Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal for delisting template

As you may have notice I've been nominating a few images for delisting recently. I think it would be an improvement if the delist nom included a link to the original promotion discussion and was wondering whether anyone knew how to code it into the delist template? Pstuart84 Talk 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the way noms are created in the first place, I don't know of any way to do this simply, other than to manually add the link yourself (I always do so when I do a Delist nom for simplicity for other users). One issue you'll come across is that a lot of the older FPs don't have a simple link to the original discussion as they were promoted in the days when FPCs were done as sections of the mainpage, rather than as subpages as they are now. Thus the best you can do is link to a section within the month it was promoted. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Having thought a bit more about your comment, while I don't think this can really be automated, I actually think it's a pretty good idea. As I said, I do it anyway if I do a delist nom, but most don't. We could alter the template to include an extra subheading such as "Original nomination", where the delist nominator manually adds links to the original nom (and any previous delist noms) - something along the lines of this. That's pretty easy to do. Anyone disagree? --jjron (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind - it was only a case of whether it could have been made easier by being included in the template (something I don't have the tech knowledge to do!). Pstuart84 Talk 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can alter the template to include the extra subheading and instructions (but not to automatically generate the links). It's a good idea. I'll give it about a week to allow for objections to be raised/discussed, and if none, will make the changes. --jjron (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I think this is a great idea. It seems delist nominators are sometimes unaware of the existence of previous discussions on the image they are nominating, and this would help direct their attention towards that fact. NauticaShades 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. If anyone wants to check it out and point out any problems, feel welcome. --jjron (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

systematic bias against non photographic noms

I have come to realize lately that there is a systematic bias against any on photo nominations and although anyone who has been here long enough to seen my comments knows I am strongly against only both unnecessary splitting of projects and of rule/guideline cruft I believe that the only way to deal with this is A) create separate guidelines for photo noms, flag noms, illustration noms, etc... and/or split featured pictures into featured pictures and featured media which would also allow for nomination of more video noms and sound noms both of which can be encyclopedic despite what the narrow minded commentors have recently been saying on the noms. support? opposition? comments? ideas? Cat-five - talk 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think there's a systematic bias. Lots good diagrams and graphics have received FP status, and they have often been vastly improved during the nomination process. The problem with flags (and symbols) is simply: What's so special about them that they should earn FP status? If Fiji's flag were to become a FP, then Finland's should be, too - and all through the alphabet! If we allow one to be a FP, all need to be, sooner or later... --Janke | Talk 06:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
<Comment moved to the biohazard symbol fpc page, accidentally replied here when this reply should have gone over there. Cat-five - talk 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, sounds? Featured sounds anyone? And per Janke, having recently gone through all current FPs, sure the majority are photos as you'd probably expect, but there seemed to be plenty of 'non-photo' FPs as well. To me, the reception that diagrams/maps/etc receive reflects that a lot of voters are more comfortable reviewing photos, and the review of diagrams adds certain complexities. For example, a diagram is far more likely to be incorrect (I know I regularly pick them up for a swag of errors), and there's an expectation that a diagram should be completely correct, and quite rightly so I believe. This may lead to the appearance that diagrams are subject to bias against them, but I don't think it's the case, it's simply a reflection of the nature of their creation and the fact that they can be quite easily improved. Sure there's not a lot of video FPs, but that's probably also a fair reflection that there's not many videos on Wikipedia that come close to reaching the criteria (even despite being allowed a lot of leeway at FPC, such as size requirements being entirely ignored). Maybe they should have different criteria, but it sounds a bit like you'd like them to have lower standards in order to make it easier for them to get promoted. --jjron (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • With respect to maps in particular, it might be helpful to come up with a different set of criteria for review than is appropriate for photographs or other kinds of images-- perhaps Featured Maps ought to be a different project than Featured Pictures, with the Featured Maps criteria being developed by the kind folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. (I'm referring to Wikipedian-created maps, as opposed to scans of historical maps-- the scans of historical maps are more like art objects and are generally offered for a different kind of encyclopedicity). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I do think that for historical engravings, lithographs, and the like, there's probably at least some (unintentional) bias simply because people don't know much about them, and hence are reluctant to review. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 8

I was looking at the [[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lotus}Lotus nomination]] earlier and even though I know it's been done to death with no changes I think whether criteria 8 should be more specific about the line on digital modification of images should be clarified since currently there is very little guidance on the subject other than years of archived talk archives and featured picture archives where everyone gives their views on the subject. I've quoted below the text of criteria 8. Cat-five - talk 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.

  • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
  • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
  • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text
  • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
  • What exactly would you like it to say? Thegreenj 16:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how you could be more specific without giving examples.. Is that what you're suggesting? Bottom line is, if you're not comfortable with your understanding of the limits of acceptable image manipulation, the best thing to do is to be as descriptive as possible about what you HAVE done to the image, and let everyone make their own decision on whether it is ok or not ok. As has been shown in the past, many people have very ideas about it, particularly as it relates to different scenes/subjects, so it is hard to be definitive in the guidelines. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think maybe it should say something about third parties being very careful in making corrections to images which change the encyclopedic characteristics of the subject such as color. Use of software features such as auto white balance is especially to be discouraged as without an accurate white balance, color information for subjects which require it for identification like flowers cannot be trusted. These adjustments should only really be performed by the photographer with reference to the subject unless the frame contains a white or neutral grey item that can be safely used as a reference for correction. Mfield (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new Valued images project

The official VI seal

The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

This Commons Valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality. The project will run alongside the existing Commons Featured pictures and Quality images projects.

Please visit Valued images candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Commons is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.

VI seal The Mediawiki Commons valued image project has opened for nominations!

-- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive Copyright-vios on Picasa

So I was checking the usage of some of my FPs. This consists of sticking parts of the file name into google and only catches copy violators who are too stupid to change to file name. Anyway, I came across this. Basically 500 of wikipedia's FPs. I was about to do what is possible on flickr which is to report copyvios without too much trouble. Well, google (being the fascist company they are) require you to mail or fax in reports of copyvios. (You can read picasa's requirements here). Now I understand that do to enduser agreements that google is not responsible for the material as they have no knowledge of the images. However, are they within their rights to ignore electronic information sent to them notifying them of a copyvio? As I see it, if even one admin at google reads an email or other electronic notification of copyright infringement google now has knowledge that they are complicit in copyright infringement and if they say they won't remove the content because we didn't spend 50¢ to mail them an latter, they are willingly infringing copyright. I'm not happy about this. Here's how I figure it:

Lets (very conservatively) say half the photos are either GFDL or CC licenses (the rest being PD by NASA or Military). That is 250 photos.
from here: (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
So, 250*100,000= $25,000,000
It may be only slightly ironic that without google search I would never have found this infringement.
Anyway, I doubt winning something like this against a company like google is possible, but it seems ridiculous that they can specify how notices of copyvios can be sent to them. But by that logic, I'll start a website where to report a copyright infringement you must mail a request written in hieroglyphics, inside a solid gold envelope to Lodja, Democratic Republic of the Congo. I'd like some other peoples thoughts before I fax in a notice.-Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I just ask if that link still works for you. When I follow it I get a 'gallery' with a single thumbnail - I think it may be a Diliff image of the London Eye, not totally sure though and too lazy to doublecheck - but I can't even enlarge it. Can someone else check the link?
The second thing to do would be to AGF, as you would here, and contact the user Tushar (if that's possible, sorry have no idea of how Picasa web albums operates) and tell him of what he's doing. He quite likely knows nothing about licensing and simply thinks any image from Wikipedia is 'free for all', as most people seem to think. If you point it out nicely then he may realise his error and correct it. If you are able to point this out to the user and he refuses to act or acknowledge he is in the wrong, then perhaps contact Google and ask them to do something about it.
And finally I don't see much point in blaming Google for providing a free service that can potentially be abused. Besides, copyright's ultimately doomed in the digital age anyway; that's a large part of the reason that at least some of us don't upload here at 'fullsize'. --jjron (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The link works for me, and I see plenty of Wiki's FPs in the gallery. Copyright is definitely behind the 8-ball, but I wouldn't say that it is doomed. There are systems out there that scan the internet and report images that match the algorithm of an image in a particular library. As technology matures and awareness of digital copyright (hopefully) increases, I can imagine it becoming harder to avoid getting caught. Apparently Getty images vigorously pursues violators with heavy-handed legal teams using Picscout. Of course, they have the financial backing and motivation to follow it up, whereas most of us don't, nor do we have a particularly persuasive argument regarding loss of income as a result of the violation. Thats the problem as I see it. I make some money selling photos on stock sites, but not enough to justify a lawyer!
As for Google not being responsible for the content that is uploaded in the first instance, that may be true, but surely as Fcb981 said, they have an obligation to remove violations when they are made aware of them. Thats like saying the brother of a murderer is an accomplice. Obviously he isn't simply by being a brother, but if he was a witness of the murder and does nothing, then he could possibly be accountable for that. I see it as the same thing, morally speaking (and ideally legally). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have e-mailed the picasa user assuming the picasa user name is identical to the users gmail account along the lines of jjrons AGF proposal. I assume they are posted there due to unawareness of the licenses. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well done Slaunger, keep us up with the results.
Unfortunately, it seems like the picasa user has ignored my email and I also got a notification that he had "updated" the gallery in question (becasue I subscribed to the gallery). I have not looked for differences, but there is still a bunch of non-PD FPs AFAICS. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument Diliff, but I disagree with it, not on 'factual' grounds, but on intellectual grounds. You're quite right that those with a vested interest, record companies, movie companies, etc, will resort to increasingly draconian measures to protect their turf - have a read of this article to get an idea of what I mean and where I'm coming from. In other words, when I say copyright is doomed, I mean that as a good thing, not a bad thing.
That's where producers of information need to become smarter, not in trying to get the new medium to fit into old shackles, but in adapting and exploiting the new medium itself. There's lots of businesses already successfully doing this. From your perspective say, if you've got a good picture, upload it at a reduced size. If someone really likes it, they can use it, if they want a bigger or better version for whatever reason, then they can buy one off you. That's using the medium to get your work out there, you're not wasting your time and money pointlessly pursuing 'copyright breaches', and if your stuff is good enough you'll make money off it.
And FWIW Google do fulfil their legal obligations, but understand the realities of the new media far better than most, and they also have a rather more modern view of copyright and such things than many other businesses. Consider Google Book Search for example, as well as all their other free services, and yet, in line with what I said above, despite all this stuff being free, they are successfully using the internet to make billions a year. And that would also be why they don't make it entirely simple to report stuff like 'copyright violations'; they will fulfil their current legal obligations when they have to, but they have a fair conception of the way of the future. --jjron (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

