Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 33

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


Move of older FPC pages

Older nominations like above perhaps should be renamed to File: rather than Image:. While it makes no difference in terms of how files are accessed links to them are not redirected. Another possibility is the creation of redirects but we may as well move them for consistency. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem - it's an arbitrary title for the page anyway; we let the nominator select. The image prefix is still in use on some pages anyway. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
External links such as the ones from commons are broken on cases. Before the namespace rename of Image->File they linked fine. This is because the {{FULLPAGENAME}} generates "File" rather than "Image". Another possibility is dropping the Image/File part since it serves to no purpose anyways. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't use FULLPAGENAME, surely? I mean, the titles are now arbitrary, no? They can't be automatically generated in that case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure they can. Most of the time (in the past) the FPC name used to be the filename itself in full as visible in the example here. The point is inter-operability with commons. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As long as I can remember we use arbitrary names for the nomination pages here, by convention MOST people use the image name as the page name, but that definitely isn't always the case. — raekyt 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
None of the current nominations does, I guess it's a tradition that's dying, we normally do. Where does this crossover problem show itself? Should we be looking to not have any assumed crossover, if one exists? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem shows particularly for older nominations where people used FULLPAGENAME as the name of the nomination. File:Grosser Wollschweber Bombylius major detail.jpg is just one example. I do not want to manually define parameters to be honest. Moving files that contain legacy Image: to File: would fix the issue for everyone. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I think what you're saying is that the link on "considered" is somehow autogenerated, and this doesn't go where it should. I understand that, but moving these pages isn't going to fix the issue: there are now loads of nominations at custom pages, and, also, often we have something like File:Foo (edit 1).jpg promoted at an FPC for Foo.jpg. Does it allow a manual paramater – it surely must? Moving all the image pages would be a lot of effort compared to changing the parameter manually where there's a problem I would have thought. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Custom pages are not the issue, formerly automatically generated pages are the issue. Moving all the "image:" pages would be a mindless task for a bot. It would be a lot of effort to check each and individual pages and manually input them. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am going to redirect a FPC/File: page to each FPC/Image: page unless there are objections. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps I will move FPC/Image: ones to FPC/File: -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I object. There will still be problems, as mentioned above, with second nominations and custom-named nominations. The simplest thing to do would be to change links on commons: Template:Assessments at commons accepts the option enwiki-nom=Nomination name which we should use for any links that don't point to the right place. That seems the simplest way to go about it to me. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 07:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It is still possible to override the assessments template link. One can still define the nomination page by using the enwiki-nom parameter. But it doesn't have to be used. What A Certain White Cat is saying is that, the instances where it isn't necessary to define this parameter, because the nomination name is the same as the file name, could be extended to all the nominations that begin with Image:, simply by moving the nomination pages to File: If the pages aren't moved, then someone would have to go through and define the enwiki-nom parameter for all of those older noms. I have no objection to A Certain White Cat's suggestion, as long as the pages are moved properly, so that histories and links and transclusions are intact. And so long as the bot's tasks are approved by the Bot Approvals Group first. Julia\talk 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No specifics here, but it seems like every time I see an FP/FPC related move or re-name on my watchlist there's a mess to clean up. Not saying there will be here - I haven't read closely enough to see - but please make sure this won't screw anything up first. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The nominations that would be moved would only be the ones that had filenames with "Image:" in them to begin with. So it would only cover nominations before the shift to "File:" (which broke otherwise working syntax). Do not worry I will not make a single page move without BAG approval and without consensus here. There is no emergency here. :) If someone is willing to go through and link to all successful FPCs and delisted FPs, I too would have no objection as it would save me a lot of work.
While it is possible to link to link to individual nominations, abolishment of "Image:" in FPC names could be seen as a consistency measure. I intend to collect statistics to give an idea on what level of work we are talking about.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (13), feel free to raise objections there. The total number of FPC/ sub pages are 531 with Image:, 968 with File: out of 9387 subpages in total. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there are cases where both the /File:xxx and /Image:xxx page exists for renomination cases, where the first nom was made in the "Image" epoch and the second in "File" epoch. Please make sure that the move script takes this special case into account. --Slaunger (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If page exists the code would do nothing. Bot does not have admin rights. How are re-nominations normally handled? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've thought about this further and I don't think it's appropriate to change 531 historic nomination pages just to get links to work automatically from Commons. Having the links working is nice, but it should be done Commons side, on the assessments template. And there's no rush; they've been not working for ages. Defining the parameter and correcting the links is something I've been working on off and on for some time and I'm happy to continue doing so. Julia\talk 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Historic nominations? What is so historic about them? By the way the number includes failed candidacies as there is no easy way to determine which FPCs passed/failed. The substance or even the title of the nomination will not be affected by the moves. Links that used to work before and ceased working after the MediaWiki update that renamed "Image:" to "File:". I really want to be able to link to correct FPC nominations. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you not find a lot of them automatically making a generator over all file pages in the FP category here, iterate through the "where used" links and filter for those which are FPC subpages? If there is only one, it must be nomination page for the FP, and that could be used in the enwiki-nom param on Commons. If more than one, sort those few ones out manually (or ask for help here)? In that manner the various user watchlists will not be spammed by the moves. --Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) It would be great to have working links, but having a clutter of unnecessary page moves happen in order to have links for some unknown fraction of 531 files is backwards. It makes much more sense to identify the images that don't have working links, and fix them on the Commons side. Julia\talk 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The total number of moves will be 1,500 pages total. We are not talking about the complete restructuring of the FPC namespace.
Do people normally watch FPCs they started/voted/commented on? The watchlist argument can be used against all bot tasks and I am sorry but unless someone is willing to check the "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" option, they are willing to see bot edits. That option exists for a reason. Using the same argument, fixing the issue at commons end will "spam the watchlists" of all the uploaders over a problem generated at the "wikipedia" end. Commons should never be modified with bot edits over a problem at a local wiki. There are 700 wikis out there and all wikis should be working towards a compatibility with commons, not the other way around. It is completely impossible using on-wiki methods (parser functions) to determine if a inter-wiki leads to an existing page or not. So there is no way for me to implement a Commons:Template:FPC/-like solution at commons end.
The main point of the move is to standardize/harmonize nominations so that they follow a common pattern. The ability of Assessments template at commons to link to the nominations is an added bonus. Automation of any kind working with FPC pages is made significantly difficult due to this problem. Currently, a programmer need to check for 3 different possibilities (filenames oriented FPC sub-pagenames) first and then look for the 4th variant which is a custom name.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't enforce any particular format for new nominations, so no, this will not achieve standardisation or harmonisation, because it won't be standardised and harmonised in the future. If that were the goal then we would need to be talking about demanding a particular format now for new nominations. I appreciate that it may be a useful thing from an interwiki point of view, but we have evidence that users already find the FPC nomination process confusing, and I'm reluctant to complicate the process further or make it easier to 'break'. I believe the most reasonable thing to do is to handle the linking Commons side, with a defined parameter where necessary. As I said, it's something I've been working on, and also have automation in place for new FPs, so once I (or anyone else) have caught up with the backlog, it will be easy to maintain in the future. Julia\talk 19:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, I have noticed examples of the mass move of nomination pages that you undertook in 2008 breaking things. One example: this FP linked to this nomination before I fixed it. As you can see, it's the wrong nomination for that image. The nomination was originally titled something else and the bot moved it to the wrong image name. It's not an unusual situation, to have an existing FP linked in a nomination, so this mix-up is likely to happen again with more page moves. I echo Makeemlighter's sentiment: these moves usually leave messes to clean up. Julia\talk 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
We need to have one and only one type of filename type nomination for technical purposes. Standards are needed. People should either define a custom name OR define one type of filename nomination. It should either be "Image:Foo.ext", "File:Foo.ext" or "Foo.ext". Currently it is a mess as all three possibilities have more or less the same distribution.
The most reasonable thing is not handling issues on commons side. Your proposal is the most unreasonable way of handing a no brainier issue bots can handle effortlessly. The issue would have been resolved within a matter of few hours, tops.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Requiring a particular name for nomination pages will certainly make it more difficult for nominators, although this challenge isn't insurmountable. The bigger problem is what to do with re-nominations. Once the filename nomination has been used, how do you make a nomination that won't present issues? Another issue - for Commons, not for us - how do you deal with delisted images? We delisted File:Piratey, vector version.svg in January, for example, but the Commons template still calls it an en:WP FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This would not concern the nominators. Code could simply be run once a year or something like that. There aren't that many "filename" nominations a year. I am working for a way to keep track of delisted images. The problem I have is identifying delisting nomination page. Normally the person marking it perhaps could also update the commons page. I have updated that file as an example. I am trying to automate this which is why I am trying to simplify the problem. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if the file name was strictly formalized at the time of nomination it would not cover the common case of alternatives being nominated in the same subpage, typically edits of the original nominations, which is promoted in the end. There you end up with files being promoted which or promoted on a subpage name, which is not related in a simple manner with the promoted file name. I do think this should be solved Commons-side, with the help of data retrieved EN-side as indicated in my proposal above to fix what we have now, and then in the future assure that the promotion process EN-side also includes tagging the file at commons (as you suggest yourself above) with an overrided from default subpage name for the cases where this is relevant - such as alternatives being promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is over-bloating parameter uses that can be avoided. If the nomination name matches the filename a parameter should not be required. There is no evidence as to why we must have the namespace in the nomination name, on the other hand I have demonstrated several problems with it. The only worry that has been mentioned is peoples watch-lists getting bot edits which is something they are willing to see unless they changed their prefs. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I think what should be overwhelmingly clear to you now is that we're opposed to your proposal. You said you would carry out the task unless there were objections: there are, and the alternatives we've suggested are fine (and something we're happy to do ourselves). Thank you anyway. Julia\talk 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but aside from a potential mild inconvenience to some people over watchlists, I have not seen any opposition. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

380 noms without canonical closing statements from 2007-2011

A sub-sample that I took suggests that most of these noms have never been closed. The ones I looked at, I closed "Not promoted: expired" [1]. Given how highly active FPC talk has recently been, I have no doubt that the most active participants, such as John O'Neill and Mr. Milburn, will give a show of genuine concern for the project by contributing substantially to this task. As for me, I've spent half a day compiling this list. Comment, strike, or delete them when they've been dealt with, I don't care which. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Two are missing because they had special characters whose formatting got mangled. I'll add them as soon as I find them again. I closed one which was withdrawn; the other turned out to be a miscategorised delist nom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • What exactly is there to gain by going through these old nominations and adding closing templates? JJ Harrison (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The ability to do proper statistics. For now, I've excluded the "doesn't seem to have been promoted but we don't know why" from the figures presented, so the figures aren't super accurate, with 10-20% being accounted for by these "strange" noms. These 10-20% include withdrawn noms, never-listed noms and miscategorised noms, but again, I can't quantify that for you. I agree that it's quite possible to continue to exist with an overgrown back yard, if that's how you want to live. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah ok. Seems like something a bot could help carve up though. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Before anyone takes care of too many of these, we should decide which, if any, archive they belong in. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, we should simply delete any nomination that wasn't listed and wasn't voted on. Nominations that were transcluded or voted on should be archived properly. Jujutacular (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should sweep under the carpet that sometimes people can't figure out how to transclude. It would serve the project better to (a) try and address the fundamental problem, and (b) see if we can reach out to people that have actually been trying to contribute but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I saw several could-be candidates that might actually be worth nominating now. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • That's a separate issue. Anyone is free to re-nominate the images, but these old nominations need to be dealt with. How about an archive specifically for these? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This has gone a bit stale, but I don't want it disappearing into the archives without some sensible action being taken. I've been running around doing a lot of other stuff, would be good to have two extra hands on deck that are willing to contribute. Three would also be cool. I think we need a Duke of Wikipedia scheme or sth like that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I closed a few more, just to help keep the project from getting swept into the archives. Dusty777 17:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Insanely high pass rate?

