasty as the shaved masturbation pic (for the love of god, people) I think a block for trolling would be in order. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Trolling"? If anyone find a nude image offensive, that is not my mistake. I have no idea how an image of masturbation is "utterly nasty". It may be true that I were not aware of the Featured picture criteria, from now I will be aware of it. But I oppose to calling a masturbation image "nasty". If image depicting any kind of sexual activity is not allowed in the main page, I will propose that this should be mentioned within the guidelines for featured image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, heres my definition of trolling: Partaking in an activity that disrupts and distracts the community from its goals and tasks especially in a repetitive manner... The fact that we are having this very discussion is worthy of the title and you single-handedly may make it so there is policy creep and pretty drastic measures to avoid this kind of thing in the future. It seems consensus is that many of the pictures were very inappropriate. If thats not trolling, what is?! -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there are a number of people who would support a FP of sexual activity appearing on the Main Page. However, when you consider the downside (i.e. the numerous number of complaints sent through OTRS), it's really not worth it. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the number of parents that would freak out and insist on new free speech laws to protect their poor little billy :D\=< (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Grr who put them back? At least the guy masturbating and the pubic hair one is gone, but there seems to be a lot of people here who liked the hide boxes idea for the nude sunbather and the native women too.. and they're gone with no discussion beyond !OMG WP:NOT!. Also, it's a violation of the DOM to have multiple elements with the same id :D\=< (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT is not the only guideline on Wikipedia. Don't forget that there's also WP:POINT. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 08:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Flickr as creator

I have commented on several FPCs here, many of which claim Flickr to be the creator. This doesn't seem fit, because Flickr is the distributer, the showcase of photos, not the photographer or the creator. Should it be a policy, or at least a guideline, to specify the actual creator? Juliancolton (Talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should certainly be correct to specify the actual creator, not least because lots of Flickr images are licensed as CC with attribution. Flickr should not be in the creator field. Mfield (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For flicker based nom the actually image creator as well as a link to the image on flickr (so that licensing can be verified) should be a must in my opinion. Cat-five - talk 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"Should it be a policy, or at least a guideline, to specify the actual creator?" Isn't this already the case? You're dead right, Flickr is not a creator. People who list that simply don't understand the requirements. As with other requirements they don't understand, you can't really stop them doing it, just point out the error when it occurs. My personal take on this is that I do not vote on anything that lists something like Flickr as creator. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No chance of success

Commons has a feature for voting where a user can indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. I think we should have that here as well as many do not go through the peer review. (including me sometimes). The Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 48 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. Muhammad(talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! de Bivort 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea but without creating policy creep I don't see how we could prevent it being potentially abused. Cat-five - talk 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the problem. If someone wrongfully applies the FPX template you can just support the image. --Dschwen 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just reread my comment and realized I wasn't clear enough, that would only apply actually if we used that template to signify it as something that should be speedily closed (which I don't think would be a good idea) otherwise it is a very good idea. Cat-five - talk 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, especially considering the large number of junk images that have been nominated recently by a certain user. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just say speedy close and I'll nuke it. MER-C 02:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I largely disagree - I know when I was starting out as a photographer the critique I recieved here was invaluable. I think the nominator could learn a lot from the comments (assuming of course they're constructive) and so leaving the noms to die a natural death is a good idea IMO --Fir0002 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • True, if you are the photographer. But it also crowds the FPC page with nominations. Look at the page now and see how many of the sub-standard nominations exist. I believe the Picture Peer Review should be the place for these images first. Muhammad(talk) 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is a good idea, as it only applies to extreme cases and the template may be easily removed with a support vote. Newbies can always be guided to the Peer Review page -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed. It can be a relatively gentle way of telling a misguided nominator that the image has no chance without it attracting a screed of negative and frankly rude comments. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the idea overall. I take Fir's point, but I think there's a distinction between what Muhammad is talking about ('no chance in hell' nominations) and what Fir is talking about (viable and genuine nominations that fairly clearly won't make it, but at least aren't wasting everyone's time). The 'no chance in hell' nominations don't receive constructive comments anyway, so it kind of negates that argument. As long as it's used tactfully, and not as a sledgehammer to belt newbies (or ambitious oldies) with, I think it's probably worth a try. I'm not sure a tag is necessary though (having seen them on Commons, I find them a bit 'in your face'). I think selective use of the "Speedy Close" vote with a reason is sufficient; I know it is used occasionally at the moment, but often the images tagged as such currently just remain for their full time anyway. --jjron (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Is my monitor calibrated correctly?" section