clashes between promotion guidelines 5 and 6

I just did something that I haven't done in quite a long time which is close a picture (a complex and harrowing experience for those who haven't tried it) and noticed that criteria 6 no longer seems to apply due to the current layout of Wikipedia:Featured Pictures being a gallery than the old style of listings and appears to be have been replaced at least in usage by criteria 5 which follows the new layout, I didn't want to remove criteria 6 in case I was just looking at the wrong page or was mistaken but if it no longer applies it should probably be removed. Cat-five - talk 09:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. The instructions are correct - there are subgalleries of featured pictures such as Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals (this is where you should have put it). You'll see links to them below the three pictures.
  2. You should have promoted the edit instead as it was of better quality.
  3. I probably would have held off a bit more until we had an edit that actually thumbnailed properly. I might bug the developers about this but since I was too lazy to move that nom to the suspended section you shouldn't count on this. MER-C 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. There has since been a second edit uploaded on the archive page and none of the new videos seem to be rendering thumbs. As of my last check, the original (which probably would not have passed) is a FP, the edits not and it's all archived and therefore unlikely to get much attention. Please assist. Dhatfield (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I knew I'd screw something up since I haven't closed a nomination in quite some time, Feel free to reopen it and fix where I screwed up, I'd do it myself but I'd be afraid that I'd screw it up even more. Cat-five - talk 06:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
See bug 14524. I'll amend the result, but it's on the backburner until the bug gets fixed. MER-C 07:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


WWI Red Cross Poster Restoration Consensus

This is just to say that I have closed this nomination (the consensus was clearly in favor of promotion), but that I am unsure which of the two versions should be promoted. For now, I have promoted the restored version, as it was the one put up for voting by the co-nominators, and because it had been cleaned up and color corrected. However, some of the participants in the discussion indicated that they preferred the unedited version because they prefer it to "look its age". As Durova pointed out however, the original is accessible is available for viewing from a link on the image page of the restored image. So, what do you all think about the issue of restoration, and of this nomination in general? If consensus goes the way of the unedited version, I'll gladly change the promotion. NauticaShades 15:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Restoration is OK - who knows, there may be mint copies of it, somewhere... --Janke | Talk 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd rather the unrestored be promoted, but I won't fight it, as the restoration was not offensive. --Blechnic (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Polarlicht

Please check out this passed nom: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Polarlicht_2.jpg. The editor that closed the nomination drew a consensus from 9 supports and 6 opposes. That doesn't sound like a consensus to me (especially since the same picture already failed a nom previously). Something seems astray...smooth0707 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the issue. MER-C 13:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please overturn this. It just cannot be that a user is creating facts without a consensus, but nobody wants to revert it either. No consensus = no fp. Seems simple to me. --Dschwen 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's obviously wrong, the closer needs to acquaint themselves with what constitutes a consensus before closing any more. Mfield (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be overturned as well, although I'm not quite sure on the protocol for this. Revert the edit and add back to FPCs under "More Input Needed"? smooth0707 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_Featured_Content_contributors

Interesting tidbit of note: there are lists of prolific nominators for four of Wikipedia's six types of featured content. Perhaps it makes sense that there aren't any stats for sound because the site has so few featured sounds, but FPs are certainly active enough. I think Fir0002 holds the record; not sure. Shall we compile this? DurovaCharge! 05:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and get it started if you think it's worth it. I see (for the articles at least) that when it says "nominators" it is actually only referring to successful nominations. I also see the that the article list seems to be maintained by a bot - if not it would be yet another step in the closing process.
Yes, Fir has over 100 of his own photos as FPs, as well as a number of noms of other images, so I'm guessing he would be at the top of the list. A further complication for the FP List would be that you would have to maintain a list for nominators and a list for creators, wikipedians and non-wikipedians (as is done in the FP galleries) - perhaps this may help explain why it hadn't been done before. I'd tend to suggest if it was to be kept simple, the more interesting FP list would be the list of creators rather than nominators. FWIW Category:Wikipedia Featured picture contributors seems pretty pointless. --jjron (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
My only qualm about this is it might turn FPC into a competition of sorts, but in truth I doubt this would happen. If anything, it would mean more good contributions to Wikipedia! NauticaShades 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

another picasa fp abuse...

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fir0002 (talk • contribs) 2008-07-19T21:33:01

  • I also found some other images by wikipedians on personal albums on the net, without any license or attribution. Mbz had one of her images used without attribution and was rewarded around $1000 as compensation. Can we too do anything about this? It would be good to have $1000 for some new lenses :-) Muhammad(talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, shameless. There's a link at the bottom of the page for reporting abuse. Suggest using it. This kind of thing makes me wish I lived in the UK so I could claim "sweat of the brow" copyright and CC-by-sa my restorations to require credit to Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I've found my images on picasa pages, too. Face it, there's not much we can do if someone puts wiki images in collections of "their own" on such websites... The reporting system, requiring faxing or mailing, is made complicated for a reason - those sites would otherwise be swamped with complaints! Look at YouTube - copyrighted material abounds. I'd like to know details about Mbz's compensation, though; her image must have been used commercially, so how was agreement and compensation reached? --Janke | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I also am very interested as to how Mbz1 managed that... In the United States (I have no clue where Mbz1 resides) copyright infringement is a federal crime and requires the copyright holder to file suit in federal court. It also requires a certificate of copyright ownership from the US copyright office which can of course be gotten after the image is used in violation of copyright. Presumably Mbz1 actually sued the entity that used her image illegally? Does any one know if she got attorney's fees as well? If not, $1000 would scarcely be a break-even proposition. This is, of course, assuming the copyright violators didn't give her the $1000 dollars out of the goodness of their heart (doubtful). @ Durova: As far as I can tell there is no link for reporting copy-vios to picasa. One must mail in a letter or fax explaining the vio... considerably more difficult. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I suppose you're right about the Picasa, although with respect to copyright infringement claims it isn't a legal requirement to prove LoC registration. DurovaCharge! 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
          • There is an interview here with a intellectual property attorney who talks about it. You are right that one doesn't need registration to own copyright but to sue in federal court (one's only option) it is really impossible without one. The interview is definitely not the first time I have heard of that dilemma although it doesn't really harm photographers. As long as you register your copyright within 90 days of the violation you still stand to collect full damages... -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Concerning milas compensation the story is as follows (as far as I recall). A friend of hers saw one of her underwater images used on posters in the London tube as part of an advertisement. The advertising company was confronted. It turned out an employee had used the image in good faith under the impression that all images on Wikipedia were "free" and nobody had checked (or had the knowledge) to see this was wrong. The company acknowledged that they had done wrong. After some negotiations they settled for this economic compensation under the provision from Mila, that the incident would have no consequences for the specific employee who had carelessly used the image in an advertisement. AFAIK no attorney was involved in the process. I recall mila worte specifically about it somewhere, can't remember where... -- Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
              • I see, that seems like Mbz1. But I have to give her plenty of credit, she worked out a bad situation with everyone getting (pretty much) what they wanted. Anyway, back to picasa: Who wants to talk to and IP attorney about suing google over their criminal copy-vio reporting process. (Just -partially- kidding) ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, I just posted an "offended" note on the album stating in the comment field that most of the images are copyvios on commons. Don't know if that helps though I guess this is mostly for reporting stuff like offensive material, but the only other option relating to copyright was if they were copyvios of my own photos, which directs you to a lot of material stating that the reporter can be accused too if the claims are false and that it has to be done by mail or fax. That was just too tedious for me... -- Slaunger (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoration practices