Historic pass rates (blue)

Of 33 current nominees, only six right now look likely to fail, with another three or so possibly failing through not reaching minimum support. It's not clear how one should interpret these numbers, but this is clearly far outside the historic range (see figure). At the end of March, we were promoting 9/20 iirc - high, but not outside the range. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Do you have the sense that pictures are getting through now which in the past would not? I haven't been active here that long so I am not certain if this is a snapshot in time issue or a new trend. For my part I just see quite a few good works at the moment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Periodic spikes are normal. Many nominators have been putting forth high quality images, be they photographs, paintings, or whatnot. Between us, myself, Tomer T, and Saffron have about 20 or 25 nominations on the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a big drop in October as well, and I don't recall discussion about that Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It occurred to me that the high volume of nominations could be reducing the level of scrutiny. A lot of things that were often discussed in great detail aren't being discussed right now. Someone referred to reviewers' fatigue, and we saw a few images fail on 4 supports and 0 opposes. One might wonder if what we're now seeing is the response, where people prefer to support because it's less emotionally taxing, needs less explanation, and can be done with a shallower review of the actual material. It's good that people haven't been punishing full size images lately (it used to be the case that if you uploaded a 1600 wide image, sharp and noise-free, you could get a promotion, whereas if you uploaded the same image at 4000 wide, not quite sharp and with visible noise, you'd get laughed out of the house - very damaging to the project imo, and encouraging everyone to downsample, which is a battle that for this reason, we've never quite won), but the rest of the reviewing may need some observation and analysis, at the least. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think, for "reviewer's fatigue" purposes, the number of nominations has decreased a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To me, it seems like there just happens to be a high number of good nominations at the moment. Jujutacular (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In my recent observations of FPC, I have observed a few possibility's as to the cause of the recent increase of FP promotions:
1. "Reviewers Fatigue" (as Crisco put it). People not feeling up to a long discussion, or feeling like reviewing the EV of the nomination in articles, how the picture measures up to the criteria, ETC..., can lead to people making judgements off the picture alone, and off of first impressions, rather then looking carefully at the picture, and judging its encyclopedic value carefully.
2. The recent absence of users such as Pine and jjron from participating in discussions of nominations. These two in particular, were the (In my personal observations of FPC) main instigators of discussions concerning the relevance of nominations to the FPC criteria, thus leading others to also look at how the nominations measured up to the criteria per the discussion, and possibly leading to a change their opinions concerning how the nomination(s) appear to measures up to the criteria.
3. In the past few months, it appears that there is a growing trend towards judging nominations by opinions, rather then the criteria. (Votes made off of first impressions appear to be increasing every month, one example of such a case, is the first Support vote in this nomination).
I am not stating that these are the causes of the recent increase in FPC nominations being promoted, nor am I stating that the above are entirely factually accurate. Dusty777 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe a market correction of sorts is in progress:). Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think that this is just reading into natural variation a bit much personally. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker makes things difficult

CommonsDelinker removed a deleted image from the FP gallery, its nomination page and FP thumbs. This is good, of course, since we can't have deleted images as FPs. But CommonsDelinker doesn't decrement the FP count. I did this manually, but we'll need to keep our eyes open for similar situations in the future. We've already had some trouble with CD replacing FPs with "high-quality" Google Art Project images (and not just in article space). If anyone wants to trout slap whoever is running CD, please do so. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

These changes have now been reverted and the picture restored, so I've updated the count. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


Would someone who's familiar with closing images please close some of the noms? The last close seems to have been about a week ago. Many noms are waiting for closes. Thanks. Pine(talk) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to fix an inconsistency?

At the top of WP:FPC, it reads Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles (emphasis in original). However, criterion 5 of the criteria reads only Adds value to an article. It might be read, I suppose, to mean that an FP adds to an article through the other criteria, primarily technical in nature. However, I believe that Adds value to an article no longer represents the de facto "educational value" requirement we uphold, which is definitely more than "some" and I think is around "significant". Therefore I propose modifying the criteria, either to Adds significant value to an article or similar. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I remember arguing some time back, it may have been in that big 'FPC review' that we had two or three years back, that Criterion 5 should be made Criterion 1 anyway, as EV is surely our first concern, but whatever, it never happened. (And BTW, it's "encyclopaedic value"). Maybe to pick up on your point even more, it should be Adds significant encyclopaedic value to an article." --jjron (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, I agree with jjron's wording. Jujutacular (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Also agree, as this seems to have been the de facto standard anyway. I also think moving it to Criterion 1 would be a good idea.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I like jjron's wording. Kaldari (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, jjron's wording is good. If we're re-ordering the FP criteria, I would put it as #2, after "Is among Wikipedia's best work". --Avenue (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

About gastropod or bivalve shell images

Hello people. I wanted to say that in future, before you promote shell images to FA status, you might want to check with the whole gastropod project or bivalve project first. In the case of the Eustrombus gigas image that made it onto the Main Page as POTD, the lip of the shell had been filed or cut before the shell was sold to the collector, in order to tidy it up, giving a false appearance. Secondly I would have liked to have known when the shell was purchased, because the importation of the shell of this species has been banned since the mid-1990s under the CITES agreement. Neither of these things are the fault of the editor who photographed it, but still they are relevant to its status on Wikipedia. Invertzoo (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on that I'd say we should delist the image since the shell has obviously been modified, clearly seen if you zoom in on it, surprises me it even made it to FP status, but that was a few years ago. As for details of it's import, you'd have to check with the photographer... That list of images there is probably a lot of them there that can be FP I suspect. — raekyt 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
And import to where? I believe the photographer is based in Germany. I don't know where he sources the specimens for his photos. Banned for export perhaps? Nonetheless, they're quite likely old specimens, I don't actually know this, but I think he may have quite good access to some type of museum collection. Re the checking with wikiprojects, that's really not that feasible. If we did it for gastropods say, we'd really need to do it for everything before promotion. Nice in theory, but not very practicable. And if we did try it, for starters many wikiprojects are largely defunct - yours may not be, but we could waste a heck of a lot time checking with projects that basically no longer exist, and waiting for non-replies. Having said that, there are some people heavily into a few specific areas, such as birds and flowers, that check the FPC page on a regular basis, and will chime in if they see an anomaly with a nomination in their area of expertise. They don't often vote as such, but can quickly turn a nomination around it they point out a fault with the identification or something. Perhaps that's something that could be done by a knowledgeable mollusc person too? --jjron (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess this is the file that InvertZoo is referring to? Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Another 'fix'? Image sizes Review of criteria for image size.

  • Now I'm the first one to argue that bigger isn't necessarily better, but in line with Grandiose's point above, there's another criteria tweak that maybe we should apply. Criteria 2 says "... Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height ..." (my emphasis). OK, firstly the 'or' clause seems to cause unending confusion for newbies here. Secondly, when was the last time we promoted an image of that size? Anything less than 1000px in either dimension has long been unfailingly shouted down with 'too small' opposes. For simplicity, and in line with long-time practice, I propose a simple change of the 'or' to an 'and' and adding in the word 'both', i.e., it would read "... Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in both width and height ...". A slight rewording to reflect this would also be required at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Image size. This is no major change in size expectations, but probably easier to work with. Existing provisos for SVGs, videos, etc, would remain. --jjron (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's been a little while since we reviewed the criteria I think, and I'd like to bring up the possibility of increasing minimum size requirements. Currently at 1000 that means we accept images under 1mp as featured status, but it's been >12 years since digital cameras have surpassed this, with current consumer grade cameras being in the 18mp range and pro cameras topping 22mp I think the difference here is outstanding and we shouldn't be accepting to these standards anymore. One of the things featured to me means printability, and at 1000px your only going to get a usable 3.3" or so image out of it, which is generally unacceptable for about anything. For printing a 3x5 print you'd need 1500px minimally for the long axis, for printing a cover on say a 8.5x11" paper you'd need 3300px on the for the long axis... No images people have taken within the last decade have been under 1000px on the long axis unless they're not taking it at full resolution or are resizing. I think it's long time we make this minimum requirement reflect reality of today's digital photography world. — raekyt 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Again same exceptions for extremely valuable rare, old, technical images that can't be higher resolution (like pale blue dot, or extremely valuable old images, etc...). — raekyt 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think think that we should make 1000x1000 a mandatory minimum size change. 1024x768 is sufficient for handheld devices and small laptops, and some small objects look bad if you try to zoom in on them with a high pixel count camera. Also, the official standard for Blu-Ray movies is barely more than 1000 high, at 1080. At most, I think we could say that the minimum standard is 1280×720 while saying that we strongly favor a minimum of 1920x1080 or 2.1 megapixels. Pine 09:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the standard should be printing, not displaying it on a digital device, My opinion is that it be raised to a minimum of 2000 pixels on the long side.... possibly make panoramas have a higher or 3000 as a minimum... — raekyt 09:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, why use printing as the standard? I'm willing to be convinced, but seeing as how Wikipedia is moving in the direction of being increasingly usable from mobile devices, I think the better standard for a minimum, if we have one at all, is the screen size of a large mobile device. The current standard of 1000px on a side is sufficient for that. Pine 10:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Because the content from Wikipedia is used for more than just Wikipedia, it's a resource. Good images should be able to be used in magazines, travel brochures, documents, sideshows, presentations, books, whatever. So long as the licencing allows it it. By featuring pictures we should make sure they not only are of high quality and EV but also able to be used for a multiple purposes, and that extends beyond displaying on a screen. THe current criteria states that it should be printable, but we're very much behind the times in what every-day consumer cameras can do. Virtually everyone's cellphones now can FAR exceed our minimum requirements. — raekyt 10:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
My cell phone is short of the current minimum size requirements, and I imagine that many Wikipedia readers from third world countries may get images of 300x300 if they're lucky. I think your argument about the usability of images beyond the screen would be stronger for Commons. Here on EN, our highest concern is encyclopedic value, and the current standard is sufficient for that. Pine 10:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for bringing up the minimum resolutions to around 1500x1500 or so. Just because some people are viewing Wikipedia on low-res devices, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep the bar high for our best images. Besides which, most low-res browsers like mobile phones allow you to 'zoom in' on pages, and I think people expect to be able to scroll around to view detail on smartphones, so images don't have to match the screen resolution by any means, but even if not, it's already possible to use apps or browsers that redesign the pages/images to be viewable on low-res devices, so there is no need for us to make any particular allowances for these users IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


  • If there is consensus to make size minimums larger, I can understand 1920x1080, 1500x1500, or 1000x1000 as a standard to use. I prefer 1920x1080 since that's the bluray standard and the size of many current desktop monitors. However, I would more strongly support saying that we recommend 1920x1080, 1500x1500, or 1000x1000 without requiring it in all circumstances. I think that our biggest focus should remain on EV rather than counting the number of pixels on the sides of an image. If an image is clear, freely licensed, gives an excellent illustration of the subject, and otherwise meets the existing criteria, I think that we shouldn't reject an image solely for low pixel count. Pine 10:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For rounding sake and keeping things easy, would you consider making it 2000px minimum on the long axis, since blue-ray standard is almost there anyway? The rule should be pretty simple and by just specifying a minimum on the longer axis makes it easier to understand I think. — raekyt 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is "featured picture", not "featured thumbnail". If we want to assess images based on how they illustrate their articles in-situ as 220px thumbnails, then you can count me out as a contributor. I strongly disagree that "our biggest focus should remain on EV": it is #5 in the criteria for a reason. It is merely a necessary condition, fairly easy to assess, and generally a "got it" or "not got it" issue. Much like "Has a free license".
Take apple for example. Practically any picture of a single apple would have maximal EV. What separates the adequate from the feature-worthy are the first three criteria: "Is of a high technical standard"; "Is of high resolution" and "Is among Wikipedia's best work". None of these are satisfied by a sub-HD image IMO. The second criterion requires that "It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction". Given that the very latest phones and pads have "retina" displays at resolutions (240-300ppi) similar to printer requirements, we will see a convergence over the next few year between the quality requirements for print and display. And as Diliff says, many devices make it easy to zoom and pan around a large image.
Let's consider what "high technical standard" might mean for an image size. I don't imagine anyone is using a quality camera less than 10MP. Nikon's latest "entry level" DSLR is 24MP and a 10MP compact can be bought for £40 in the high street. So it is increasingly ridiculous to accept sub-HD (2.1MP) level images. A stock photo site wouldn't accept less than 6MP. So what "technical standard" accepts an image no larger than a 4-year-old mobile phone could have taken? It is also simply not "among Wikipedia's best work", as >HD images are extremely common. The featured process should push and reward contributors to take/find/upload the best images for our articles. The web is full of images "resized for the web" that look great as a thumbnail. Our bar should be higher than that. I suggest we
  • Change the sentence to "Still images should have a minimum of 2 MP with the shorter dimension greater than 1000 pixels; larger sizes are preferred" This should encourage HD or greater images. I've dropped the "generally" from the preference as it is redundant. We already have the "Exceptions to this rule may be made" get-out clause.
  • Drop the "Panoramas need to be substantially larger than 1000 pixels in the longer dimension in order for sufficient details to be seen." clause. This is no longer necessary as the above would require any panorama-shaped image to have 2000 pixels in the longer dimension, and frankly it is hard to imagine any panorama being promoted that isn't considerably higher still.
Colin°Talk 12:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Said far better than I could, thanks. ;-) — raekyt 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too, agree with all of the above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with 2 MP, provided that there are Pterodroma and migratory wader exceptions :P. What happens with existing FPs though? It would be very silly to end up delisting 20% of our images. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm obviously for allowing exceptions where it's necessary, for photography of wildlife that it's just not possible to get very close to them thus we have to crop and get what we can get there should be an exception made, same with very old and historic images or things like the Pale Blue Dot where we can't get better. Also I'm in favor of putting an exemption in for all existing FP's that they can't be delisted solely on image size alone... — raekyt 13:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
JJ Harrison, do you generally have to crop your bird photos? Do you downsize them too, perhaps because you feel sharpness isn't great at that distance? The "Exceptions" list could be expanded to explicitly include "distant wildlife". What is an acceptable allowance for a bird-in-flight hundreds of metres away isn't so for a studio shot one metre away. Which is why the "larger sizes are preferred" clause is important: reviewers should be free to oppose on small studio images, where it would be relatively easy to supply a larger version.
While a radical cull of existing small FPs shouldn't occur IMO, it may be worth examining the stats and see what we have. There could be some embarrasing thumbnails out there. I might write a script/tool to do this unless anyone has something like that already. Colin°Talk 13:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
While I'm obviously sympathetic to FPCs that struggle due to circumstances outside the photographer's control (I guess most of us contributors have been victim of misguided armchair experts at some point!), sometimes circumstances can't excuse a poor quality photo, and some subjects are inherently much harder to capture to a FP level and that's life... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not particularly against the basics argued above, e.g., 2MP min with 1000px on the short side, but I didn't want to make too much of a splash. I'm also very wary of a few potential issues. Part of my original reasoning was to make it easier for newbies and the like to understand, not harder. I've seen countless people confused over the years about the current requirement, and that's just the ones that comment on it. 1000px min on both sides is easy to understand, 2MP not so much, especially if you combine it with further restrictions. I don't like the old Commons 'everything should be uploaded at full-res' argument for a number of reasons (again something the 'armchair experts' may be in favour of, but remember also that this isn't a stock photo site, despite many people and businesses treating it as a free version of such, and simply ignoring any licensing restrictions placed on images). I don't like the suggestion that because phone cameras and cheap compacts can take 10MP pictures, that that means that's what we should accept as being a measure of quality. 10MP, or any megapixel count, means diddly squat when the IQ is rubbish. I'm wary of the huge temptation someone will have - if not now, then at some time down the line - to conduct a witch hunt of all old FPs that don't meet those new size requirements and wholesale nom them for delisting just for that reason (and if you made it 2MP I'd guess there'd probably be a good 500+ under that size, and probably 1000 or so). I'm also not supportive of trying to write in more exceptions to the guidelines, e.g., with the 'distant wildlife' argument; I'd rather just keep the acceptable stated minimum smaller than try to make hard to implement exceptions for more and more things. We need to have standards, but we also have to be wary about driving even more people away. --jjron (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