(edit conflict) It says that it's incorrect if the circles appear darker. They appear lighter on mine, I think. What's the mean? нмŵוτнτ 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Are you talking about the color circles? The text states " Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background." - so if your circles are lighter, you may have a slightly over-corrected display - no big deal, no problem. You can click the images for more info. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, нмŵוτнτ 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus

Nominated 20 FPCs in the past two days, most of which are obviously not FP mateiral. Something need to be done about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8thstar (talkcontribs) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, most of them are obviously not FP material, I have already advised him to go through Peer Review first the above topic regarding nudity images. Perhaps someone remind him again on his talk page? I don't want to do it because he said he will report me to WP:NPA yesterday. Dengero (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I may not be totally aware of the featured picture criteria previously. I have read fully the featured picture criteria. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived about 200KB of the discussion on this talk page. The discussion has been moved to Archive 14 and 15. Please check if I have done this correctly. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Looked weird at first, but it seems that there were no discussion from Oct-Feb. Dengero (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Err...the end of October to February is covered in Archive 15. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
He was pointing out that you didn't done this correctly :) Fixed it :D\=< (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C taking extreme liberties with promotion

I'm quite upset, that once again, MERC appears to have put personal prference above consesnsus. In Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kutia kondh woman 3.jpg There were 10 !votes for the original (with the blurred background) 6 for the unedited version and 4 for the second edit. (counting the anys and multiples) MER-C promoted the unedited version, rather than the one with the most consensus. I can only hope he didn't understand what "original" was referring to, but this has got to be fixed. pschemp | talk 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should an inferior version of the photo be promoted? The unedited (first) version best reflects reality and is the most encyclopedic. It's the best one and should remain as the promoted version. (Note: I didn't participate in the discussion, but would have supported the unedited version if I had.) -- Moondigger (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, unfortunately I've missed that candidacy as well, but I couldn't agree more with Moondigger. --Dschwen 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Try to be polite, MER-C has volunteered here daily for a long time.. :D\=< (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here. This is the second time in a short while (the mustard edit) that MER-C has done this. pschemp | talk 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... am I looking at a different nom? I see that the majority of votes do not specify which they support. The edit has a 3 or 4 supports and 2 opposes, while the unedited has 2 supports and no opposes; if you take an oppose to be -2 supports, the unedited is clearly ahead. Thegreenj (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Take a sheet of paper. Make a column for Original, Unedited and Edit1. Put a tick mark in the column for each vote. If the vote just says support, its for the original. If it says any, its a tick for all three. If it says this or this, then you mark the appropriate two. You have to count all the votes. This gives clear results:
Original - 10 people liked: Samsara, Pschemp, Durova, Vlad, Smundra, Joopercoopers, de Bivort, H92110, Muhammad, Trounce.
Unedited - 6 people liked: Samsara, Jjron, Lyacon, de Bivort, H92110, Matt Deres
Edit 1 - 4 people liked: Fir, Lycaon, de Bivort, H92110
Counting opposes the right way, which is assuming that if you vote for one, you oppose the others, gives the exact same result. Since we don't require people to say they explicitly oppose everything else, you can't just count the people that noted their opposes and ignore the others who didn't as they have an implied oppose. At any rate, one oppose is the same thing as one support...not -2.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Opposes: Original -4, Unedited -6, Edited -9 (One MUST assume a that a support for one means oppose for others)
This give Original = 10-4 or +6, Unedited = 6-6 or 0 and Edit 1= 4-9 or -5
Result = +6 for Original. Consensus is pretty clear. Moondigger, Dschwen, if you wanted your opinion to be heard, you should have participated. Saying its inferior is however, only your opinion, and that's not what the consensus on the page is. The wrong picture was promoted and this needs to be fixed, this is becoming a pattern with MER-C (ie, the mustard picture). FPC is nothing but a sham if consensus is consistently ignored. pschemp | talk 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved through a vote count. In any case, you are wrong when you say "One MUST assume that a support for one means oppose for others." We established a long time ago here that the only time you count something as an OPPOSE is if it is explicitly spelled out as an oppose -- you NEVER assume that support for one means opposition to all others. -- Moondigger (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, here's the relevant discussion from October 2006 - it's the last topic on this old revision of the FPC talk page: Change to result on Supermarine_Spitfire_XVI The relevant discussion is toward the end. -- Moondigger (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's actually are really terrible idea because not all the pictures were there to even oppose at the time that the first 5 people voted, therefore they couldn't oppose them. Requireing them to come back later is unreasonable (though some do, others feel they have voted and move on. IF they supported others, they would have specifically said so, therefore, you have to treat each !vote fairly. Giving later ones more weight because they had more options is extremely biased. But, it doesn't matter in this case. Your (seriously flawed due to the fact not all three were available at the beginning) method still gives Orginal +8, Unedited +6 and Edited +2 - STILL showing consensus for the original. ANY way you look at this, the original was favored by most people.