Over the past half year or so historic restoration candidacies have seen a trend: mostly calm, punctuated by moments of oddness. The last episode of oddness ran along the opposite lines of the present one, where earlier this month I received a specific request to alter the original artist's intention. I refused and the image didn't get promoted. Before that, in February an editor who has voted in three total FPCs over two years misidentified photographic degradation as items of clothing and I wound up searching the Internet for verification that a severe hosiery shortage occurred during World War II and explaining why a woman in the Warsaw Ghetto would be very unlikely to emerge from a damaged building at the end of the uprising and tiptoe through the rubble wearing stockings. This time, dedicated FPC voters are actually drawing comparisons to Photoshopping wrinkles out of faces because I make the assumption that paper is white. I have asked--and have yet to receive an explanation--why this assumption is unobjectionable at Thomas Edison's patent diagram but deadly at World War II surrender treaties.

What I aim for at image restoration is to bring history to life. Ideally every effort would have an effect like the Iowa-Nebraska land sale: it makes people want to rush out and buy a farm. Sometimes an ideal result isn't possible due to the condition of the original or the quality of the scan. Yet the main purpose of these images is to illustrate their subjects, not to serve as examples of the ways different media degrade over time. When a reader skims an article and sees a decomposed image the first thought is usually "Gee that's old," often followed by "and everybody who lived then is dead" then "I'll go read another page." A lot of the reasons behind this response are specific and correctable. I won't try to make Abraham Lincoln as handsome as Brad Pitt, but if there are scratches and dirt across that homely presidential face then I'll do something about the scratches and dirt. My standard is simple: if there's correctable deterioration I restore it, with corresponding notes and a link to the unrestored version under a separate filename. I've done that for images made as recently as the 1960s. Some of those choices are judgement calls and I'd enjoy dialog with other editors about them, but the only Wikipedian who's been able to hold a sustained conversation on that level is Shoemaker's Holiday. I'd love it if there were more people doing restorations and am glad to train. DurovaCharge! 02:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has done a fair amount of restoration work including a number of WP FPs, I whole heartedly agree with your approach to restoration and the decisions you make as part of that process. I can't answer why there is a difference in opinion between the Edison and the Treaty, except that I suspect some people don't spend as much time viewing images that don't interest them and sometimes people don't find a particular image interesting or of FP value and rather than abstain or elaborate on their thoughts they find simpler technical reason to oppose instead. Mfield (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mfield completely, and I also support your reasoning and methods. You're certainly not the only one to have experienced unreasonable and arbitraty opposition to a nomination. It happens regularly, and as he mentioned, I think it often is them simply finding the subject/image uninteresting but not being able to use that as justification. On a slightly different topic, it also occasionally peeves me when someone either automatically supports or opposes one of my images simply because I took it - their reasoning being that 'if Diliff took it, it must be worthy', or on the other hand, 'Its not as good as your best images, so I'm opposing to encourage you to try harder'. :-) Anyway, my point being, images should be judged as objectively against the criteria as possible, and not according to one's personal interests, agenda or baggage. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both very much. Perhaps some of the reason behind the disagreement is that there can be more than one valid perspective on an image. For example, computer programmers have been encouraging me to convert maps and schematics into vector graphics. That makes perfect sense to an engineer but much less sense to a historian. Whatever interpretation is closest to one's own background and training often seems to be the "right" one. DurovaCharge! 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
My chief complaint remains unaddressed. The restored version with yellowing removed suggests an original look which is simply mesleading. For starters you didn't change the faded ink of the signatures. Anyways, sadly the discussion has drifted away into the general. Presenting a bag of other ridiculous complaints from other users wasn't very helpful/constructive either. --Dschwen 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite fair -- while I did make an analogy to photoshopping out wrinkles, in the very next sentence I disclaimed it by saying your restoration is not as offensive as that, as I realized the analogy would come across harsher than I intended.
And as I explained, the discrepancy of responses between German surrender and Edison's light bulb patent could be due to one document being of historical interest in its physical form, actually having been signed by Allied, German, and Soviet commanders, with the other being interesting mostly in respect of the design it communicated, its physical paper not so important – thus changing its appearance didn't garner the same objections.
You responded the distinction is subjective, and I did not really have an answer because, yes, it is subjective. But if enough people see it the way I do you might see a similar pattern of objections to some restorations but not others. Just an idea, anyway. And you know your work is much appreciated and I never intended to cast any doubt on your ethics. :-) Fletcher (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, spent a moment generating an example and another response comes in. It's difficult to field all these different comments at one time so please be understanding if I overlook a point. This screenshot shows what placed limitations on how far the surrender document restorations could go. Both came from the same site and had similar shortcomings. The file is high enough resolution for FP, but when you get in close you can see substantial pixelation and artifacting. In addition to that, the typed letters already touch. So if I take too aggressive an approach it's going to get illegible. A key difference between the submarine design where I was able to generate a more stable appearance and the surrender document was that, once a restoration gets into generating background paper texture, that requires replacing background across a substantial portion of the document. I did that on the earlier restoration by tracing the entire outline of the submarine including its anchor, rudder, propeller, etc. That just isn't possible here because working with those typewritten letters is not going to generate a natural looking result no matter how I tweak my software setting or how long I spend. As I wrote when I nominated the submarine, the realism of a restoration is limited by the quality of the original file. DurovaCharge! 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's how the original looks at 300% resolution. Notice the pixelation of the lettering.
    Here's how the original looks at 300% resolution. Notice the pixelation of the lettering.
  • Here's an original where I was able to be more aggressive about restoring a handwritten area. This file was over 26MB. Compare to less than 5MB on the surrender document.
    Here's an original where I was able to be more aggressive about restoring a handwritten area. This file was over 26MB. Compare to less than 5MB on the surrender document.
  • In order to achieve this I generated a source area of realistic paper grain, then individually pasted that paper grain in as background, going in 2px wide at 800% resolution to follow the outside of each individual penstroke. If that sounds like quite a few hours of work, yes it was. Used the clone stamp at 70% hardness to avoid an artificial cut-and-paste appearance. The original work generated a subtler result than this; when the work was over I decided it was more legible with a touch of sharpening.
    In order to achieve this I generated a source area of realistic paper grain, then individually pasted that paper grain in as background, going in 2px wide at 800% resolution to follow the outside of each individual penstroke. If that sounds like quite a few hours of work, yes it was. Used the clone stamp at 70% hardness to avoid an artificial cut-and-paste appearance. The original work generated a subtler result than this; when the work was over I decided it was more legible with a touch of sharpening.

Just to clarify, I made a "specific request to alter the original artist's intention" in the Statue of Liberty nomination only because I thought the fourth black border might have gotten lost in the scanning process and that it might then makes sense to get rid of the other three for balance purposes. NauticaShades 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets."