  • I'm sure with some clever wording we can make it easier for people to understand, 2000x2000 = 2mp, should be fairly simple to understand? We can't change the wording so that 100% everyone will always understand what it means every time, obviously there will be some people confused. I've also been here a long time and I don't really see it being a HUGE issue, we don't get tons of people not understanding the current rule, only a few every now and then and it's usually fairly easy to clear up. I think we should probably work more on welcoming new contributors to this area that nominate something that clearly won't pass with maybe some sorta welcome template that closes them quickly and is nice about it instead of just a quick dogpile of opposes and sometimes them being more critical then helpful. That probably drives more new people away than misunderstanding of the size requirements tbh. — raekyt 19:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, 2000x2000 = 4 MP. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Sssshhh.... I use a different kind of mathz in my head. :D lol. — raekyt 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

While I sympathise with overcomplicating the parameters, it is difficult to keep everyone happy. I don't really buy the "driving away" issue with having some kind of minimum standard. There isn't a minimum standard to contribute images to WP, which is what counts at the end of the day. And low explicit standards actually drives down quality because it sets a target that people can downsize to (whether to prevent "stealing" or because it hides the flaws). This is an award process for identifying our very best work. It is trivially easy to find small images that look great. That's not really any goal worth aiming for IMO. On a free content encyclopaedia (images and text). If that award means nothing then that "drives people away". If generously sized images get pixel-peeped to death, then that "drives people away", or turns them into being ungenerous with their images. So we have to find a balance, and I don't think in this day and age that a 2MP minimum is unreasonable. My proposed text actually removed a criterion, so overall it doesn't get more complex and also solves the current ambiguity with the and/or. The issues with what we decide to do with old FPs should criteria become stricter should not ever influence what we all agree the criteria are. That really is a separate discussion. Colin°Talk 19:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • For the sake of making the standard easier to understand, if we're going to increase the standard, I like round numbers. We could change "Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height" to "Still images should be a minimum of approximately 2000 pixels in width and 1000 pixels in height." That is near to the Blu-Ray and monitor standard of 1920 x 1080. The rest of the exceptions in that paragraph can remain there. However, I agree with Jjron's concerns, and given a choice to keep things as they are or to go to 2000x1000, I would keep things as they are. I'm not seeing the current standards as being problematic enough to require a change. Pine 20:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with what you propose is that it doesn't treat portrait and landscape equivalently. And adding "approximately" just complicates things further. The existing text is a bit ambiguous. I don't really see how anyone literate person could be confused by "2MP and 1000px minimum". I don't see anyone being driven away from contributing here because they fail to understand the criteria: what's more likely is folk just plain not reading it, or folk "trying it on" by uploading/nominating the minimum they think they can get away with. The existing text effectively allows a 1MP square image. That's not "high resolution" in anyone modern definition of the term. Please remember we're trying to judge "Wikipedia's best work", not just give gold stars to pictures that at a glance look amazing in thumbnail/preview but if you printed them would look worse than the 6x4 holiday snaps you took with your pocket Kodak and processed at Boots in the 1980s.
The problem I see with the current standards is (a) folk arguing that their sub-HD image "meets the standard" when it is far from "Wikipedia's best work" and (b) folk picking at minor faults in full-sized images that wouldn't be apparent in an HD sized image. So moving the standard up to at least the level of picture one gets on one's TV set, is a small step in the right direction. Colin°Talk 21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you have a good point that a 1000x400 photo, which currently would meet our criteria for dimensions, is probably not "among Wikipedia's best work." However, I'm not sure that we need a hard minimum limit as a way to deal with this situation. Simply voting against the image will take care of the problem if the image gets too little support or to many opposing votes. I prefer to let the voters have that flexibility. I would "weak support" moving up the minimum for photography to 2MP, but I think there is value in having flexibility. On the other side of this situation, images much larger than 2MP seem more likely to get more votes in support, so there is already a motivation for advanced amateur and professional photographers who want FPs to use large images. Pine 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we've got consensus to bump the threshold up a tiny bit to 2MP and 1000px on the shortest side. We also agree to leave existing FPs alone. This is a very small step towards something actually approaching what most of us would, if we are honest, call "high resolution" or "high technical standard". I agree that we should encourage reviewers to be flexible per-image to oppose or support outside of these limits: there will be cases where we might collectively agree a small image is good enough, and there are certainly cases where 2MP is still too low to do the subject justice, or where it is a long way from being an example of Wikipedia's best work. Colin°Talk 08:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually leaning towards the status quo, and using common sense to determine when a picture is too small, as we do now. The fact is that 1000x400px images and the like simply don't pass anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked the criteria this morning. I left a note here too but that edit seems to have got lost. I hope the "Exceptions to this" clause indicates we should always use common sense. Leaving the threshold so low that common sense is no longer required just damages the value of the system: we just get people scaling down to the threshold and expecting a gold star. We can review this if problems arise. Nothing is ever in stone. Colin°Talk 10:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
One example of the sort of crop that File:Charadrius bicinctus breeding - Ralphs Bay.jpg has. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that. Very useful. If the nomination said "This is a significant crop of a photograph taken with an 1100mm telephoto (35mm equiv)" then I don't think anyone would disagree that it merits special consideration regarding size. We have to cope with a huge range of circumstances here, and a 1.7MP studio shot doesn't deserve the same allowances, I hope you agree. Colin°Talk 10:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You do realise that the Imageshack photo is not actually the same one as the Commons photo, though? And that's obviously a fairly extreme example of just how far away you were, but you haven't necessarily argued conclusively that it was unrealistic to for you get a better shot, although I can appreciate that it's probably the case. That's the tricky thing about what you're proposing - you're asking us to take your word for it that a better/closer photo isn't realistic. With historic photos, it's self-evident. With landscape/architectural photos, it's easy to demonstrate with Google Maps or whatever that a better view isn't possible given the surrounding environment. But with wildlife, your photography and the interaction (or lack thereof) with the subject is more about an incalculable combination of luck and skill, and it's much harder for the rest of us to determine if a flawed image is 'good enough'. In any case, your images are such that you could upsize them and still be better than a lot of other wildlife photography on Wikipedia. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Diliff, I'm a bit confused which of the "you"s in that paragraph referes to JJ Harrison or me. We should take a simple explanation on trust surely, rather than skeptically demand uncropped originals along with a Google map satellite view with x for bird and x for photographer marked :-) I certainly take all the species identification on trust. Regardless of this discussion on minimum size, I do think it helps if nominators explain any difficulties they faced taking pictures (or if they didn't take them, then assumed difficulties for the picture they found). Not all reviewers are familiar with the limitations both optical and practical of taking photographs in extreme situations (e.g., distant, underwater, macro, night). I don't think the flaws (condition, size, colour tint) in a historic photo are necessarily self-evident. Colin°Talk 13:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to JJ as per my position in the thread. Well, trust is a funny thing. We have a bit of a history of gaming the system. Or at least perceived gaming by some people, which has in the past led to us creating more specific and detailed criteria to address concerns. For example, vote counting to remove closer bias, etc. Actually, I do trust JJ, but my point wasn't really about him. His photo was just the example in question, but it was more about trusting that the nominator, whoever it is, isn't going to use bogus 'mitigating circumstances' to convince us to support in spite of it not meeting our standards. I suppose there are two schools of thought: one that trust is implicit and the other that trust is earned. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I do realise that, It is a nearby frame, and I'm confident the magnification is similar. I've just misplaced the correct raw somewhere in the course of sorting things, and didn't really bother too much in my search for it. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, late to the discussion. For a while now, my feeling has been that we should increase the size requirement, but I don't think this necessarily needs to be done by modifying the criteria. Like JJ says, we should just let the reviewers decide when a picture is big enough. I suppose it's too much to ask (and too awkward) for reviewers to simply comment whether the image is "big enough". Anyway, I only skimmed the above discussion, so maybe I missed this: is there consensus to change the criteria? I noticed it's been modified already. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I really don't think that it should have been changed quite yet. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the change to the criteria as there's no consensus for it yet and discussion is still ongoing. Julia\talk 11:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I didn't count anyone opposed to the move (the closest was "I'm not particularly against the basics argued above") and many in agreement, including your own "I'm fine with 2 MP" comment. And the "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical, difficult or unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired." makes an explicit allowance for photos such as your distant birds. To answer those doubting if we need to change the criteria, or have concerns about what might happen, there's nothing like puting something into practice to see how it works. It isn't like we're designing a space probe or something that we can't later change. And a "free for all" elimination of explicit minimums also causes issues: many reviewers have a problem doing anything they think may cause conflict or upset, to the point where they simply never oppose out of fear of an argument or making someone sad. You guys might all be comfortable boldly stating "too small" or "big enough" based on your own opinions, but not everyone is. Having a criterion to point to for the bare minimum, helps such reviewers. If the changed criteria causes difficulties, then we can review it. Let's see how it works. I feel we are starting to talk ourselves into inaction, which never resolves anything. Colin°Talk 07:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I support a change to >2Mpx or similar. That has been the QI minimum at Commons for ages, and getting a sharp picture of most subjects at that resolution should be no problem with a good camera. --99of9 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a random idea to maybe totally throw the cat amongst the pigeons (and make it even harder for newbies). Maybe we should forget about minimum sizes of images per se, but set a standard viewing size for judging, e.g., all images should be viewed at 2000px on the longest side (yeah, I realise that would need to be improved to take account of panos, etc, but I'm thinking something like the HD res that keeps getting referred to). Small images would need to be upsized for judging, so would pretty much be excluded as they'd fall apart technically. Big images wouldn't be punished for being big and generous as they'd be downscaled for the actual judging of technical criteria like noise, sharpness, etc. It could be a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, and requires a little bit of expertise on behalf of voters to know how to resize properly, but I think it's a commonsense thing that a few of us already try to pretty much follow now, even if it's often subconsciously. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a one-size-fits-all judgement-size would work very well. The size of an image has a factor in terms of wow, value and detail offered, all of which would be eliminated by regulation small size. For example, a 16MP image should be more detailed than a 4MP downsampled one, but both might look identical at 2MP judgement size. A huge Diliff pano has wow because you can pan around at full size looking in all the windows and stuff, but would look much less impressive at 2MP. A sharp 1MP image could look pretty good if carefully upsampled to 2MP but really isn't that valuable.
We do have a problem with pixel peeping opposes and some downsizing before passing judgement on things like sharpness or noise can be useful. But the degree of downsizing appropriate depends on the image and has to be done well. Not sure how we could word this and think this sort of thing doesn't belong in the criteria but in some kind of revewer guidance. Remember that the criteria do influence what people contribute images at. If we say that images aren't judged at any size > 2MP, where is the encouragement to donate something larger? Colin°Talk 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It has now been nearly a week since the last comment was added to this discussion. Clearly it is no longer "ongoing". Although the discussion hasn't involved a huge number of people, we have to work with what we've got and the consensus is in favour of the proposed change and against the current criteria, which everyone agrees is ambiguous. I propose this change to the criteria be applied. It fixes the ambiguity present in the current text, applies a very mild increase in minimum typical standards, while also providing a get-out. Reviewers are always free to oppose or support outside of limits where they feel an exception should be made. I'd appreciate if someone else applied the change to the criteria this time. -- Colin°Talk 12:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how your proposed change improves things. You claim it fixes an ambiguity, but it introduces two criteria where previously, there was only one. Silence may reflect contentedness with the status quo. Samsara (FA  FP) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. We're a wiki. We make changes. And then we make more changes. Stalling and doing nothing about a problem is not the solution. I've answered your "two where previously one" issue below -- it isn't. Colin°Talk 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it also reflects how long this discussion is and how difficult it is to follow. It might be worth taking a straw poll on the proposed changes vs. the status quo. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to nominate the picture below, but I don't think I can do it without a log-in. Is there any chance someone could do it on my behalf?