In fact, I think it is wrong to count opposes at all in this situation, butThegreenj brought it up. Consensus is achieved through what picture most people supported. And most people supported the original, very clearly. MER-C's decision was blatantly contrary to general consensus - any way you look at it, count or no count. The closer is there to be impartial, neutral and follow the wishes of the opinions expressed on the page by the community. This was not done. Closers have no special power or status such that they are immune from what is written on the page or given allowance to be the final say. This wasn't the case of a 50/50 split where the consensus wasn't clear. pschemp | talk 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What!? First off, a support for one does not mean an oppose for the other's, and second, most of the votes you counted for support for the original were unspecified; they were votes for the entire nom, not one version or another. Thegreenj (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I just went through and made check marks and minuses and read arguments, and I think that which version should be promoted was quite unclear. It's hard to close noms like this, so I'd prefer thanking MER-C for making the difficult decision to haranguing MER_C for doing work no-one else seems to want to do. If MER_C hadn't closed it, it might have been put into "the update your opinions, please" (very few people update in these cases) or just ignored for a long time. What is clear is that some version of this image should be promoted. Because people have to make good, convincing arguments (not just votes) the arguments against the Original, as having a poor hair-background interface are very valid, and it only got 6 specific supports anyway. So then the question is - which is more supported, the Unedited or Edit 1. Two people opposed both the unedited version and Edit 1 (so that's no help), one person opposed edit 1 only, and one person (pschemp, which makes the starting of this section somewhat puzzling) opposed edit 1 and was neutral on the unedited version. To say it another way, the unedited has 6 supports and Edit 1 has 4 supports. I'd say that indicates that the Unedited version should be promoted, but its certainly a difficult judgement call that deserves polite discussion, no matter the outcome. -Enuja (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You simply cannot ignore the people who said support all or more than one, which is what you are doing. If they didn't mean that, they wouldn't have said it. Other people close noms, and ignoring the people who said support any is not a valid thing to do. They specifically supported all of them. Specifically. That made it clearly not a 50/50 case, and not a candidate for relisting. There's no proof its work no one else would do. You are arguing for relaxing the standards of the wiki because people are lazy, and that is absolutely not acceptable. You are totally ignoring the argument that the original is more encyclopedic and highlights the subject better, which in my opinion far overshadows a minor detail such as one hair. This case clearly leaned toward the original, and to swing it back around another way is just wrong. Also, the mustard picture was relisted and no one had a problem voting again. Laziness of participants is not an excuse for not doing things the right way. I'm frankly quite tired of the worshiping of MER-C because he closes pictures. Other people close pictures, and in fact anyone can do it. He does not get special privileges because this is the work he chooses to do. Many, many of us do just as much work - just in other areas so I'm sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. pschemp | talk 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Asking voters to return is not only reasonable, it is spelled out in Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#How_to_comment: "Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly." Cacophony (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I said "requiring" not "asking". This was not a case where where the early votes did not address the issues later because it was specifically the blurred background that people liked, and a case of blurred vs not blurred. Many later voters preferred the blurred background for the same reasons as earlier ones. You have to assume that they did monitor the nom and found no reason to alter their votes, nor should they because this is an artistic/encyclopedic choice, not a matter of a cleaned up picture with too much noise. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the consensus was for one pic, and MER-C promoted a different one, again completely without explanation or justification. pschemp | talk 08:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
MER-C made the correct decision. I'm sorry pshcemp but you've got no idea about the closing procedure and the various rules which govern the more difficult closures which have been developed over years of discussion on the talkpage. As Moondigger stated votes are never counted as oppose votes unless explicitly stated. If someone only supports a particular edit they are neutral to all other edits - not opposed. Basing off that line using the standard sup = 1 and opp = -2, the original gets 6 (total of 10 s and 2 op), unedited gets 10 or 7 (depending on whether you count the first three unspecified votes as vote for any as I personally would) with 10 s and 0 op, and edit 1 getting 4 or 1 depending on how you count the first three. In many ways the support for edit 1 largely translates to a support for the unedited since it was a tweak off that version and so it could be safely assumed (as in my case) that the unedited version would a second preference. Furthermore the fact that there were no negatives with the unedited version - ie no concerns expressed with it as there were no direct opposes of it. Thus consensus is clearly for the unedited version and I would suggest to you pschemp, as you so admirably did to me with regards to voting icons, to abide by this consensus. On a related note I find it extremely interesting to consistently note how vehemently you and Samsara seem to agree on things here on FPC... And on that rather disturbing note I bide the crew here at FPC farewell for the coming uni semester! --Fir0002 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice fudging on the math to get your way. An oppose is not worth twice the weight of a support because we aren't working on the 2/3 requirement system. A support is +1 and oppose is -1 when it comes to looking at which picture most people supported. If a picture gets one support and one oppose that's a draw, 0, no consensus for anything, not a negative. The -2 thing only applies to situation like RFA when a 2/3 majority level is absolutely required and that's not how decisions are made here anymore, they are made with a consensus. MER-C is clearly wrong, and if you want to whine about other issues, take it somewhere else. pschemp | talk 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no fudging going on here. Again, by long-established tradition, we look for a supermajority (2/3 support) when deciding on FPC promotions. It isn't a strict rule, but it is followed in the majority of cases, and it means that for practical purposes, an oppose counts (mathematically) as -2. You may not like it, but that's the way it is and has been for a long time. The correct version of the image was promoted. -- Moondigger (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