I would like to see a clarification of "generally". I see that as weasely wording whose intention remains unclear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • If an IP, or even a sock puppet, pointed out a problem or good aspect of a nomination, that no one else had noticed, this observation would be taken into account for the rest of the discussion... 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The term "generally" allows for the use of common sense. If an anon makes a good point then why ignore it? Chillum 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thats true, but if the anon makes a valid point then it should reflect in the votes of those who are registered, unless of course it happens just before the nomination is closed. I agree that if a valid point is raised, the closer should take heed of it. In fact, if anyone raises a serious issue that nullifies all previous supports, it shouldn't matter who brought it up, but if it is a generic support or oppose without particularly specific justification, then we should discount it as a potential sockpuppet. But rather than explain all this in detail on the page, it probably makes sense to just keep it simple - the way it is currently stated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it slightly amusing that "as are the opinions sockpuppets" is added as an afterthought given that the last confirmed sockpuppet... Wait a second! So I was about to add a link to Mario1987's check user showing that he/she had been indef blocked when I realized that he has been reinstated. This is a user that used 7 (Seven!) sockpuppet accounts. Is the unblocking admin serious? Not only did he have 7 sockpuppets but also uploaded 11 images that were not only copy vios but he claimed to have taken some of them. wow. Anyway, it should be assumed that sockpuppets votes should be discounted no matter what. Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to make four sockpuppet accounts and stuff a nom with "legitimate points". Maybe thats just me. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
But the point is that we use votes as a convenient proxy for consensus. If a sockpuppet or anon brings up a valid point that is relevant to consensus building - it should be factored into the closure. Conversely if registered users bring up nonsensical points, they should be discounted. The point of this line is to warn people that this is not a simple vote count, and the closer is within their rights to discount anon votes if they do not contribute to the consensus opinion. de Bivort 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually Mario1987 had uploaded something in the neighborhood of 85 copyvio images, falsely claiming to be the photographer. I spent an entire evening researching and documenting the problem across two projects, since a number of his uploads had been auto-transferred to Commons. The thing that tipped me off was when he claimed to be the photographer for a shot of a mule deer. Well that's a species (deer with big ears) that's native to my own region in California, yet he claimed to be from Romania and virtually the only uploads he made that carried full metadata were local shots of Romanian sights. Some of his other claimed photography (from North America, Central America, and Africa) showed up on Google Images at other websites credited to other photographers. We wound up eliminating the vast majority of his uploads. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is best to strike opinions made by highly disruptive editors. If somebody else thinks the opinion is valid, they can state it and sign it themselves. Jehochman Talk 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FSC

I've slipped a transclusion of this down at the bottom of the page. A few of us have been trying to revive this process, a little more visibility would help for a while. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I wondered what the hell had happened there. I haven't been looking at FPC Talk for quite a while so thought there must have been a discussion and consensus on it. This is the first mention I can see of it on this page though. Can I suggest this should have been discussed before dumping it on the main FPC page? IMO it doesn't belong on FPC and should be removed. Has it been transcluded it to other pages to attract more visibility as well? --jjron (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Just here. I figured that since videos are evaluated here, well... just one more step away. =) Anyway, I don't think it'd need more than a week - just to let people know that "Hey, this exists!", then go back to normal =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

American Tree Sparrow

A question about the closing of this nomination. Although I'll admit that there was no clear consensus on which version to pick, there was definitely consensus to promote. Shouldn't this have been placed under the "additional input" section, or should I just renominate? I really like the image, and I think a lot of others do too, so I think it would be a shame to leave things as they are. NauticaShades 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I agree that it was a bit of a disaster of a nomination, but it did seem that there was consensus to promote at least one of the versions. My interpretation was that most people felt that the original was okay, and even most of those who preferred the edit would still support the original too. It did also seem that many people opposed the edits out of principle rather than because of any real problems with them (at least, after a couple of fixes took place, which addressed concerns). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

German instrument of surrender

While there was consensus to promote one of the versions, I don't think there was consensus to promote the partial restoration. Only three users supported that version, of the 11 that voiced an opinion, while the rest voiced support for the unrestored version or the fully restored version, or both. I'd like the nomination to be re-opened to determine consensus on which version to promote. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German instrument of surrender, World War II. And I agree - please, not the hideously yellow one =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't want to seem ungrateful, the partial restoration was actually the version I liked least. I posted it mainly to illustrate that a voter's theory didn't bear out well in practice. DurovaCharge! 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Had the yellow one been nominated, I would have felt compelled to oppose (as a poor restoration - one that worsened the appearance of the document) Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, i am sorry. i guess i just figured that because a couple of votes were for the alternate, I should promote it. I do agree, the original is better, so I will change it. --Meldshal 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This one is a mess. The debate says Image:German instrument of surrender1a.jpg is featured and it is used in the FP gallery. However Image:German instrument of surrender2.jpg is tagged as featured. Both versions are used in articles. Which is it? Plus it suffers many of the problems mentioned in #Half-assed closings. MER-C 10:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --jjron (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_Image_restoration

A note to fellow FPC regulars: Shoemaker's Holiday and I are proposing a WikiProject for image restoration. We'd like to bring more people in because there's a huge potential in this area: we both find far more material than we have time to restore, and we'd like to share our skills. Interested editors are welcome to sign. DurovaCharge! 09:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

Wikipedia:FPC#D-Day_position_map is getting near decision time. It's one of the most ambitious restorations I've ever done and one of the most encyclopedic images I've ever uploaded: the U.S. Twelfth Army position map from D-Day (the one used in headquarters in June 1944). Requesting reviewers pro or con: if this fails by getting voted down I'd be fine with that, but it would be a shame to let this much EV slip through our fingers through lack of attention. DurovaCharge! 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Page name of the nominations

I think the page name of the nominations should contain the full file name. So Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/View of Saturn from Cassini Orbiter would be Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg. This will allow effortless linking to the nomination. -- Cat chi? 11:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That wouldn't work if a nomination failed, was fixed, and renominated.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It can easily be made to work. In featured articles they archive old noms by moving the nomination to a sub page for example. I want to be able to link to the nomination using {{FULLPAGENAME}}. -- Cat chi? 12:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, that makes sense and I don't have any objections personally. I'm not involved in the FPC workflow though, so lets see what objections those that are raise, if any. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The thing is I want to link to the candidate page effortlessly if possible. Guessing a custom name is problematic but the filename can be linked with {{PAGENAME}} or {{FULLPAGENAME}}. Consider commons:Image:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg. Links to the commons page and Turkish wikipedia works fine but the custom name on English wikipedia doesn't. It would be really nice and useful if we could link like that. It would help identify just how featured images are. -- Cat chi? 14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one objected to this idea, White Cat has begun mass moving featured picture candidate pages (as most of you have probably noticed from your watchlists). Perhaps we should revisit this issue and discuss the implications further. Kaldari (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rehash

Since a rehash of the discussion is unavoidable...

Okay so this feature has many benefits. The title names currently used by FPC nominations are unable to deal with multiple featured pictures for the same topic. For example if we had 20 different featured pictures on any specific topic (an easy possibility in the next 10 years) unique nomination pages would help a lot.

  • Due to the poor system I cannot make out how "Love or duty" developed. How the process progressed should be better linked. I'd recommend a system like FAC where there is a central page that links to old nominations (visible in article talk pages). Image talk pages are underused and this could be such a good usage. But all this is a seperate issue of course.

A second benefit is that this feature would make it possible to more easily link to successful nominations from other wikis - particularly commons.