Perpetual Motion by Norman Rockwell.jpg

Thanks! (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I can nominate it for you if you want... I am not sure of its chances of passing though. It appears that it can do with some cleaning up (looks like it has some spots and stuff around the picture... E.G. Around the guys face.) Would you still like me to nominate it for you, or would you rather have it cleaned up first? Dusty777 23:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, if someone wants to clean those up then of course that's fine, but if a couple of tiny spots disqualify it then I no longer really have any interest in this procedure. The overall interest of the picture vastly outweighs any such tiny imperfections. (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture may possibly pass with the spots, but there is a better chance of passing if the spots are removed. It may only cause a slight delay, then I can nominate the picture for you. Dusty777 02:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the picture has been nominated and failed before: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Norman Rockwell - Perpetual Motion. The scan quality is a bit poor in my opinion (per jjron's comments on the original nomination). Jujutacular (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day blurb

Hi all: What is the procedure to write a blurb for 'picture of the day' for a recently promoted picture? I'd like to write one for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Transit of Venus, 2012.
Thanks in advance. EngineerFromVega 06:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a guide here: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines. I don't know how up to date it is. User:Howcheng usually takes care of the POTD and does the scheduling. Pictures appear on the main page more or less in the order they were promoted, and there's a long queue. Current estimated wait time for recently promoted FPs is about 2 years. Julia\talk 17:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Julia. I just want to prepare the blurb, without worrying about its appearance on the main page. EngineerFromVega 07:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The guidelines are up-to-date, but we don't have a "holding area" to put blurbs for pictures that haven't even been scheduled yet. It might be a good idea to set one up, but for the time being, I've gone ahead and scheduled this image for June 5, 2013. Go ahead and add the caption there. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Howcheng. I've prepared a blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-05. Please add/edit it as needed. This is my first attempt in preparing a blurb, so I might have made a mistake. EngineerFromVega 07:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead nomination

A nomination that I made, for whatever reason, never had any discussion whatsoever, and expired on June 8. Yesterday, I discovered the existence of Template:FPC urgents, and so I added the nomination page. However, as of today, there are still no !votes. I realize that this is likely because of: Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2012 at 02:21:21 (UTC)

It's unfair that a nomination can be closed without any discussion, and I'm wondering if there's any way to revive it.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason the nomination has been ignored is because you never transcluded it to the nomination page: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Transclusion was listed as "step 3" when you created the nomination. You need to either create a dummy nomination and copy the timer (looks like this {{FPCnom/VotingEnds|1342402306}}) to your existing nomination and then transclude it (and request for the dummy to be deleted), or you can just create a new nomination and I'll take care of archiving the old one. (Alternatively, as your user page advertises some coding and technical experience, you could reset the timer on your nomination yourself by using a Unix converter to get the new closing date. Nominations last for nine days.) Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense! Julia\talk 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change size critiera

In the above discussion, those wanting change felt the current criteria were ambiguous (the "or" in the size requirment) and also on the low side: no longer reflecting what most people regard as "high resolution" or "high technical standard". This proposal is to change the featured picture criteria (like this). In other words:

  • Change the minimum-size sentence from
"Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred"
"Still images should have a minimum of 2 MP with the shorter dimension greater than 1000 pixels; larger sizes are preferred"
This should encourage HD or greater images. It drops the "generally" from the preference as it is redundant.
  • Change the
"Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired."
"Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical, difficult or unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired."
The "otherwise" wasn't adding anything. Some pictures (such as distant birds) are generally substantially cropped and may find it hard to reach 2MP so these are allowed for in the "difficult" get-out.
  • Drop the
"Panoramas need to be substantially larger than 1000 pixels in the longer dimension in order for sufficient details to be seen."
clause. This is no longer necessary as the above would require any panorama-shaped image to have 2000 pixels in the longer dimension.

This is not more complex that we have already. We previously had two size clauses (one explicitly for panoramas) and we still have two size clauses (one implicitly for panormas -- as you need a 2:1 ratio to hit the "shorter dimension greater than 1000 pixels" issue if you satisfy 2MP). If folk want it simplified more then we could drop the 1000px limit and just go for equality with Commons rules with a simple 2MP. That 1000px limit only affects panoramas and it is hard to imagine any such panorama getting support. As always, reviewers are free to support or oppose outside of these limits if they feel an exception should be made.

  • Support The current size requirements are confusing and embarassingly low. They encourage a "resized for web" mindset for uploads, which generates images that look great at thumbnail or preview but are not "high resolution" nor of "high techincal standard" nor not "among Wikipedia's best work" -- our first three criteria. -- Colin°Talk 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, although I would still prefer to see a minimum resolution of 1500px on the shorter side as it's slightly easier to identify the dimensions of an image than calculate whether a photo is above 2MP or not. Still, this seems like an improvement on the current criteria. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The consequence of 1500px on the shorter side is 2.25MP for a 1:1 image, 3.375MP for a 3:2 image and 4.5MP for a 2:1 panorama. Since all these values are >2MP, that can simplify the criterion to:
"Still images should have their shorter dimension greater than 1500 pixels; larger sizes are preferred"
I'm still happy with this, but is a bigger jump in minimum typical dimensions. Let's call the first proposal "2MP/1000px" and this alternative proposal "1500px". A third option, that I'd also support, could be "1400px", which results in 1.96MP, 2.94MP and 3.92MP figures for 1:1, 3:2 and 2:1 ratios respectively (which are approx 2, 3 and 4 MP in nice round numbers). Colin°Talk 10:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a much bigger jump, but not unjustified IMO. We've had the same 1000px as the minimum dimension for over six years. In that time, average digital camera resolutions have increased from 6MP to more than 14MP (extrapolating the % increase between 2010 and 2011, we could assume 2012's figure is about 16mp) as well as reduced in price. That's a 235% increase in megapixels in six years, so why not a 225% increase in resolution? In this space of time, we've come to expect far more high definition in our media, so it seems that we should reflect that in our 'best' images. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An average digital camera will not produce the quality required of an FP when uploaded at its maximum resolution. Samsara (FA  FP) 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what your point is here, how it relates to our size requirements (and any changes proposed), whether cheap cameras have ever stood much chance of achieving FP, and whether that is a bad thing. The "average digital camera" is today a smartphone and probably irrelevant wrt taking pictures at FP level. Have there ever been any smartphone FPs? There are some compact camera FPs, though the vast majority of nominations are from DSLRs. What does the second clause have to do with the size requirements? I certainly don't want to encourage folk to upload heavily downsized images, nor do I want nominations uploaded at maximum resolution to suffer from pixel-peeping criticisms (though this happens, regretfully). I do agree that compact cameras don't actually produce the resolution their MP label claims, and need to be judged (not uploaded), after careful downsizing. However, the actual resolution produced, and low-light capabilities, have increased substantially over the years, as technology advances. Similarly, the resolution and size of computer displays has increased (a 2MP full HD display is now typical for a new PC or laptop, and higher resolutions still are apearing this year in laptops and pads from Apple and others). The proposed criteria resolutions of 2Mp (or 3MP for Diliff's 1500px at 4:3) are so far below the output of the "average camera" that a substantial opportunity exists to downsample the uploaded output before judging, if required. Colin°Talk 18:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Even six years ago, 1000px from a fairly low-end digital camera was probably substantially cropped or downsampled. So nothing is changing there, we're merely shifting the bar to match the improved imaging capabilities of 2012. If anything, I would expect a slightly higher increase in resolution than what we're proposing if we're to maintain the higher standards of our articles that we expect compared to six years ago. Back then, citations were optional in practice and Wikipedia was renown for being full of POV and lies. We haven't quite shaken it off yet, but the reputation is far improved. So it should be with the quality of images we feature. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 1500px minimum side. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 1500px minimum. Most cameras nowadays are capable of greater then 2mp. Dusty777 03:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 1500px minimum on shortest side plus 2 Mpx overall, to prevent very narrow panoramas . Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
With 1500px min on shortest side, as proposed, it isn't possible for any aspect ratio, including panoramas, to be <2MP. See discussion above. That's one attraction of that limit: it keeps things simple and is very quick to test unlike MP which requires a calculation. Colin°Talk 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Quite right, sorry. I didn't understand that was the shortes size. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1500px minimum. Modern point-and-shoot cameras are diffraction limited when used at maximum megapixel count, and require downsampling to produce a sharp image. Reviews of modern point-and-shoot cameras with resolution-chart shots are hard to find, but the ones I found give an effective resolution for these cameras of around 2000x3000, regardless of sensor size. A 1500px minimum doesn't give much room for cropping while still maintaining a sharp image. --Carnildo (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It's extremely unlikely a picture taken with a point-and-shoot would ever make FP status, SLR is probably required for the quality we're looking for.... raekyt 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There are featured pictures taken with a compact camera that are larger than this minimum are are acceptably sharp. The proposed threshold concerns the uploaded size, not the effective resolution of the image, and we don't ask nominators to upload images at the diffraction limit of their camera. According to this and this article, a 10MP compact is not diffraction limited if it has a sufficiently fast lens, used open in bright daylight. And all this theory works in reality: a compact can take jolly good photos on a bright day. Anyway, the small-sensor compact camera market is dead: nobody buys them anymore because your mobile phone is good enough for snaps. Large sensor compacts, mirrorless interchangable lens cameras, and SLRs are the ones that are taking FP level photographs today. For certain classes of images (insects and birds come to mind), our implicit FP requirements of quality-expected demand a serious investment in camera and lens: so the argument that a £50 camera can't take a FP has never been absolutely relevant. Colin°Talk 08:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 1500px on small side. — raekyt 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 1500px, since the "exceptions" criterion is sufficiently broad to allow us to consider the uniqueness of a slightly lower-quality image. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 2MP only. 1500px small side is fine if you are photographing a static building, a willing portrait subject or a flower. It excludes some of our "best work" and causes systemic bias problems in other areas though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify that you are happy with the 1000px small side restriction from the first proposal above. This restriction would, in practice, only apply to panorama aspect ratio shots and is comfortably below typical values. Colin°Talk 10:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to make an allowance for less than 1500px on the short side in extenuating circumstances, as is currently the situation with 1000px. If the nominator is adamant that it is not possible to achieve better resolution (either because of downsampling or cropping) and the subject is particularly notable or difficult to find alternative images of, I think voters will take that into consideration. But to keep standards artificially low to support a minority of difficult subjects seems counter-productive to me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
1000px small side is fine (and roughly the de facto standard anyway). An initial step of 1250px short side would give a little over 2MP for the common aspect ratios of 3:2, 10:8 and 4:3, with more for panoramas. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Extenuating circumstances should be well defined in the rules, rather than a gentleman's agreement, which would soon be forgotten in the next generation of contributors. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to succinctly define extenuating circumstances, as examples could be endless. We want to keep the criteria short and simple, even if that does mean it's necessary to use a bit of common sense to interpret them on occasion. It would be up to the nominator to define extenuating circumstances as it relates to their nomination, IMO. Since you would be able to refer to the criterion that allows for extenuating circumstances, as long as your reasons were fair, no argument would likely be made. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Some examples would be sufficient to encapsulate the intent, in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem to give a few examples, but nominators would still have to justify the exception in their nomination, because it's not usually self-evident that the extenuating circumstances applies to that particular nom, and it wouldn't really cut it to just state that the minimum resolution doesn't apply without explaining why. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The only example from my work that I would want an exception for would be Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nictitating_Membrane, where the mitigating reasons are reasonably obvious (close up pictures of a tiny part of the anatomy of a wild bird). --99of9 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support either 1500px small side, or 2MPx, unless there are unusual mitigating circumstances for the small size. --99of9 (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    1. Is FPC broken? I don't see where high numbers of sub-par pictures are being promoted, which makes me think I am looking at a solution in search of a non-existent problem here. As a lurker, and a point and shoot and bridge camera enthusiast, it seems like this is only being proposed to limit who can contribute.
    2. The discussion focuses on what cameras can do, which is not the point. What's relevant is what gives pictures the EV that is required. Higher resolutions don't always make higher EV, however. This is clear when one considers photographs of animal behavior (taxobox images, where high res may genuinely help with species identification, are generally treated separately) or sports photography (where unavoidable motion blur may cancel any benefit derived from higher resolution). Also, no standard has ever been set for SVG images,or animations. For these, the equivalent of a resolution criterion would be an element number criterion, Bezier point number criterion, or frame number criterion.
    3. The idea that point-and-shoot images do not ever contribute to FP is false: File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10 edit.jpg. I'm sure an exhaustive search would turn up other examples.
    4. Claims have been made regarding point-and-shoot/compact cameras, among them the notion that they have been replaced by cell phone cameras - this is bordering on original research or point of view. As stated in point 2, camera abilities or the layout of the market is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. This is an example of some of the poor reasoning that seems to underlie this proposal.
    5. This proposal does not address the issue of what to do with the long list of existing FPs that fail the new criteria. I believe this issue must be addressed within the proposal, not separately from it.
    6. Flickr images: The last time I checked, Flickr had upload limits per account (in total MB uploaded), meaning people often upload images considerably smaller than their maximum resolution, often around the 1000px boundary. Most of these users have no awareness of WP's processes, so their contributions will simply be lost to the FPC process if the threshold is yanked up. Asking individual contributors for higher resolution images is not time effective, and in any case may occasionally fail because image material has been lost. Additionally, this can require OTRS confirmation, which is another procedural backwater in its own right.
    7. The proposal makes things more complicated by introducing an additional megapixel criterion. I can meet the current requirement with my bridge camera, but the proposed one is confusing and unobtainable now for me.
    8. In addition to leaving room for individual preferences in terms of downsampling due to noise, room must be made for cropping, and JJ Harrison has highlighted the example of photographs of moving objects as being problematic with respect to the proposal.
    9. The new uniqueness criterion is so unspecific, it is sure to cause problems. Any image could now claim some sort of uniqueness, which is not going to help the process, but instead lead to endless discussions, consternation, and feelings of bitterness between contributors and reviewers. I have extreme misgivings about the possible motivations for including this criterion, and strongly suggest that anyone whose support for the motion relies on its inclusion to reconsider, as this criterion seems highly likely to be removed or replaced due to its ambiguity.
    10. I don't believe that creating more exclusive criteria encourages contribution. Instead, it reinforces the impression that FPC is a club, and this proposed change is consistent with the notion that FPC is a vehicle for regulars to obtain front page views for their pictures. In support of this, It seems that no significant new regular FP photographers have emerged for quite a while. If anything needs addressing right now, it's encouraging wider contribution, rather than making restrictive changes to the criteria.
    11. The answer to a lot of these issues raised so far, seems to be, "well if the photo is really good, we'll just make an exception." It is far more sensible to just have criteria that don't NEED exceptions, "exceptions" being another vague term and procedural nightmare to cope with. This is again asking for the same problems as will arise with the word "unique".
    • It's probably a good idea to keep the replies separated below, rather than cutting up the comment. Thank you. breathe | inhale 13:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with most of the arguments made by Carnildo, breathe and JJ Harrison. Particularly the problem of systemic bias would be elevated by this huge hike in requirement (four- or five-fold based on 4:3 or 3:2 ratios) - camera standards have been heavily misrepresented in this debate, and developing country perspectives ignored. Meanwhile, I'm sure the lens maker's industry association would be applauding contentedly at this implicit endorsement of expensive lenses that could actually deliver the effective resolutions recent bodies may be capable of, keeping in mind the need for case-by-case cropping. I'm also sceptical of the over-motivated addition of this revision (twice now) to the WIAFP page, and wonder how this reflects on the willingness by the individuals concerned to strive towards a consensus-based outcome amid significant opposition to the current proposal. Certainly, the "replies" given below seem rather pro forma and largely without real answers to the issues raised. Samsara (FA  FP) 16:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It's also just come to my attention that the proposal would exclude output from light field cameras - Raytrix' cheapest model that exceeds the criteria would set you back $30,000.[2] Samsara (FA  FP) 09:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it's relevant that it may exclude output from light field cameras. It would exclude output from any number of unconventional cameras which have not yet reached a mature level of technology, or which are fundamentally limited in scope. What you fail to mention is that while it takes a $30,000 light field camera to meet the criteria, it would only take a $50 conventional CCD/CMOS camera to do the same. As for your comments above, I think you need to recognise that the significant conensus was towards supporting the change. There were only a couple of opposers, and these issues were thoroughly discussed and for the most part refuted. I also don't see the point you're trying to make regarding developing countries. More than ever, developing countries have access to cameras capable of meeting the criteria. Given that the average megapixels of digital cameras has increased at practically the same rate as the increase in the required FP resolution, and the cost of cameras has decreased (this is anecdotal, I don't have any figures for this, but it's patently true), and the developing world is catching (slowly, but gaining ground nonetheless) the west, how can you say that we've ignored developing countries perspectives? It's been discussed! We've considered the resolution against camera capabilities already. We apparently just didn't reach the conclusion you want. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • You keep bringing up the same point that a number of us hold to be a fallacy, which is that a $50 camera can produce a crisp 1500px smaller side image, with room to spare for cropping. That's simply not true, and if we're really honest, I think we all know it isn't. I'm not sure that you've read my post on your talk page, so I'll just requote from Wikipedia's definition of consensus: decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. Please abide by that imperative. Thank you. Samsara (FA  FP) 11:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Samsara, your concerns have been shown to be false. There are FPs taken with compact cameras that exceed the new requirements. Cropping is a red herring. All of us, whether we have a compact or a full frame DSLR will at times wish the subject was closer or we had framed the shot better. Right now, I wish it would stop raining every bloody day. There will always be times when a great FP-quality picture is beyond us. Might be finances. Might be location. Might be the weather. Life's like that. Colin°Talk 14:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