|Wiki Table

I'm sorry to butt in...since I'm relatively new to the FPC. But I'm bad at using wiki tables, so I thought a screenshot of the calculations would be better to illustrate whats going on.... Dengero (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm "clearly wrong", then why does everyone who stated an opinion here agree with me? More likely, someone needs to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. MER-C 06:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proliferation of HDRI submissions

Right now HDRI is all the rage among digital photographers, and it looks like quite a few of the submissions lately have been rather obvious HDRI photos. While these photos may look impressive and novel now, I'm quite certain that in 10 years time they will look dated, i.e. you'll be able to tell that a photo was taken in the late 00s simply because it looks especially HDRIish. I do not believe that we should be supporting images that have unrealistic tonemapping due to HDRI layering. It is possible to create realistic-looking images using HDRI, but it can take quite a bit of hand-tweaking depending on the lighting conditions. I would like to remind everyone that realistic images are more encyclopedic than images that look "hyper-real" and we should keep this in mind when we are doing our evaluations. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good.. who cares what people will think 20 years from now? That's the nature of art. Oh no, don't build the Notre Dame like that, everyone will just know it's from the high middle ages because of that avant garde- what are the kids calling it- "gothic" style :D\=< (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem isn't HDR per se; it's images for which the technique hasn't been seamlessly applied, such that they have a characteristic "HDR" look that is, unfortunately, very unnatural. And forget 20 years from now... I think it looks bad now. -- Moondigger (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Moondigger. If you want to create art, thats fine, apply all sorts of filters and techniques to your photos, but Wikipedia is not about art (unless illustrating an article on art, and in that case, something that is universally recognised as art might make a better FP!). We're not supposed to interpret a scene, we're supposed to show it in the most accurate and encyclopaedic way we can. Yes, if you can squash a scene with HDR into a jpeg without the eye being able to see obvious flaws in reality (haloes, flat contrast, artifacts etc), then please do. But if you can't, then I'd find it difficult to support the image here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
On that subject though Moondigger, what about your Havasu Falls images? The shadows look a little funny, to me. Either some sort of HDR wizardry has been applied or the contrast is a bit low. I can see why you'd want to try to bring the shadows out, but I can't help but think the contrast could be improved without losing detail. Just a thought, anyway. :-) They're great shots though. I'd love to visit sometime. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I've never been totally happy with the shadows. What you're seeing isn't a newfangled HDR thing - just old-fashioned burning and dodging to try to bring the shadows up. The truth is that I was hiking with my (small) children down to the falls so we could have a picnic and go swimming. Photography wasn't the primary consideration, and I was basically just doing handheld snaps as we hiked. Considering the conditions and time of day (presence of harsh shadows, etc) I'm happy with the results. Chroma contrast is good, though as you noted luminance contrast looks a bit off if you're sensitive to it. Lots of people I know absolutely love those images, so I think most people aren't sensitive to it or if they are, don't care.
In truth, one of the things I'm looking forward to the next time I visit Havasu Falls is improving on these shots. Better light/time of day, maybe the proper application of HDR techniques if they'd be suitable. The sad truth is that the majority of Havasu Falls photos I've seen fall woefully short of accurately depicting this beautiful location. My snapshots are flawed, to be sure... but at the time I uploaded them here, there really wasn't anything better available with a free license. [...] I just checked on commons, and a search for "Havasu Falls" yielded only my shots, so I don't think that's changed much. -- Moondigger (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of current featured pictures

Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg is a restored version of Image:Warsaw-Ghetto-Josef-Bloesche-HRedit.jpg, which is already featured. What's the best way to get this into consideration for transferring the featured designation to the restored version? DurovaCharge! 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the new image is restored, and it should definitely replaced. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a Delist and replace nomination down in the Delist section of FPC. Make it clear in the nom that it's not a nomination to delist the FP per se, just to replace the current version with an improved version. People can then either vote to 'Delist and replace' or 'Keep existing'. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delist page problem?

Why is this page blank when there are currently multiple candidates for delisting? I added a reply to the caterpillar picture here, then clicked on an apparent shortcut to the delist pictures and got this empty page. Something not transcluded properly or is there something wrong with the link? Matt Deres (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. If you go to say Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Caterpillar feeding the link to "delist" shows up in the 'breadcrumbs' at the top. Following that link gets you the dead page. I don't think that page has ever had any content (check the page history). I think the problem is that since say "Caterpillar feeding" is a subpage of "delist" (delist/Caterpillar feeding) the Wiki software automatically shows those breadcrumbs. But "delist" itself doesn't exist as a separate page as the delists are part of the FPC mainpage. In short I don't think there's an actual problem, it's just a consequence of how the delist process has been created. --jjron (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Vs Aesthetically pleasing