-- Cat chi? 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving for exposure. There's a bot ready to go that would rename our old FPC discussions. It's already received bot group approval, but most FPC regulars don't seem to have been aware of it. If you'd like to discuss this, now's your time. White Cat posted to my user talk asking how long he ought to wait. I'm not sure; if no one answers in three days then it's probably fair to say there's no objection. If discussion begins then best to let it play out. DurovaCharge! 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest an alternative path. What I am not so keen on in White cats proposal is that all the page moves will pop in user watch lists, and be considered "noise" by many. I suggest instead to do the following
  1. Implement support for an optional WP:FPC nomination subpage parameter in the Assessments template on Commons
  2. Iterate through all Featured Pictures on en.wikipedia.org
  3. Skip to next if it is not a Commons image
  4. For each fetured picture on en.wikipedia accumulate a list of "What links here" to the en image page
  5. Filter for those which link to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ subpages
  6. If there is only one link of this type assume it is to the nomination page and update/create the Assessments template for the corresponding Commons image if needed
  7. If there is more than one link, compile a hyperlinked list to be checked out and cleaned by hand. That should not take long.
A bit more difficult (but also more interesting) to implement in a bot, but more gentle as there will be no need for page moves on WP:FPC only an additional parameter here and there on image pages on Commons. Commons problems are best solved on Commons IMO.
Having said that I would really like to urge to standardize the subpage name as much as often as possible (breaks down when an alternative is promoted or the same image is nominated more than once). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And sorry for not proposing this earlier. I realize White cat has done quite some preparations for doing the page moves. I did notice the thread earlier and thought about my alternative...and forgot about it again. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Slaunger this is exactly why I decided to case working on that template on commons. I will under no circumstances add that optional parameter to the commons template. Your suggestion of an optional parameter is NOT FEASIBLE technically on the long run as English is not the only edition of Wikipedia. There are like 20 different FPCs on many wikis already. In 10 years the Assessment template would break due to the server template transclusion limit. You can add such a parameter if you desire but I will take no part in such a mistake. -- Cat chi? 17:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, support for a non-default WP:FPC nomination subpage parameter (ennom) has recently been implemented by a Commons admin on request from a user, who listed several broken linkbacks to nominations at WP:FPC. Although I would like to, I cannot do work on the template myself as it is indef protected on initiative from you before you requested removal of the admin status there. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not understand how replacing {{PAGENAME}} in a link to an WP:FPC page with {{{ennom|{{PAGENAME}}}}} in a template can break the server template transclusion limit in ten years? In ten years time I am sure the template transclusion limit will have risen quite a lot. I think you are inventing a problem which is not there. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I recently experienced a lot of resentment towards Commons from some en users on this very page. I am concerned that if we start moving pages and the moves pop up on WP:FPC reviewers/nominators watchlists in order to make a Commons template work, we will see more resentment, and experience more rants. We should, by all means, avoid that, as it is counterproductive. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The limit used to be 1000 transclusions it was reduced to 128. Devs are trying to reduce the number of complex templates or at least reduce the complexities as much as possible What devs would not prefer is a mass used template that gets more and more complicated each day. Do a little math... You are significantly increasing server load by using a more complicated template as the template is mass used. Each increase in complexity is replicated to thousands of pages (each template transclusion probably). All this complexity is avoidable at the expense of your momentary discomfort on your watchlist (which shouldn't even report edits by bots). If you are looking for bot edits, you will end up seeing them. -- Cat chi? 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I by far prefer the more sennsible, human-readable links of the en-wiki. I don't see why we should go to Commons' system simply because someone made a poorly-designed template there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You cannot read filenames? The only difference most of the time is that the nomination page lacs an extension. If the file is poorly named (DCM716794 or whatever) it shouldn't be featured. Instead it should be given a good name. -- Cat chi? 17:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Example, I nominated this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upernavik, with a simple subpage name which matched the scope of nomination. Had I used the {{PAGENAME}} of the nomination it would have been Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upernavik evening panorama 2007-08-08 cropped sharpened.jpg which is much more verbose. During the review four edits were considered and in the end the fourth edit was promoted. According to your proposal this means the nomination page should now be moved to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upernavik evening panorama edit4.jpg immediately after promotion such that we would not have to add another parameter on a template on Commons to make a linkback work. I think the amount of work needed to add an extra parameter to a template on Commons is equivalent to moving a subpage on WP. The latter procedure has the advantage that it will not add extra noise to any watchlist on WP. This has nothing to do with badly named file names. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If experience had taught me anything: from now on people will try to choke me with their posts. I have no desire to put up with that. I apologize for even making the suggestion of changing something people would fight to the death to defend. I should have known better... Please notify me on my talk page if the end result of this discussion allows me to run my bot. -- Cat chi? 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I am persistent in pursuing the best technical solution to this problem. It is a misconception that this has anything to do with a personal desire to choke User:White Cat with my posts. If the WP:FPC users here says it is no problem if you make the page moves I have no problem with that. I just feel an obligation to propose what I perceive to be a better technical solution to a specific problem. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon's exile to Elba

Sorry, was this really a failure? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it should have been promoted to me. 4 support votes, consensus in favor of support. The oppose vote is mitigated by its subjectivity. de Bivort 03:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would think it justifies more time to get a few more opinions at least, or is that a no no? Mfield (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, generally a no-no as a lack of votes is interpreted as a lack of supporting interest - but, as I said above, I think the promotion criteria were just barely met. de Bivort 06:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be overturned and probably put back on the slush pile. I now return you to your regular scheduled programming. MER-C 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 10:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Half-assed closings

I've been ill for a week and would like to thank, with reservations, those who helped out while I was gone. However, on my return, I found the place to be experimental evidence for the second law of thermodynamics. If you are going to close nominations, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS. Since this happened since my last post on the matter, I will name and shame the culprits:

  • Meldshal42 (renamed to LordSunday)
  • John254
  • Everyone:

I'm going to recommend Meldshal42 be banned from closing nominations, I am not here to clean up after him. MER-C 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have to ban me from closing? I made some mistakes, I'll obviously try not to make them again. --Meldshal42? 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, give him a second chance, I'm sure this warning is enough. That said, what was it that caused you to not follow procedure? Laziness or not reading the instructions properly? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to do so only if he starts cleaning up the above mess. MER-C 11:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty tough to come back from an illness and see this much work. Suggest a lighter touch and a little more experience before moving ahead with closures again. Perhaps FPC should have a closer mentorship program, so things are less dependent upon just one person. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 16:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not have detailed insight into the closing process here, but would it be possible to bot-automate some of the steps after executing the decision? Carrying out all the steps involved in notifying the stakeholders, tagging the image page, archiving and all that seems well suited for automation. This would lessen the burden of doing the closures and decrease the risks of doing something wrong if the closer has failed to RTFM. In the closure process we have defined for Valued image candidates on Commons the closer (almost) only needs to execute decision, whereafter VICbot (created by Dschwen) cleans up in a dialy run. (This is not automated for valued image sets - yet, but we are getting there.) -- Slaunger (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Automation would be a somewhat harder here than over at VIC. I've thought about it and what it entails programatically but that's about it. MER-C 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, I don't want to devalue you work here, but I think it should be doable. The closure process would have to be slightly modified to indicate the version that is to be promoted, and maybe even the category it should be filed under. Please not that the categorization problem was also solved for the automated QIC (see [5]). --Dschwen 12:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated the gripe list. I've made some significant steps towards automating FPC - added some vital stuff to my bot framework and wrote code for 4 of the steps. It's turning out to be easier than I thought. I also note that Meldshal42/LordSunday hasn't yet made an effort to rectify his "mistakes" (once again, I am not here to clean up after him). I added the relevant nominations in a specially delineated section of the archive so we don't lose them. MER-C 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed five of them, I'll fix the other four later - seems pointless to leave it to Meldshal42/LordSunday as he doesn't seem to know how to do it properly. He is unlikely to be able to fix the mess and could just make it worse. Concur with MER-C's suggestion that he be banned from future closings - even the 'Not promoted' ones weren't closed properly. Rather appropriate that one of the pictures was an image of a train wreck, because the mess was even worse than indicated above, so I hope I've got it all straightened out properly. Once they're fixed, I'll check the other closings mentioned above done by other users. (Be interested to see the bot in action.) --jjron (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, fixed the rest of Meldshal42/LordSunday's closings. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the whinge list if you want. I sanity checked the other promotions and the problems with them are relatively minor. I think I'll agree with you on the Nagoya Castle one. As for the program, I'm designing it to replicate (almost exactly) what I do manually. (P.S. I wouldn't call it a bot, but rather a form of assisted editing).
And I found yet another stray nomination (dealt with). MER-C 10:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's an honest mistake. Everyone needs to go through a learning curve before they can master the process. If you're banning someone just because he fumbles on the first few tries, I am very much inclined to think that you're not AGF (especially when you made the section header with the word "ass" in it) OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF is largely a matter of intent; the issue here is WP:COMPETENCE. One can act in good faith and still screw things up. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And it's inexcusable because there are detailed instructions in a clearly demarcated section on the FPC main page. MER-C 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct. No one accused Meldshal42/LordSunday (or anyone else) of intentionally screwing up the closings or vandalism; in other words we did AGF. The WP:COMPETENCE is a good link as it pretty much covers the situation. There are instructions clearly set out and they were not even close to being followed, and what made it even harder to fix was that the errors were not consistent from nom to nom. Add to that the fact that he never tried to fix the mess despite the prompts above, and it seems to me that a closing ban is fair enough. --jjron (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect MER-C who the hell made you in charge of FPC, we all appreciate the work you do here but you are in no position to even recommend that users be banned from certain tasks and the fact that that's the first place you go rather than offering to teach them the right way worries me. I'm not even going to go into the WP:BITE and WP:AGF issues since those have been talked about above. Cat-five - talk 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, nobody asked you to cleanup for other users or to even close although again I think everyone appreciates those that do and despite your arrogant attitude above you are not the only one who closes here. I no longer do for various reasons but I know for a fact other people can and do close from time to time. Remember, you are not Raul. Cat-five - talk 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree with Cat-five, thought i'm the one at fault here. It was simply a lack of reading the instructions. I also think that Ohana's point is completely valid, and no one on Earth — yes, that's right — has the right to ignore another's opinion. I apologize for causing such a upstir, it simply was because of the fact that I never noticed the FPC closings link. I also agree that MER-C is taking this job too seriously, you are not the only who closes things here. I just don't see why we had to bring it to the FPC talk page, it was a simple mistake. —Sunday Scribe 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Messed-up nom (Edinburgh pano)

Tried to fix the mess, couldn't, can someone do it better? --Janke | Talk 12:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FA-18 aerial refueling

Could we get a couple more reviews for this please, up or down? 4-0 in favor so far, but perhaps not quite enough attention to close. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore (2)