breathe's big list of issues

I'll respond here rather than clutter up the main discussion. Firstly, I'm kind of surprised at your detailed criticism of very minor change to a process and forum that you are not in any way involved in contributing to. You've made only a handful of minor edits over the last 4 years and have never uploaded a picture nor reviewed one. How should we react to your concern at being excluded if you've never been included?

  • Does this "limit who can contribute". Not any more than currently. There are types of picture that require painfully expensive equipment to shoot well and there are others that can be shot by anyone with a modern compact. This is the nature of photography and indeed any worthwhile pursuit requires an investment of some kind (time, money, patience, practice...)
  • "Is FPC broken". Yes. I believe WP:FP is not only rewarding preview-quality images with a gold star but is actually driving down the quality of uploads by encouraging a resize-for-web mindset. The criteria penalise photographers who upload large sized images, who suffer pixel-peeping comments that wouldn't occur if they just uploaded a wallpaper-sized version instead.
  • "Is resolution an aspect of EV" Yes, in most cases. We're not reviewing the thumbnails in articles here. We've got so used to seeing tiny photographs on websites or tiny thumbnails in a paper encyclopaedia or travel guide that we forget that real photos are richly detailed and reward examination. Just as WP isn't bound by the constraints of paper for our text articles, nor are we bound by restrictions on how wonderfully detailed our pictures can be. A great encyclopaedic photograph of a person should be as informative as if you were sitting opposite them. A great encyclopaedic photograph of a scene should fill your vision just as though you were there. A great encyclopaedic photograph of an object should let you examine it as well as if you had it in your hand. Not always possible, but that's we we should be aiming for. Not down to 1280x1024!
  • "Do point-and-shot cameras contribute to FP". Yes they do, but in a very small minority. This change doesn't make it any harder franky. The resolutions proposed are still well below the output of a modern compact.
  • "What about existing FP". This proposal does not affect existing FPs. It says so clearly. We previoulsly discussed this issue and everyone agreed to leave them alone.
  • "Flickr". And why should we care?
  • "Makes things more complex." No, the proposal has exactly the same number of criteria as the current set. And Diliff's proposal has one less.
  • "The new uniqueness criterion". It isn't new. The change is to add "difficult" to the existing exclusion list.
  • "FP is a club/no new contributors". Opinion/wrong actually.

We have criteria for a reason. They aren't designed to exclude people but are designed to set some kind of standard to maintain and to aim up to (and now down to). WP has always given folk the freedom to bend the rules where useful and the image size rules are no different. Colin°Talk 15:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got my own responses so I'll place them here.

  1. FPC broken? I wouldn't go that far, but it is not optimal as a far as a benchmark of our best images, and what should be expected of Wikipedia as a source, is concerned. Besides, there is always room for improvement. Change does not always equate to fixing a problem.
  2. What cameras can do is relevant, to an extent. If every pocketable camera were capable of extremely detailed, sharp images, then we would expect that from every FP. But as that is not the case, we must set a benchmark that is both realistic and above average in quality. Certain cameras may struggle to achieve this image quality, but the camera model is irrelevant in our judgments. We're only discussing the full range of camera equipment to show what is possible and not possible in 2012.
  3. Who said P&S cameras do not ever contribute to FPs? I can't recall anyone saying so, but even if they did, that has nothing to do with the proposition to increase the minimum width of an image.
  4. Discussion does not need to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines on articles. Opinions are original research and point of view by definition. Again, the argument regarding phones vs P&S cameras is irrelevant to our proposition.
  5. You didn't read the discussion above, it seems. Although I can't blame you for not knowing the full history of the discussion, you are going to take some flak for barging in here with a long list of complaints when you haven't been involved.
  6. As Colin said, so what? It's great when we can harvest good quality images from Flickr under the CC-BY-SA license, but we should not be shaping our criteria around the limits of a single source of images. This is a policy to apply to all images (potentially with the occasional exception as per above). In any case, this 'limit' of 1000px images on Flickr does not stop us from using the images, only from featuring them. Is that such a problem? If they're not up to our standards, then so be it.
  7. You haven't mentioned what your 'bridge' camera is, but if you cannot meet the minimum resolution, then are you telling us it's less then 3mp? I'm afraid to tell you that it may be time to upgrade. Or just accept that your camera isn't particularly good anymore and keep shooting happily. Whether you like it or not, we, as the Wikipedia community, and as the broader global culture, expect higher quality images than in the past.
  8. Nothing has changed there. In 2006 when the criteria was first set at 1000px wide, the average camera was capable of far less resolution than in 2012. You still had to frame accurately and crop where necessary to meet the standards if your original image was not quite right. That's just part of good photography.
  9. This is also not a new criterion. Really, it exists to make allowances for images that don't quite fit the cookie-cutter mold of the 'ideal FP'. If it and the other subjective criteria did not exist, we'd hardly need a human being to process our FP candidates at all. We'd just have an algorithm scan the image for sharpness and resolution and it would spit out a pass or fail. This is not what we want. We require some basic minimum technical standards, and we want to then analyse the image more subjectively to look at whether it has the je ne sais quoi that we like to see in good encyclopaedic images.
  10. But as you've already raised, different pictures require different standards. Moving subjects often need to be shot with a slightly wider focal length and then cropped to suit. If we had the exact same resolution standards for tiny flying insects or shy birds as we do for panoramas, then we'd have to accept a lot of really average panoramas. As it is, we're proposing a minimum standard that the vast majority of subjects can attain, while leaving an allowance for really difficult photos in extenuating circumstances. Which scenario would you rather honestly? Is FPC all about featuring as many photos as possible, or is it about featuring the best that we can find?
  11. It is only sensible when all photos can be judged on equal terms. This is not the case, as per point 10. In any case, judging images on their difficulty, rarity and subject type has always occurred. Your opposition will not change the way this is done.

Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    • It is important to attract new contributors to commons, etc. Typically this often involves uploading an existing collection from another website (uploading a thousand images from the originals is more work than most are willing to do!). Many of those images in existing collections will be of web resolution. POTD can be a draw card for some contributors, and increasing the minimum size requirements does reduce the set of eligible images. Conversely, higher requirements and the hope of POTD may encourage people to release higher resolution versions too. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I still don't think we should hamstring our goal of highlighting the very best images by keeping the standards low just so we can attract existing external collections. We also run the risk of losing our impartiality if we start encouraging donations from certain sources on the basis that they might make the front page of Wikipedia. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • JJ, do you have any evidence that uploading someone's sub-HD-quality Flickr picture to Commons and promoting it to FP encourages the photographer to join WP and upload high quality images to Commons? If we're going to speculate, then I'd say this stands a better chance of achieving what we want:
"Hi JoFlickr, your picture XXX is amazing and would not only be a great illustration for article XXX on Wikipedia but is, IMO, good enough to be a Featured Picture. If promoted, it would join a gallery of great pictures and stand a chance of appearing on Wikipedia's Main Page to an audience of 8 million viewers. However, the largest size uploaded is too small. Could you upload a larger sized version?..."
I think the typical resolution of images scraped of other websites should have no bearing on what we regard as a great encyclopaedic image on FP. We need to shift away from regarding these as merely "significant additions" to articles (as our FP page describes them) but being encyclopaedic content in its own right: what makes a great encyclopaedic picture when you have no limits on paper size, screen size, storage space, or printing costs? A 1000px image is a bit like the lead in an FA. It will be well written, consise and tell you most things most people want to know. But we don't promote FAs based on just the lead and while a 1000px might look great, and be just large enough for us to appreciate its greatness, it is a shallow offering. Colin°Talk 07:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track

Well, as I suspected might be the case, breathe waltzed in, stirred up a hornet's nest and disappeared into the night (to mix metaphors), apparently not willing to discuss the issues he raised. As neither he nor anyone else has responded Colin's and my replies to breathe, perhaps we can reach a conclusion, as we're once again in danger of doing nothing due to stagnation in the discussion. It seems the only significant concern is JJ's regarding making an exception for certain subjects. I think we've covered that on the proviso that the obligation is on the nominator to justify the exception.

Anyway, there seems to be fairly strong consensus to change to 1500px on the short side now, and we've been discussing the issue (on and off) for a month now. I think it's time the change to 1500px was made as per the proposal above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on consensus. I don't dismiss JJ's concerns but they are best dealt with IMO by seeing what happens rather than speculating. This is a wiki, and as such works best by cumulative small changes forwards rather than stagnation. If it turns out there is a problem with certain classes of photograph then we can review the criteria at any time. Diliff, would you make the edit with your suggested variant? Colin°Talk 12:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. I've made the appropriate changes to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria and Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Image size. I'm happy for the wording to change if there is room for improvement, just getting the ball rolling. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Per my original proposal, I'd suggest we just drop the panorama criterion. Since the shortest edge must be 1500 and a panorama is 2:1 at least, then we're already at 3000 on the longest edge. Colin°Talk 14:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, agreed. I did think it was a little silly but thought I'd try to avoid rocking the boat... But you're right, it's self-evident, and always was if anyone stopped to actually think about it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be 1500px on the shorter side? Looks like it still says longer side. Am I misreading criteria or the discussion above? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice spot, I've made some adjustments. Is it clear now? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 04:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Respecting consensus

I'm getting frustrated that twice now the consensus of contributors to the minimum-size discussion has been overruled and reverted. The first time was on some technicality that proved unfounded. And the second time appears to be by one of the editors in the minority who is unhappy with the outcome. There is a clear consesus for the new minimum size requirements.

The few opposes seem largely based on supposed issues with point-and-shoot cameras, or even with gimick cameras (light field). Samsara raises the issue of bias if this rules out contributors from third world countries. We must remember that this isn't a bar to contributing images to WP. The only necessary requirement is that our articles and their illustrations be free of systemic bias. There is no requirement on us to ensure that featured content is representative of the world. Indeed, featured content is extremely biased. You'd have to ask JJ Harrison to stop taking pictures of birds to address that :-).

I don't understand this comment on my oppose of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plan B. In what way does it help WP to celebrate this fairly ordinary photograph of a guy? In what way is it among our very best? There is no justification for reducing the image size from 21MP to 1.9MP other than to be restrictive in the quality of what one contributes to WP. A preview-quality image of a pop star is useful to the article. Nothing more. There is no need to make allowances for our min-size requirement for such photographs. In what way is this "unique" or "difficult"? The chap isn't dead and the photographer presumably still has his 21MP original. Colin°Talk 10:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that Diliff has reverted back. Can I ask anyone unhappy with the change to the criteria to ask an uninvolved admin to review the discussion and/or start a new discussion about what changes you would like to make. A wiki works by moving forward. Not by stagnation or by revert wars. Colin°Talk 10:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Palais Saint-Georges for a recent example of systemic bias against high-resolution images. This harms WP because contributors respond by uploading heavily downsampled images to get an easier ride at FP. Colin°Talk 11:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted this on Diliff's talk page as well, but here goes from the top of WP:Consensus: decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. Please fulfill this requirement. Thank you. Samsara (FA  FP) 11:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Samsara, but this looks like playing with the words and gaming the system to me. There was a lengthy and thorough discussion, and a clear majority of FPC regulars have expressed their opinion in favor of the change. From what I know about the decision processes in small niches like this, this is more than enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I hold that this is exactly what they are doing. I've already mentioned that I find their replies to breathe's comments to be rather pro forma, as in, we'll pretend that we've taken note of what you're saying, but we'll just toe the party line regardless. You'll notice that I had anticipated discussion continuing, but things came to a clash earlier today when Diliff started trying to "enforce" (what a notion!) the new "criteria", and it was clear to me that that was the point at which to review the arguments, which to this point, hasn't really happened, but it seems that it will take another huge diatribe to elicit this (aren't we fond of those!) Samsara (FA  FP) 13:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice of you to assume bad faith regarding our intentions. I don't see how you could believe that I failed to take note of what breathe said. Both Colin and I responded in detail to what he said. You're mistaking 'pretending to take note' with 'disagreeing and explaining why'. As for the appropriate time to review the arguments, surely that was during the discussion, not after the dust settled and the change was implemented. You had your chance to continue the discussion. I'm not saying you've forfeited your right to ever speak about it again, but let's not pretend that there was no consensus at the time. To revert requires an agreed change requires consensus just as much as the initial change itself. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it would behoove you to stop being so childish for a minute. It turns out that I was prevented from participating by the fact that I was on a field trip and subsequently ill. So the "no deadline" document is highly pertinent, and I don't see how God has assigned you the privilege to decide what is beyond discussion. Unfortunately, I have to go just now, so if you really want further rants and counter-rants rather than plain admitting that the whole motion was a little overly testosterone-fuelled, you'll have to wait. Samsara (FA  FP) 13:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you're the one being childish. Anyway, given that for all of the discussion we've had today, you haven't actually raised any new issues in detail to discuss so until you decide to return and enlighten us, I still see there being fairly clear consensus on this issue and very little has changed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If we're playing WikiLawyer then how about "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". Samsara, your concerns about point-and-shoot cameras and light field cameras simply are not viewed as "ligitimate" by the other contributors. Those concerns have been responded to and I note that you haven't engaged in replying or in raising your renewed concerns at the time Diliff first changed the criteria. Instead, we've got edit warring by long established editors. You need to demonstrate that your concerns have a basis in reality. I simply do not believe that resolution (at the levels proposed) is any impediment to using a point and shoot or camera phone to take a featured picture. There are other factors that make such poor cameras a weak choice of tool, but given a suitable subject and suitable lighting, such a camera can take featured images. Nor do I believe that FP in general has ever or needs to start to take into account the limited resources available to some photographers. I can't afford JJ Harrison's kit, for example. I can't justfy shelling out for a 100mm macro either. That means certain images are beyond my means. That doesn't make me want to change the criteria so that a blurry smudge in the sky can be a FP bird-in-flight or that a barely visible wasp can be a FP insect. Colin°Talk 11:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the side in favour of the motion has a point-landing 2/3 majority. I'm not sure this is the time to be invoking the unanimity phrase, as it's pretty clear that this is very far from unanimous at this point. Also, as per my earlier comment, my concerns reach far beyond your repeated and sometimes contradicting statements about point-and-shoot cameras, it just so happens that they have been phrased very nicely by JJ Harrison, Carnildo, and breathe, and so I felt no need to repeat everything in great detail, but I do stand by my statement that the concerns have not been adequately addressed, and to be quite honest, I was shocked earlier to realize that you had apparently chosen entirely the wrong solution to the problem that you saw (and that I actually agree exists). Samsara (FA  FP) 13:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to elaborate on exactly what is still outstanding that hasn't sufficiently been responded to. I re-read your oppose above and I couldn't find a single new argument that hadn't already been done to death. You refer to the arguments of JJ, Carnildo, breathe, but don't discuss any details. As both Colin and I feel that we have responded to them sufficiently, perhaps you can spell out the remaining points in detail so that we can discuss them if necessary. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We dont' vote on WP. We don't just count up the opposes and supports, though this can be a guide. We've had a discussion and the minority who have opposed with certain concerns haven't managed to convince the majority that those conerns are either relevant, factually correct, or will turn out to be a problem. At times I do wonder whether some people just want to feature any old photograph that happens to be in focus and reasonably well exposed. Please re-read what "featured" means. Our best. There's got to be a threshold somewhere. And some folk will want that threshold at a different level from others. That doesn't mean we set it at the lowest. As for your shock, well, you're wrong. Colin°Talk 14:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Colin's apparent concern

I take Colin's latest comment to mean that the original drive behind the motion was an attempt to eliminate bias in favour of down sampled images. I would suggest that raising the resolution requirement is a very poor way of addressing this, as the problem is not with the criteria, but with awareness of downsampling, why this is to be discouraged, and how images should properly be assessed. It occurs to me that a template pointing to a "reasonably sized" version of an image would be a much better way to address Colin's concern. Any comments on this? Samsara (FA  FP) 11:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Colin makes a valid point, but I don't believe it was the prime motivation behind the increase in resolution. Of course a reasonably sized version should be appropriate, and viewing an ultra-high resolution image at 100% isn't necessarily the best way to appreciate it (unless interested in the details). But the increase is to 1500px because it is the minimum detail level that we think is appropriate for any FP in this day and age, assuming reasonable sharpness. Even a photo that was 3000x3000 would likely be opposed if it was appallingly blurry. Yes, more awareness of detail and it's relationship to resolution in a photo is needed, but that's not the basis behind this IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My comment about the bias against large images was in response to Samsara's raised point about systemic bias. This change isn't motivated by trying to fix that issue as it won't. The lax minimum standards we had/have/had/have (I can't keep up with you two :-) does IMO produce a standard that folk aim down to rather than aim up at. Which is poor for WP. I'm not against downsampling per se. Nor am I against folk uploading heavily downsized images to WP if that is the limit to their generosity or that they feel it protects their commercial work. I do think it perverse that we generally reward such behaviour with an easy ride at FP, and give a hard time to those who don't. My motivations behind this resolution increase are detailed in the discussion above. I'm not going to repeat them again.
  • Wrt your template suggestion, I'm afraid I don't quite understand it. Are you suggesting that those who upload a large image should also upload one downsampled to the resolution they would like it judged at? Or do you think the wiki software can produce one the fly at some arbitrary dimensions? I don't trust the wiki software to produce a decent JPG as I think they set the compression level very low. Colin°Talk 12:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not particularly interested in helping you right now, sorry. Let me know when things change from your side. Samsara (FA  FP) 13:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You're not interested in discussion to improve the experience for users, because it involves responding a legitimate question posed by Colin? What changes on his side do you require, exactly, in order to deign yourself to collaborate with him? How petty you are... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Did someone get out of bed on the wrong side today? --Colin°Talk 14:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • This kind of petty, childish comment is why I disappeared when I started my graduate studies. I used to contribute to FPC, but I see that the "it's my club and no one else can play" mindset has overcome any kind of rational discussion. Colin and Dliff have declared a consensus that doesn't exist, and now are resorting to insults. Just wow. Grow up people. pschemp | talk 16:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Did you miss the childish comment that preceded it? Or any of the others by Samsara earlier that led to this point? It is not just Colin and I that have declared consensus. You seem to have also missed Raeky and Alvesgaspar who have also commented on or reverted Samsara's attempt to change the it back, or the eight support votes in the straw poll. A majority of people agreed with the change and discussion subsequently stalled, so we made the change in good faith. Samsara is trying to take it into his own hands because he doesn't like the decision that was made. Calling FPC a club is a cheap shot and diminishes the work that is done to make it as inclusive as it can be while still retaining a structure that supports good image standards. If you don't want to participate, fine, but please don't come in here just to tell us what a bad job we're doing, then leave again. That's counterproductive. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
          • pschemp, that's a werid spin you've put on today's events. It was actually a good-natured comment towards a user who was clearly having a bad day in wiki land and frankly heading towards a block. We all have bad days. Colin°Talk 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Colin°Talk 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice on these two pics please:

1. Fluorine handling station (not yet obtained): [3]


Oláh György előadása 8299.jpg

TCO (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of advice do you want? They don't meet the size requirements for FP. --99of9 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fruit FP suggestion