Wikipedia's FP criteria states that images have to be among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. ie "They have to be "among Wikipedia's best work." Recently, many images have been promoted simply because they are of good quality or "aesthetically pleasing", such that the need for encyclopedic value in the FPCs has been reduced by the voters. Some new voters are probably unaware of the criteria and others simply insert the image in an article to satisfy the requirements (though the image may not fit into the article). I suggest that any vote cast without considering the encyclopedic value of the image should be neglected. Muhammad(talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Really what you are referring to is criteria #5, which states "An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value". How can you determine that a voter didn't consider the encyclopedic value? Most support votes simply say "Support" which implies that the voter believes the image meets all the criteria. If you can read the minds of the voters than we need to stop talking about FPC and start taking over the world. Cacophony (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you have watched quite a bit of Heroes lately. What has been noticed is that many images which are not encyclopedic are being featured whilst many encyclopedic images are not. Muhammad(talk) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a valid point, but hard to police. I tried to raise similar concerns a few weeks ago here, but failed to gain a strong consensus for tightening up the encyclopaedic demands. I fear that en-wiki FPC is slipping more towards a Commons FPC standard - concerned only about 'quality' rather than encyclopaedic substance or value. Perhaps the worst recent case was Rome travel poster. Admittedly it wasn't a particularly convincing promotion, but other than the nominator five people voted and all supported; only two gave reasons for their support, and both indicated that they couldn't see much encyclopaedic value - but they supported anyway! What was perhaps sadder was that both are experienced FPC voters who I'd usually expect more of. What can you do? I'd prefer to see high encyclopaedic value images promoted even if quality or size isn't perfect (within reason of course), rather than just technically strong 'pretty pictures', but those of us who think this way seem to be becoming evermore in the minority. Of course the ideal is high encyclopaedic value images that are also technically strong, but this is not always possible. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute! People are talking about me here. Way to let me know ... classy! I voted weak support because the enc value was weakish, not non-existent, and the technical value was high. Symmetrically, I vote "weak support" when the enc value is high and the technical value weakish. I stand by that vote. Sorry to have induced such profound disappointment in you jjron. Maybe if you had participated in that discussion, the outcome would have been different. de Bivort 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the conversation was about you, you just happen to have voted (and perhaps you should take it as a compliment anyway that others consider your voting to be well thought through). Anyway, as pointed out in the earlier discussion that I linked to above, I am no longer going to act as 'encyclopaedic policeman' on every nom, thus I didn't bother voting as it was obviously going to get promoted anyway. Regardless, the argument is not about any particular person's votes or the Rome travel poster, that was just an example, and I could have linked to half-a-dozen other recent promotions for a similar point. The argument that seems to have been lost for the example given is about aesthetics vs enc. --jjron (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I would rather have placed that image at an article on the history of advertising or graphic design. Just couldn't find a good way to do so. And since there was no illustration at the history of French rail transport, it seemed more appropriate to place it at a location where images were most in need. DurovaCharge! 07:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How about Poster? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A dozen images there already. If there were a history of the poster... Unfortunately I can't nom. this image at Commons because it's only PD-US. Obviously it was published in Europe and the artist died in 1968. I've been looking for some material that would be PD globally - California citrus ads from the same period had a similar esthetic. But haven't located a suitable file yet. Actually this kind of material is significant to the history of advertising because the 1920s was the first decade where sell the sizzle, not the steak really became the dominant approach. DurovaCharge! 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How about Toulouse-Lautrec (or however you spell the little guy's name)? Spikebrennan (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Different artist. I don't think this one has a bio, but certainly a good idea if I find enough info to start one. :) DurovaCharge! 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This one is on display at our local art museum right now. I just saw it the other day as a matter of fact. I don't remember specifics, but there was a lot about it specifically (like the 6'x4' size, the high leg kick of Jane Avril, the cardboard cutout figure in the foreground, the silhouettes in the background, etc.) . Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec 049.jpg Cacophony (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmyumyumyum... :) DurovaCharge! 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I recently uploaded a bunch of US National Park posters from the 1930s: Image:Lassen Volcanic Natl Park poster 1938.jpg et al (see Commons:Category:Travel posters). I just uploaded the JPGs but if those are to your liking, the TIFFs are at the LOC web site and are probably larger. howcheng {chat} 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Great minds think alike, that was one of the ones I looked at. Maybe I'll give that a go sometime. People have been showing me things to work on. I've got some actual glacier photos I ought to get to... DurovaCharge! 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying about the EV vs AV. As we speak, a photo of someone's homework just passed nearly unanimously, while my photo of several Honolulu landmarks is failing miserably. I'm not trying to sound like a whiny b****, but it seems that some people have a cadre of support no matter what picture they nominate. I realize there must be a balance between encyclopedic value and aesthetic value, taking the subject matter into account as well. I'm sure there could be a featured photo for every article no matter how trivial (sandwich making?), as long as the photo adds value to the article and is aesthetically pleasing. There obviously is no consistency among voters, but then again... is anything on Wikipedia consistent? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I just went through some of Fir's history, and the 2 photos that he nominated prior to the homework one were denied. So there is definitely no favourtism there. --liquidGhoul (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. I guess I'm just a sore loser. But I shouldn't speak too soon... the vote isn't over yet. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And, just for the record, the homework one wasn't promoted either. --jjron (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Closer Please

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brandenburg Gate and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/New England Tree Frog appear to have been closed without being closed, i.e., they're on the archive page, but have no closing decision, and if promoted (which I'm pretty sure at least the frog should be) don't show up in the FP listings.

Not sure who moved them across, but would they like to go back and finish them off? --jjron (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks MER-C. --jjron (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)