I realise that people don't feel as experienced with Engravings, so often don't vote, but I really do wish that people would, because three supports and no opposes is about the most annoying not-promoted vote you could get, because it has the strong implication the image is, in fact, good enough, but that people just didn't bothe rto review because they didn't know about the medium, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Vote Canvassing

With regards to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam, I would like to point out that most, if not all of the users who supported the image are not regular FP voters. The image was 'advertised' at WikiProject Netherlands, WikiProject Cities and WikiProject Urban studies and planning. Some experienced FP regulars have remarked that the image seems to suffer from CA, artifacting, and lens distortion. I urge FPC participants to view the image at full size and vote for it accordingly.No offense is intended to the creator of the image Muhammad(talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw around the word canvassing here, but yeah, we need a few people to give that picture a technical rundown. MER-C 05:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the above an example of canvassing? Not to throw it around, but ... de Bivort 06:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, "canvassing" carries some negative connotations about intent. MER-C 09:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
English is not my first language and I apologize for using the wrong word, but the important thing now is the "technical rundown" Muhammad(talk) 08:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Had a look - it's not that bad really... a little grainy and soft, so I wouldn't vote support, but neither would I oppose... --Janke | Talk 10:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always had issue with that issue on WP, there is of course a fine line about letting people who may be interested know about an issue (whether it be RFA, FPC, AFD, etc...) and because of the fear of instruction creep there really has never been any clarification or official guidance on what constitutes vote canvassing so it's a very subjective issue. One user's courtesy to interested parties is another's vote canvassing Cat-five - talk 02:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration

Announcing a new wikiproject for image, video, and audio restoration. FPC contributors and voters who are interested in learning image restoration are welcome to come join us. Expertise not required--just a good attitude and a willingness to learn. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Propaganda of the Spanish American War

Requesting additional reviews, up or down. People seem to have been scared off by a bug in displaying the original .ogv thumbnail. Now that the candidate is replaced with an .ogg file there's no barrier. Would appreciate more opinions before closing time. DurovaCharge! 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image search engine and a programming update

Something to help keep those copyvios out. Requires registration, though.

---//---

An update on the programming front. The eventual aim is to write a closing wizard. Based on input from a text file it currently does the following:

It's not ready for public consumption as I need to implement an approved users list and a better user interface - right now, it's just a login dialog and the text file. When it is, I'll post the source code on-wiki at an appropriate location.

The only change in the closing procedure required so far is that new pics are added to the top of the list on WP:GO (as opposed to the bottom). This will be in effect next Sunday. MER-C 13:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Downsampling

Like no doubt others, I too am getting tired that this dispute is getting rehashed over and over on individual nominations. We should find out what the consensus view is (e.g. "Requesting downsampling is not a valid oppose reason unless artificial upsampling is evident in the picture") and stick this in with the voting instructions, or the criteria. I understand the reason people oppose downsampling is because printed versions will look better when printed from higher resolution images even in spite of noise, while both noise removal and downsampling constitute destructive editing. I don't think rediscussing this separately for each image is helpful - a general guideline will save a lot of running back and forth with the noms (not to mention helping to keep standards the same for all images) not least because opinions on downsampling could be collected from a larger group (e.g. posting at WP:VP and other relevant places to invite contributions to consensus). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, you're right that it does get discussed over and over and no consensus is ever reached. My opinion is that it is generally not necessary and that an image shouldn't be judged at 100% if its proportions are generous (ie over 3000 pixels in one or more dimensions). If such as image is a bit soft at 100%, then so be it. However, when the image has been downsampled and there is no noticable loss of image quality (I once put together a test for this image whereby I downsampled it to 50% and then upsampled back to the original res and compared it to the original and found literally no perceivable difference in quality. Furthermore, downsampling reduced the file size from 19mb to 3mb) then I don't see the harm, as it makes the images easier to view and manage. Of course, it would mean no clear way of proving whether downsampling was detrimental to quality, as the images are often uploaded as-is and there is no basis for comparison. I think part of the reason why no consensus has ever been reached is because there is no cut-and-dry answer to the question. My opinion is: it depends. I think I have the eye and knowledge to make the right decision on whether to downsample (and I regularly do on my images) based on each individual case, but I do see the benefit to defining a policy as succinctly as possible. That said, unless the image is simply not detailed enough (again, on a case-by-case basis, as some subjects require more detail than others), I don't agree that an image should be opposed for downsampling, just discouraged. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It does need clarifying certainly. My personal feelings on it are that there should be no problem with the status of images that have been downsized from huge sizes to sizes above the acceptable minimum by the photographer (e.g. as a means of retaining copyright over larger versions of an image). What should certainly be discouraged is people attempting to 'fix' images that are unsharp or noisy by downsizing them in belief that this will somehow improve the image rather than what it actually achieves which is simply throwing away resolution and detail that could be useful to users with a different output in mind. Mfield (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The image should be judged at full res as per the criteria and common sense, at full size then, the image needs to have a certain level of objective quality. This includes sharpness, noise (lack there of), compression and other digital artifacts. These things should be considered pretty-much regardless of image size. Diliff manages to have 10,000px wide pano's that are stunningly sharp. How? Downsampling! IMO almost every image that becomes FP should have damn-good sharpness and negligible noise at full size, if that means it needs to be downsampled fine. I'd rather have a 1600px wide picture that is very sharp than a 3500px wide picture that is blurry. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems that other users/editors are suggesting that this preference may arise from the output media you use, and that if you were printing these images at larger sizes, you would without a question prefer the larger size, even if it is in soft focus. How would you respond to this? And why do you feel that the flaws you listed should be treated independently of image size? (The reverse conclusion seems to be that a 10,000px image in sharp focus is no better than a 1000px image with the same sharpness - other editors emphasise that we should encourage users to upload images at the highest possible resolution.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Yeah, Fir went into more detail with essentially the same point I am making. The argument about making prints is pretty academic really: someone using "genuine fractal" upsampleing would be able to achieve essentially unharmed up-resing for print (with better line contrast perhaps) from a sharp but lower res file. With proper upsampling, 8x10 inch prints are possible from all but the smallest historical FP's. So one must ask if having a blurry and noisy image that allows 20x30 inch prints outweighs a sharp one that can only make 18x26 inch prints? As for encouraging people to upload pics at the highest resolution they have, that is mainly for casual contributers who would use very poor downsampling and poor editing and thus having the maximum resolution for other community photo editors to work with and for the wiki software to downsample correctly is desirable. For people who hope to get an FP, generally, their post-processing with original files will be very good anyway. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would strongly argue that the criteria of WIAFP must apply equally to all images - that is a 3000px image should be judged equally with a 1500px image. It is a linear quality scale. Otherwise we have a nebulous and subjective set of definitions which essentially makes these definitions useless. For instance how much blurriness is to be tolerated at 4MP? How much at 12MP? How much at 30MP? We can't use such a system. There must be one criteria for all images. Sure there will always be some tolerances, as technical quality is inherently subjective and these are guidelines only. But that is not to say that sharpness and noise issues should be thrown out the window when the MP count gets over 5! FPC is all about the very best pictures Wikipedia has to offer, and so there should be no reason to promote blurry images alongside sharp ones - what will the lay person think of such practices?! Obviously downsampling should be done with care so that as much detail as possible is retained. Images which are unsharp at 100% have, by definition, insufficient detail at that resolution. A good example is the nom which has (presumably) sparked this discussion. The image can safely by downsized to 50% of its original size without losing detail. Refer to these crops: downsampled to 50% and then upsampled to original size, crop from the original. This, I think, is where a lot of people are blowing the printing issue out of proportions: they are forgetting that an image can be upsampled just as it can be downsampled. In addition I'd argue that it would be simple for the downsized image to link to the full res version. But the majority of people will not be printing out FP's - they will be looking at them on their screens, and they should be amazed by the quality of the images they see. It is important to note that web browsers only zoom from page fit to 100% which means 100% is the zoom level we should be catering for. John Citizen is not going to appreciate that there is detail in the blurry 100% - he'll just think it's a poor photo. He'll appreciate a downsampled version, with the detail sharply presented to him, far more than the full size original. --Fir0002 00:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • it would be simple for the downsized image to link to the full res version If that's our conclusion we'll need a template to standardise that link, and make it obvious. I'm not sure what happened to your example image - I can see a lot of artefacting in the resampled image, in addition to the typical problems of straight lines breaking up. In my experience, you cannot significantly and aesthetically upsample without also carrying out additional noise and artefact removal, which reduce the detail in the image even further. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This attitude will only reduce the number of high resolution images present on Wikipedia. The entreaty to judge large pictures on the same 100% sharpness criteria as smaller ones on the grounds that not doing so would make the criteria "nebulous and subjective" is flawed. Images are inherently subjective in their nature and this is reflected in the current featured picture criteria.
Firefox 3, among others allows the scaling of images easily to the desired size. I suspect this feature will become more common in future usage. Without an appropriately equipped browser, John Citizen can appreciate the lower resolution version using the image preview page; this might require some tweaks to the Wikimedia software to provide more flexibility in the preferred preview size (More choices may negatively affect caching though).
The way things are now, a 7.5MP image (3360x2240) from a relatively recent SLR scaled to 50% on both dimensions (1.9MP, 1680x1120) is far more likely to pass a featured picture candidacy than the original image, even though the original probably contained a lot more detail, and a slightly higher noise level. As far as wanting the best possible images go, this is backwards. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can provide another tool for analysis: a version of the candidate with a width of 1680px (or 2000 etc, as long as we are consistent) on the candidate talk page (or a subpage etc). If people choose to use this scaled version then the problem of evaluating the 7.5MP image versus the 1.9MP image will at least result in the images beings equals, rather than the 7.5MP version failing due to evaluation at 100%. The 1680px version would also be handy if you want to evaluate an image a very large image (eg this one) but you don't want to download a large file. Just a thought, just another tool.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about downsampling