Seeing another fruit POTD, it occurred to me that while there are many still life fruit FPs, one is lacking for the king of fruits. I don't have anything to offer, but maybe there's photographer who would like to take it up as a personal challenge to obtain, dissect and photograph a specimen. -- (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Help for first-time nominator

I created Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Olive ridley turtles today; it's the first time I've made a nomination for any kind of featured content. From a technical POV, did I do everything correctly? It's received no comments yet, and I don't know whether that should be expected or whether that indicates that I forgot to do something. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks good, the creator needs to be who created the image, not the uploader, so I fixed that. Usually takes a day or two for people to see it and think about it before they comment. Things work sorta slow here. :P — raekyt 05:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

FP local copy

An issue previously discussed during an FPC is being revisted at FfD at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_September_9#File:Girls_Generation_2012.jpg. Your input is welcome there. —Eustress talk 17:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture peer review

I noticed that there have been no comments at WP:PPR this month. Is it still working. I just upgraded from the Canon Powershot TX1 to a Canon EOS Rebel T3i, which means it is easier for me to take FPC-caliber shots. Should I just nominate things here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I suggest marking PPR as inactive. FPC gets a lot more traffic than PPR does, and there are times when an FPC will fail on the first try but use the feedback to adjust the image so that it passes on the second try, so I suggest that people not be shy about posting to FPC, there is no penalty for failing. If people want comments on pictures without going through the formal FPC process then it seems to me that this talk page is a more likely place to get feedback. Pine 09:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Or find someone who takes similar shots as yours, and ask them for their opinion prior to posting. As with articles, there can be some preparation one should do to an image to improve its chances, such as altering the composition, noise-reduction/sharpening changes, exposure adjustment, etc. One thing I'd recommend is buying Lightroom (it is much cheaper now, and cheaper still if you get an educational licence) and shooting raw. This gives you the latitude to to adjust the exposure (esp at the extremes), colour temperature, noise reduction and sharpening, etc at your leisure. If you shoot JPG then these things are more-or-less fixed when you press the button. That program is useful for organising your photos, etc too. -- Colin°Talk 09:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Excellent choice in cameras, Looking forward to seeing some more Chicago pictures it's been a while, lol. I was in Chiacgo for the first time last summer, lots of good things to photograph. Please though, if PPR is really dead, I'll be happy to personally review any/all of your images before you nominate and let you know my opinions on if they're FP worthy or not, and/or give you suggestions on how to improve your photography now that you have a good camera if I see any room for improvement. For an editor of your caliber I'm sure you're capable. I don't want to see this turn into how it was last time with massive amounts of nominations for photos that just can't pass.. ;-\ Thats why I offer you my time, limited as it is. — raekyt 00:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, PPR should be closed as almost inactive. Also it does not make sense as one can simply review the criteria or ask an experienced most --GoPTCN 07:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I should also add that upon the arrival of my Canon EOS Rebel T3i, purchased through the Canon Loyalty program for $511 + the exchange of my old Canon Powershot TX1 camera body, I learned that the Canon EOS Rebel T4i had been released the week before. Already want to upgrade so that I can use the 5fps new processor rather than my 3.7fps to shoot sports action shots in continuous mode in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Chasing the next camera model for marginal technical benefits is the surest way to blow your money, and doesn't reward you with the better pictures you might hope. Learn your current camera and be happy with it. (Of course, you should have gone Sony if you want fps  ;-) -- Colin°Talk 19:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, spend most of the money on lenses, they don't depreciate at anywhere near the same rate technologically or in value. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • After posting a notice at VP and getting no feedback, I have marked PPR as historical. Pine 06:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Serengeti Elefantenbulle.jpg

Just a note for people who are more active at FPC now than me: the current POTD is not in any articles, although I don't feel that's enough cause to start a delist procedure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar featured pictures

The two current FPs in the Bismuth article.

The picture on the left was recently promoted and in that FPC J Milburn and I expressed reservations about the similarity between it and the file on the right. The supporters generally held that the view, from what I can understand, that although the files were similar and/or very similar, this did not undermine the possibility of having both as featured pictures. Mr Milburn and I did not doubt that either file met the criteria if the other wasn't there but felt that it was impossible for a second file to meet the criterion Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. because the reader could learn these details from the other image. As I say, the differences between the images weren't argued by supporters - it was thought that they were similar. I would like to know whether similar images are now OK in general; so, for, example, two views of the Eiffel Tower or Taj Mahal from the same angle (assuming both have a high technical quality). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion for me and I'm curious about the result. I see two very different images. A good discussion and happy looking for all :-) The creator. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. if some users like it: I can take one more good and perhaps an FP image of oxidized bismuth in bluish tones ;-)
Well we could have a discussion about this image but fundamentally the issue is a much wider one – the FPC appeared to proceed on the basis that the images were similar. Going back to the case in hand, at the moment the article doesn't distinguish them, save for the word "artificial". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The images differ somewhat, but their usage in the article is pretty much identical; it's not clear that the old one offers anything that the new one doesn't. That raises real questions about its EV. (As an aside, Alchemist, I am a massive fan of your work, and I love both these pictures- please don't take my comments as an attack on you or your photographs.) J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey J Milburn, "... don't take my comments as an attack on you or your photographs ..." NO, I don't do it. The discussion is OK for me. And I don't like to discuss here. It isn't my job. My job is to take nice images. Best regards to all, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I've no problem for more than one FPs of same subject; but here it seems an update of the existing file with some add-on. But the old file is used in so many places including Book:Bismuth so I think it is difficult to replace them with the new one. Anyway I'm happy to support if anybody open a delist request. I supported the new one because I believe we should not neglect a new high quality work only because an old one already has the FP status. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment On Commons I was very much opposed to delisting former FPs when something better came along. I thought the process was needlessly contentious and really didn't bring value to the project. However, given the emphasis placed on the EV criteria here at en:WP, there really doesn't seem to be room for two FPs on the essentially same subject. Grandiose make a cogent argument on this point. The former Template:Former_featured_picture removes much of my concern regarding removing photos in an undignified way. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The other current pair of FPs in the Bismuth article.

Perhaps: I may not to take more then "one" FP image of the same subject ;-) ... ?!? Interesting ... :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, as they all deserve FP on commons :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes; it would be very unfortunate for me too. That is why I argued there (on the new FP nomination page) that we should take most care so that any decision should not hurt the feelings of the contributor, nor discourage them. Here we have no problem with the two FPs (File:Bismuth_crystals_and_1cm3_cube.jpg, File:Wismut_Kristall_und_1cm3_Wuerfel.jpg) which are very different, but File:Bi-crystal.jpg looks very similar to File:Wismut_Kristall_und_1cm3_Wuerfel.jpg and share the same "seat" under "Physical characteristics". Hope Heinrich will understand my point. Jkadavoor (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My views, which I partially expressed in the above mentioned FPC. Much like Alchemist-hp, I see a difference between both images, both of them showing different patterns of the crystal. To me both added to the article, which is why I supported the FPC. Now, that aside, I do think we should attempt to define how close to each other images can be to both be in a same article and be FPs. I do not think the same object photographed from the same angle should have two FPs. How different do the objects need to be? How different does the angle need to be? Do they need to be different to the average reader or to the trained eye? The latter one is likely the key one that needs to be addressed and added to the criteria. And in all honesty, I am not sure of the answer. That is what I'm here for. --WingtipvorteX PTT 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary for the issue of similar images to be dealt with in the rules. Voters should just keep the EV criterion in mind and oppose if they feel two images are too similar. This way it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- King of ♠ 00:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

on closing

I just noticed the small post-closure kerfuffle that erupted at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bismuth synthetic crystal, but thought it should be discussed here where it will be more visible. Though I didn't share his opinion about that particular picture, Milburn is absolutely right about the closure here. The whole point of having somebody tally the votes and comment, instead of just having a bot do it or some such, is to have a neutral person come in and assess whether anything weird has happened, or there's anything that hasn't been dealt with. Closers deal with issues beyond tallying up the votes all the time--for example, if there was a significant edit that came in late, or there was an inappropriate edit uploaded over the original image. We will benefit in the long run, by avoiding pointless and unpleasant arguments, if we just make it a rule and stick to it: voters can't close. Chick Bowen 15:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I must agree. That little incident at the Bismuth crystal nomination accomplished very little- if anything. A new rule keeping participants in nominations from voting could avoid any further incidents. Dusty777 17:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I do not object to the result- I didn't support the image, but the consensus was fairly clear. However, yes, I feel that Dusty was completely wrong to close the discussion himself. I'm not sure we need a "new" rule, as I'm pretty sure that this is a general rule already. I suppose clarity couldn't hurt. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's a general rule for everything. I'm mean, for XfD where closing requires reading and evaluating consensus - well obviously. But for what is in most cases just mechanically counting votes it doesn't appear to be well-established. But yes, I agree that such a rule would make everything a lot easier. -- King of ♠ 00:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought we had a discussion awhile back about this issue regarding letting participants close nominations if a nomination had been waiting for over a week to be closed. For nominations that have been waiting for less than a week for a close I agree that the better practice is to have someone close who didn't vote on that nomination. For nominations that have been waiting for over a week I think we can let participants close but the closes will be subject to a greater degree of review and discussion from others. Pine 20:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The tradition used to be that if you noticed a pending closure for a nomination on which you'd voted, you could ask (on this talk page, for instance) if anyone objects to you closing it, with a proposed outcome. You would then wait either for another to close it, or for seconding of your proposed closure. Samsara (FA  FP) 19:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture quality assessment

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago, we are running a contest this month related to improving WP through pictures taken at our event on September 29. It has come to my attention that I will need some people versed in assessing picture quality to assess whether certain image replacements have actually improved WP. Does anyone volunteer to assess our image replacements for propriety.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • E.g., the majority of my own contest related contributions have been image replacements at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Chicago/User:TonyTheTiger-Photos.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll volunteer to make those checks, if there is a list of pictures that was potentially put as the replacement somewhere... If you can accept that I strongly discourage a photographer self-placing their own images in articles, specifically when it comes to replacing existing images or putting them in info-boxes, since MOST of the time they're replacing a better image (it's sometimes hard for someone to be very self-critical). I'll be sure to render my opinion if an image is better or not that was replaced, if any replacements took place. :P — raekyt 04:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for volunteering. I will get you more details next week. It seems that the contest was only taken remotely seriously be a few of the entrants.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • What about banning self nomination here? I’ve no problem with self nominations in Commons where photographers dominate (and Wikipedia editors notice them only when they get promoted as a FP/QI/VI); whereas this place should be more for article editors. I don’t think it is practical to ban a photographer from self-placing their own images in articles even though sometimes they're replacing a better image (Further, sometimes other editors notice them only when they are placed in articles.). Moreover many photographers are article editors too. Banning self nominations will be a first step to discourage replacing existing better images. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It happens all the time, hopefully many are caught by regular editors of the article, whenever I see a bad image self-nominated here I go and check the pages it's on and see if they replaced something better with it, more often then not they do and I revert that change... I don't think we can ban self-nomination since the majority that occurs here is from very well known high quality photographers too.. we don't get TONS of crap self-nominations, or if we do get one it's usually a one-off event. — raekyt 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes; you're right. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that banning self-noms or self-placement is helpful though. I completely agree about the annoyance of good photos being replaced by inferior ones but in my opinion, it's not a significant problem caused by FPC as I think most of the self-nominators are generally only nominating photos that are genuinely high quality and of good encyclopaedic value. From my experience, many of the articles are simply not trafficked by enough people to get proper consensus about image replacement in any reasonably time frame. Often the only person who responds to a query happens to be the person whose photo is in jeopardy of being replaced/demoted, which is an equally problematic conflict of interest. I'm more in favour of Being Bold when it comes to image placement and if there's controversy, THEN bring it to the talk page. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Sounded like a cool contest, although I'd wonder the quality of pictures one could achieve in just one day, maybe some sort of month-long contest or something giving people plenty of time to plan and execute better quality photos. A rush through one day seems to promote more snapshotty photos than when you have plenty of time to execute a good one. Some thoughts for ya to think about. — raekyt 05:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What's this page about?