I'd just like to check that I understand correctly what downsampling does. As I understand it, downsampling alone doesn't actually improve the quality of an image, it just hides the flaws by averaging them out. Is that right? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Downsampling does exactly the same thing as your browser when presenting an image in a smaller size. But does it permanently. The way of doing it varies with the algorithm. Tipically it's done by a weighted average of the neighbour nn cells -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Alves is essentially right. When you ask if it 'improves the quality' of an image, the answer is technically yes it generally does, but at the cost of resolution. Obviously, it doesn't bring detail into the image that didn't already exist, but it can improve perceived sharpness when viewed at 100%. It seems the crux of the issue is whether web viewing at 100% is a priority over printability. In an ideal world, we would keep the highest resolution image on Commons and create a duplicate that is more browser-friendly for use in articles, with a link to the original. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems that if your display size is 1500px and all images are resized to fill the display, an image will more or less (depending on the algorithm, as mentioned before) look the same whether its actual size is 1500px or 4500px. This makes me wonder what is being gained by downsampling in the way Fcb describes. Aren't you just fooling yourself into thinking the image is of high quality, when in fact you are missing out on all the extra resolution you could have had? And if my browser can do it, why downsample pre-emptively? Am I missing something? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No you aren't missing anything, since the wiki image rendering code got changed a while back to resize using a bicubic sharpen type algorithm, there will be no real difference in viewing a dynamically-downsized-by-browser version and an actually downsampled version. Furthermore, hardly any actual users are going to be be viewing the image at 100%, so by downsizing to perfect the image at that zoom level, you are really only pandering to those judging the image on FP. Throwing away resolution will however directly affect the average user wanting to print large who does not understand how to upsample something themselves. Mfield (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Speaking of hardly any users... people who are going to be printing FP's at sizes where any of this matters without knowledge of upsampling? I would bet that it has yet to happen, ever! It isn't about fooling yourself either. Recently, a photo of mine of El Castillo at Chichen itza was promoted to FP status. That photo was a 5x2 segment panorama with an original size or 9,000px by 6,000px downsampled to 4,800 by 3,100, the sharpness and noise level is beyond anything that could have been achieved without downsampling and thus it is more impressive when opened up at %100. I also took some photos of the same scene with a shorter lens and the image quality wasn't as good because they wern't downsampled. Downsampling gets rid of image data, that much is certain, but it increases the image quality at the final resolution, that cannot be disputed either. On a side note, Mfield, I think you heavily downsample some of you panos too, and I must say, the resulting image quality very nice. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I do downsample panos that I upload yes as I continue to sell giant prints from the full size originals. However, downsampling does not in any way increase the quality of those downsized images. This is a misconception based on the fact that poorly shot images can have their apparent sharpness improved by downsampling. The majority of my panos are just as sharp at full resolution - that is a factor of good technique, correct focus and DOF control, a solid tripod and head and most importantly good glass. Downsampling achieves nothing more than standing further away from a print you are viewing and thus no longer being able to make out the details. Mfield (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
            • But downsampling the typical output of a bayer sensor SLR with a fairly average consumer lens to roughly half the height and width only removes a fairly trivial amount of real information. Case in point is Fir0002's sample images above. I'm not saying we should do it to all images though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
              • True enough on the consumer lens thing and it is only going to be the case more often as newer sensors with unecessarily high pixel counts on not just P&S cameras but also low end DSLR bodies outresolve the cheaper lenses they are normally paired with. It is also the case though that these images can often be improved significantly by skilled noise reduction and multi pass sharpening and that these techniques should always be used in preference to downsampling, which should only be used when it is certain that detail is not being discarded, and that doesn't always seem to be something that is checked properly. Mfield (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
                • You seem to ignore that DSLR sensors essentially upsample %50 due to the bayer interpolation. It doesn't matter what glass you are using, unless you can remove haze from the atmosphere, magically avoid the bayer effect, shoot only at f/4 and wider to avoid the last traces of diffraction yet still maintain DOF so that the plane of perfect focus is magically as big as you need, and then use a freon cooled sensor unit that has no noise; you will gain apparent quality with downsampling. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) I much prefer to see a sharp, downsampled full-size image than a fuzzy, big one. My original comment on the archeology pic was "Slight quality issues are of no concern because of huge size"... If a big image is soft, and cannot be improved by sharpening, it lacks detail, and can safely be downsampled. People looking at a FPC may not always go to full size, but if they do, and see only a soft corner of an overly huge photo, they will probably oppose. See half of a sharp pic, they will support! We should not be overly concerned with possible print use - does even a printed encyclopedia really need 20"x30" photos?? ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that in at least one locality, people have made posters from Wikipedia content. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Aren't we more concerned about building a great encyclopedia, than catering to poster fans? ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
        • That was my thought too. Commons may have more of a desire for FPs of the absolute highest resolution, but the English Wikipedia should be primarily concerned by ease of viewing on its primary platform: the web. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Where does any of this leave us w.r.t. the clarification of the issue in WIAFP? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad and disheartening discussion. I can only recommend this page. The attitude of some reviewers who seem to insist at judging images at 100%, no matter what their size is just doesn't get into my head. This is damaging for Wikipedia and in essence plain shortsighted. --Dschwen 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That article exactly covers my opinions on the matter of downsizing to 'improve' an image. i.e. don't. Mfield (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Downsampling is not bad in all cases. If an original is blurred (like the huge archeology pic, at least the version I saw), practically no info is lost in downsampling, while the subjective quality is greatly improved. Should an otherwise good image be denied FP status because it simply is too big? --Janke | Talk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring (or creating) the oppose and support templates.

Can any administrator restore/create the oppose and support templates, such as the one in commons. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We had a HUGE discussion about this already and the consensus is that they not be used on FPC. See the archives. As for the rest of the English WIkipedia, it has been decided numerous times that these are not useful for our project. The most recent discussion was here [6]. These are not going to be recreated by anyone, and I'd ask that you not do so under an alternate name. pschemp | talk 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not just make {{Support}} = '''Support''' so that people coming from commons and trying to use the template won't run into trouble? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
See that discussion I referenced. It discussed doing almost exactly that and was shot down. I can't think of a more useless waste of server calls. All one has to do is COPY the format of the vote before you and even Mrmariocartguy was able to do that. Besides, this is an issue that is MUCH bigger than just FPC. If you would like to propose that template or something like that, take it to the village pump. This is not the place for it.pschemp | talk 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Simply for accessibility I think the icons are a good idea. I often visit the German version of Featured picture candidates and although I speak no German I can use the icons as a guide to see how the discussion is going (and for interesting cases I use an online translator, for example when there are 10 supports and 1 oppose, I translate the oppose and usually learn something interesting). I think there is no harm in discussing improvements to Featured picture candidates here, but perhaps the Village pump is the next place to go.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The harm is that should this project recreate the templates, they will be speedy deleted as recreations of templates that have been deleted in at least SIX previous community discussions. (The last one merely TEN days ago). Unless you change the community consensus FIRST, deciding things here is less than useless. Also, let me reiterate, this has already been discussed on FPC and the consensus was to not use them. This is the English Wikipedia. FPC very clearly has the word "support" or "oppose" before every notavote, making it already quite clear how the discussion is going. If one doesn't know enough English to be able to look up the words "support" and "oppose" one shouldn't be editing here. pschemp | talk 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Even Chinese Wikipedia is more advanced than English Wikipedia! {{Support}} templates make counting votes easier. And is English Wikipedia the only Wikipedia without these icons?TRUE/FALSE/MARIO (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cars

I don't really photograph cars at all. I was however wondering why I have never seen a featured pic of a car? Is there any particular reason not to pass them? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The exception that proves the rule? DurovaCharge! 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Mostly refering to newer cars as the subject without any other context except the car itself. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Find a good image under free license and I'll support. DurovaCharge! 02:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I do remember this image being up for discussion at FPC. I can't remember if it ultimately passed or failed, but for some reason it doesn't even seem to link to the original FPC nomination, and I'm not sure why. Neither do any of the other versions. For that matter, I haven't seen Capital Photographer around in a while either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The image names got screwed around with when they were moved to commons. I repaired the original nom, which didn't quite make it. MER-C 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That nomination seems to be an interesting example of nitpicking when it comes to large images at 100%. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I actually spent an interesting evening on a footbridge on the Monash Freeway shooting cars (nothing much else in the city!) and got quite a number of FPC grade images (such as this) it's just a matter of time for me to get through my backlog and get these identified and uploaded (this probably won't happen until I finish exams in early Nov) --Fir0002 10:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was wrong to nitpick that image at 100% though. Yes, it was large, but there were some strange processing artifacts in the original image that were improved (somewhat) in the edits. I don't think nitpicking is a problem when it results in a superior image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
A real car FP
I think this corvette image is the type of thing you're looking for - having said which it was promoted in 2004 and I don't think it would pass on today's standards. There's also some images of racing cars, have a look here, as well the odd historical image such as the one Durova links to, but those ones are not really about the car itself. However, overall it does seem 'pure' car images get a tough run, most I have seen nominated have suffered complaints about being product shots, lacking wow, easily reproducible, etc. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine art

Uncle Bungle raises an interesting point. If an image of fine art is up for FPC, then how much should a voter's personal taste about the genre/artist/work matter? Supposing the technical standards on the reproduction are good enough (which wasn't the case this time), I've worked on the assumption that fine art of a certain importance deserves to be featured. So even though all the Cezannes I've ever seen have left me cold and I downright dislike Renoir, I'd support a good reproduction of either at FPC. Your thoughts? DurovaCharge! 02:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. A top-quality scan of a notable work of art deserves FP status - but it must be technically perfect... --Janke | Talk 07:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, agree with Janke. I have often considered this. It is natural to expect FP contributors to have a wide variety of interests and ideas. While we would hope and expect everyone to be as impartial and objective as possible with each nomination, it is inevitable that our own biases will influence our opinion. I suppose the 'textbook' approach regarding a nomination that you have a strong bias toward or against is to abstain, but we all know that doesn't always happen. :-) I think we can accept a small amount of bias in FP. After all, we're all human, and this project is for humans! Durova, a good example is the nomination of the caesarian from a couple of months ago. Morality is another thing that we're all likely to have differing ideas about and I don't really see it being that different to artistic tastes. To summarise, I think we should aim to be as objective and unbiased as possible, while acknowledging that it is actually quite impossible to eliminate it from the process! It doesn't really matter if the subject is 'fine art', 'morally ambiguous', 'boring' etc. The process should be consistent regardless. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Diliff, it would be better to withdraw that example. My objection was not based upon morality (although some editors wished to characterize the example that way). It was a question of patient consent and the European Convention on human rights. A simple OTRS submission would have resolved the problem, but was never submitted. DurovaCharge! 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • But I cited the European Convention on Human Rights, found that to the best of my knowledge there was nothing that related to this situation, and then asked you to be more specific about what the nomination could be breaching, and you didn't respond. As such, without you citing any real passages of law, I was left to assume it wasn't a legitimate legal objection but merely a moral objection. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Rather than put words in your mouth again, perhaps you'd like the opportunity to tell me what your lack of response to the above discussion means? ;-) Am I wrong, and if so, how? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FPCs leads to the creation of "pages" here that are then a bit of a nuisance

I notice that FPCs seem to get a category added to the image's 'page' here (the page doesn't even exist until this happens), then if the image fails, which is surely quite often, that category gets removed and we are left with a non-page that is then often 'categorized', as if it actually exists (which, technically it does, although it is contentless and the image is perfectly well categorized on Commons). What am I to do about this annoying situation? Do we really want blank pages like this, or images being put in categories that are a poor substitute for viewing them at Commons? Should we perhaps delete these "images" if they do not become FPs, or even not have such a category in the first place? Richard001 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We do tag these for deletion (see step 3 of the closing procedure), it's just we had an irregular closer for a while who didn't clean up after his automated script. Also, some WikiProjects insist on having local categorizations for Commons images, we have no control over that. What you can do is tag totally empty ones for speedy deletion. Clueless admins are another problem. I personally think the local category is annoying but I don't care enough about its ultimate fate. MER-C 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to see some sort of policy on it for the whole of WP. It's not a big issue, but some nominations are pretty cruddy images, and if we localize them here just because they were FPCs then we should be localizing almost everything. Unfortunately we don't really have any especially active page to discuss images/media. Richard001 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'Featured media' for the main page to include sounds as well as pictures?

Hi, sharing links to two proposals of interest to FPC regulars. Originally it started out as a suggestion to create a featured sounds section on the main page, then morphed into a proposal to create a 'featured media' section on the main page to run both featured pictures and featured sounds.

'Picture of the day' currently has a six month backlog, so there are two possible ways to accommodate featured sounds. One would be to change the schedule to two pictures a day, each running 12 hours. The other is that I've offered to suspend all my featured pictures from the queue indefinitely, in order to bring in featured sounds. Since my share of the POTD queue is nearly as large as Wikipedia's collection of featured sounds, that would have minimal impact on other FP contributors. Featured sounds are a neglected area that could use a boost. I like the idea of sharing the spotlight so that sounds can get more exposure. Comments are welcome at the following threads. DurovaCharge! 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Durova. You can put all of my FPs on hold too... oh wait there aren't any LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

delist suspeneded section

I didn't want to make the change unilaterally since I know that we now have bots and other automated tools culling and modifying the page but I think we should add a suspended delisting section similar to the suspended nom section since for the first time ever we have Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Aust blue dragonfly02.jpg which is a request for a delist but it would be confusing to have it in the main suspended nom section. Cat-five - talk 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It has happened before. I think it's generally unnecessary as it only occurs about once a year and it's obvious from the debate whether it is a delist or not. That said, I've noted that the suspended section is for delisting noms too. MER-C 09:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama edit1.jpg

It's come to my attention that the above picture (which I promoted yesterday) has inappropriate digital manipulation (see de:Bild:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama edit3.jpg). Should I pull this one? MER-C 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's absolutely necessary. We knew about the cloned clouds, and the other marked area is just an unfortunate stitching error. I would not call it "inappropriate", since it isn't intentionally misleading... --Janke | Talk 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The extent to which the clouds are cloned was not known though (at least not by myself, and not discussed in the original nomination), and on closer inspection, there are actually significant parts of the land too, that are not just stitched poorly with 'echos' of texture on the seam line, but also with completely duplicated rock formations, etc. Some of it isn't that obvious to the casual viewer, but I just can't help but think it isn't anywhere near it's potential and detail that should be there has been masked by the duplication. Stitching errors where they could not easily be avoided can be forgiven, but the stitching just seems sloppy. I don't want to be elitist but is this of a high enough technical standard to override the undoubtedly impressive scene? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what we should decide... Take it to the delist section for a review, or re-open it? --Janke | Talk 08:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Well I think delist nom makes the most sense given that for better or worse it did pass FPC, but I've noticed that some people can be a bit indignant when a recently featured image is subsequently nominated for delisting, and oppose it on principle rather than on the image's true merits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe a clone stamp jedi could have a go at the sky again then do a delist and replace :P Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think cloning of any kind is really the answer to the problem though. The problem is that the scene is missing information that cannot be recovered and we'd be cheating by pasting bits over the top of the faults to hide them! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Probably the ideal solution is to try and get the originals and get a panorama stitching jedi such as yourself to restitch it instead :) Noodle snacks (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I agree, but according to Todor, he wasn't likely to respond... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I tried googling the initial uploader's name and found nothing. MER-C 10:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Run it through the delisting thing and see what happens to it then imo, maybe after a cooling period. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Machu Picchu revisited

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset across Machu Picchu.jpg - During this nomination, a number of users said they might support if higher resolution was available. The photographer now has a pro account on Flickr, so a larger file is now available. She has also offered to provide the the raw file, so if someone if someone thinks it has potential and wants to reprocess it, it might make a viable nom.--ragesoss (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to mail me that RAW file I'll give it a whirl. Mfield (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Village pump proposal

There's a proposal on the village pump to remove the nominator's right to vote here and at WP:FSC. It's not mine, but I noticed it hadn't been linked here, so: it's here.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_18&oldid=1136423154"