-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉TalkContribs 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It says what it's about at the top of the project page? — raekyt 14:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Have a look at the information box right at the top of this talk page. —Bruce1eetalk 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to nominate

Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate it, following the instructions provided on the Project page. However, I can tell you now that it is unlikely to pass, as it is below the minimum resolution requirements as per the criteria. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think I could do that without being logged on, so I was thinking someone else could do it on my behalf. However, if it's certain to fail on technical requirements then there's no point. That's a shame because it is a good picture IMO. (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You would need to have a logged-in user create the nomination page. It is a shame that the image is a somewhat low resolution. You may try emailing the author to have them release a higher resolution image :) Jujutacular (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I've actually already sent the author Flickr mail a minute ago. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Here it is:

Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg

--JJ Harrison (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I actually had an edit conflict with Diliff yesterday and just discarded my edit, but it would have been a remark that this is a very nice find. Great to have a decent resolution of it. --Dschwen 14:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I very much like this image as well. SharkD  Talk  22:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; now it is an FP at Commons! JKadavoor Jee 16:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on nominations

Hi, is there a rule that only people logged on and with accounts can comment on nominations? (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • To comment, not necessarily, but to vote, yes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, OK, thanks. I'll change it to a comment. (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Depends, we don't 100% restrict anonymous votes, but if there is ANY indication it might be an attempt to game the system, then it would be ignored, best to just use an account here, but it's not as cut-and-dry as Diliff makes it sound.. heh. — raekyt 14:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Even without there being an attempt to gain, on most discussions/votes here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, anonymous users' input is given a lot less weight, that's mainly due to the fact that those comments can't be tied down to one person behind the connection and anonymous users, unlike logged in users, are seen as having less of a connection to the community. Some of those points are disputable of course. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


I've made some tweaks to this to simplify maintenance. It's currently good until 2018, and should be relatively easy to keep updated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Any chance of a few more eyes on this? There hasn't been a single vote yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2 only (and 1.3)

Probably cause a stink, but I think the same reasoning why Commons banned featured pictures using this restrictive licensing, applies here. It's very restrictive, and effectively make's commercial use impossible for images licensed this way. Only reason a photographer would want to use this license is to restrict commercial use and funnel commercial requests to their pay-website to pay to use. This goes against the spirit of wikipedia, and shouldn't be allowed. A featured picture, something we're promoting on our front page, an encyclopedia free to use, free to reuse, free to publish commercially, shouldn't be featuring pictures that are effectively unusable in most commercial applications. See the commons discussion @ commons:Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_12#Proposal:_Change_to_FP_criteria_for_new_nominations:_disallow_.22GFDL_1.2_only.22_and_.22GFDL_1.2_and_an_NC-only_license.22. — raekyt 06:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

While I fully agree with almost all of the points you make, I think the argument that this is a concern of WP:FP is weaker than that it was a concern of COM:FP. Just to make it clear, Commons hasn't yet banned GFDL-only licences for uploads, but there is certainly a movement towards that happening at some point. The change is that Commons:FP will no longer promote GFDL-only images to featured status.
Wikimedia Commons purpose is to be an image/media repository that anyone can use (commercial, Wikipedia, books, magazines or some blog somewhere) and therefore it is important that the definition of "our best" should recognise images that fully meet the Definition of Free Cultural Works of such works that Commons is built upon. Wikipedia is similarly a Free content encyclopaedia, so reuse of our material should be just as free (for anybody) as Commons. But the purpose of WP:FP is to celebrate great article illustrations and less about the image as a stand-alone item. A number of people in the Commons FP debate thought that licensing concerns should be a matter for upload-policy only, not the featured review process. Their argument didn't win on Commons but is stronger for WP. I don't agree with that argument and am not opposed to Raeky's proposal, but I'm concerned this will just cause a lot of heated discussion and no clear consensus: as Raeky says: "a stink".
I believe that the best next step from the move made at Commons:FP is to review upload policy at Commons and then see if the Wikipedias follow. They don't always follow Commons in this regard: en:wp hosts "fair use" images and images with "freedom of panorama" concerns, which wouldn't be allowed on Commons. -- Colin°Talk 09:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, the threshold for consensus is often lower on Commons than on If you had a proposal here with the same votecount, it would have very little chance of being closed as successful. In fact, I was quite surprised at the result, and had I not voted (I was in favor of the ban), I would have closed it as unsuccessful. -- King of ♠ 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it wasn't a vote and the weight and validity of the arguments was a large factor in the admin closing. In particular, the argument that consideration of the licence isn't or shouldn't be part of COM:FP was effectively declared invalid: consideration of the licence has always been explicitly part of the COM:FP, and Commons licencing policy/guidelines strongly discourage GFDL-only licensing. So putting the two together isn't rocket science.
The issue of GFDL-only licences was a festering sore on Commons FP. Such images would not infrequently be opposed by reviewers, which was met with angry responses from the uploader, but no consensus per image. It was clear (to me) that the Commons FP community needed clarity over the consensus opinion on this matter. This is why I created the Commons proposal even though I knew it would be a heated debate and possibly make me enemies for life :-). I'm not sure the same conditions of to the WP:FP community/discussions/reviews and so think the best next step would be policy review -- and that's something lots of folk agree on. Colin°Talk 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify though. While I don't license my images with GFDL 1.x only, I somewhat symapthise with those that do because I too would like to control commercial use in certain circumstances. I don't fully agree with the idea of all our content being completely free. I think it should be free for non-commercial/educational use, and negotiable for commercial use. I understand that this isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. It's just my opinion, and I'm prepared to compromise for the benefit of all, so I publish my images with the suggested license. But I disagree that anyone who wishes to make commercial use more difficult is only doing so to funnel people towards paying for them. I think most people only wish to avoid commercial exploitation of their images. I see it as a bit distasteful that a big multinational corporation can harvest images from Wikipedia and use them to make massive profits in big advertising campaigns, and all they have to do is attribute and cite the license (potentially somewhere obscure, it seems). Not to mention that calling the images 'free for commercial use' allows lazy publishers to neglect to read the fine print, which happens frequently. Anyway, for all of that, really the point I was trying to make is that restricting commercial use doesn't necessarily equate to wanting to making money from the images, although I don't see how it would be immoral to do so. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see anything wrong or immoral with making money from images or with wanting to use an -NC (no commerical) licence. Wanting to control or restrict the reuse of our works is a fairly normal attitude and a valid one. For example, nobody thinks commercial photographers should give away their work for free or novelists write for free. It is just that both Wikipedia and Commons sign up to the Definition of Free Cultural Works which requires free reuse by anyone. Uploading images to this site, or writing for Wikipedia, involve a donation of one's work and time and talents. And Wikimedia don't think one's donation should come with strings attached.
The issue doesn't just affect commerical reuse. A medical charity using one of our images in a two-page handout would, to conform to GFDL, have to append three pages of GFDL smallprint to be compliant. A scout club showing slides of famous landmarks as part of a quiz night, would have to interupt the evening to ensure everyone present had a chance to read the licence terms. It is simply a ridiculous licence developed for software documentation and was only ever used by Wikimedia because there was nothing better at the time. Its continued use (as a sole licence) on this project isn't really compatible with its aims. Colin°Talk 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That's the thing though, some of us don't agree with Wikipedia signing up to that kind of free reuse by anyone, but we contribute because we value the project and there really isn't an equivalently successful project in which to contribute to so it's either put up or shut up, and we (largely) shut up. But IMO it shouldn't have to be that way, and I think Wikipedia would be every bit the encyclopaedia that it currently is even if commercial reuse was more restricted. In fact, it would certainly have better content as a result of more advanced amateur/professional photographers feeling comfortable donating their images. I think a few little strings attached would be a sacrifice worth making for better content. After all, why do we really care about commercial reusers? They're commercial, why shouldn't they find their content on the free market?
I agree with you about how impractical GFDL is, but all it takes is for the potential reuser to contact the photographer to ask if an exception could be granted, as commonly happens with my images even when the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is used. Usually I am happy to waive any and all restrictions if the use is reasonable. And I know that having to contact the copyright holder is a pain, which is why I think we should have more practical licenses that still respect non-commercial use. I know it'll never happen though. 'Tis a shame. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) It might just be because the definition of Free Cultural Works is modelled after the definition of Free Software, which came first. And with software, allowing commercial use is indispensible; otherwise, the free software community wouldn't have the support of companies Red Hat or Novell who contribute back to the community. But I agree, this analogy doesn't work quite so well with content, especially photographs, which are not created by constantly remixing others' content. -- King of ♠ 12:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The CC-NC licence is popular but contentious. There isn't a firm definition of what reuse would constitute "commercial". The classic example is someone using an image (or text) in a blog, which is supported by advertising. The blogger may think this is just a hobby and not commercial use whereas the rights holder may view the blog as no different to a news website like The Register or The Guardian. But I agree that allowing an -NC licence would open up a lot of images we can't otherwise get. It isn't always the photographer's choice: For example, a local zoo to me states that all photography must be for non-commercial use and charge about £200+ per hour for commerical photographers.
My understanding is that allowing an -NC licence on Wikipedia isn't legal given the share-alike terms of the existing licences. So there's no way Wikimedia can change this, even if they were inclined to (which they are not).
The "contact the photographer" problem is huge, though, and part of the reason why CC licences were developed: so a reuser does't have to ask for permission. If any of us one day throws a hissy fit and leaves (or expires through natural causes) then there would be nobody to ask. Commercial photographers have agencies and the like to handle such requests, and permission can be dealt with and charged for long after the photographer has breathed his last. Colin°Talk 13:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I see your point regarding what constitutes non-commercial, but to be honest I'm not particularly concerned by the hobbyist blogger and whether he can use my photos without asking permission. ;-) I'm contributing primarily to benefit Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons, but the suggested upload location is Commons. And since there's no significant difference in what licenses are acceptable between Commons and Wikipedia, there's no additional advantage to uploading to Wikipedia anyhow. It seems to me that part of the problem is the shared goals of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons when really they serve completely different purposes. As for the consequences of using the share-alike licences alongside NC images, well that's quite a web they've got themselves caught in. :-) I'd like to think they knew what they were doing when the first conceived of using the licenses, but part of me wonders if some of the legal consequences have only been discovered as Wikipedia developed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel that FPC, either here or on Commons, has any business declaring things not really free when they are still widely considered free by the community. Until the rules on the site are changed, I don't think we should be changing our rules. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it does seem like the aim is to try to change the site rules by proxy - starting with the Featured Pictures project, which drives a lot of the contributions to both Wikipedia and Commons. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well here's the difference between WP and Commons. Because on Commons, the GFDL-as-sole-licence hasn't been considered really free for quite some time. All of the image policy and guideline pages ask uploaders to not use GFDL-only in the strongest possible terms. What Commons has't yet got round to is actually banning this practice. Whereas on WP, the image use policy says "For a list of possible licenses which are considered "free enough" for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags", which lists the GFDL without any warnings or protests. Whether that equates to "widely considered free by the community" is doubtful imo but certainly weakens the argument for WP:FP taking a stand. We all know that nobody chooses to offer GFDL as the sole licence unless they are trying to control and restrict who can reuse the work, and while folk may or may not sympathise with that, it doesn't alter the fact that it isn't what Wikimedia is about. Anyway, I don't think this proposal is going to fly on WP:FP. Colin°Talk 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • don't have much time right now to respond but I strongly feel that if we put content on our front page it should be free for commercial use, like someone printing a calendar with the image, that's not feasible with this license so it's a problem IMHO. — raekyt 19:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I really don't understand the screwy thinking that says we should be making donations to multimillion dollar businesses. It's utterly contemptible. As with a few of the others who have commented here I have donated hundreds of photos to Wiki over the years and these have been used throughout the world. In most cases I have no problems with their use. Nearly all are GFDL licensed and I use that to try to maintain a minuscule modicum of control over the images, although this is fairly ineffective. I know of many cases where people have freely appropriated my images totally ignoring all licensing requirements, not asking for permission, not attributing me as the creator, nor displaying the appropriate license, and there are undoubtedly countless more of which I don't know. I have not the time, energy, or inclination to pursue these.
However I have also received many requests for re-use of my images, and as with Diliff and others almost always freely grant these, totally waiving any licensing requirements except perhaps an attribution as author. This especially applies for non-commercial or educational uses. For commercial uses sometimes I charge a small fee - put simply, if someone's making money off my images then I deserve some return. Most recently I was paid a small amount by an American author even though I offered him use of the image in question for free - he said he had been legally threatened by a big corporation in the past for a claimed copyright violation and was now scared of litigation so wanted to pay something to make sure things were legally clear (yep, these are the type of corporations who go after small time writers and artists that you want us to be donating our work to. Talk about double standards. Sheesh!).
As I said above the GFDL license is just a way to try to maintain a tiny bit of control. Simply there are some people I don't want using my images. I would not for example grant free use of my images for 'educational' uses (read anti-educational uses) for things such as a neo-nazi tract, a creationist tome, or the work of a climate change denialist. I would also not sell my images to these people. Having said which I have allowed free use for an almost certainly fundamentalist christian book about the life of Jesus, but in this case it was the licensing that allowed me to determine whether the usage sounded to be offensive in nature or not, i.e., at least I was able to make the decision. Similarly I would not sell my images to the tobacco industry or environmentally destructive corporations for use in their advertising or propaganda, even if they offered me hundreds of dollars. Again using the GFDL license gives me a small amount of protection against this. Yet you would have us giving all our work away to these morally bankrupt concerns without an even vague way of controlling it. This is bizarre.
I'm not just talking hypotheticals either. About a year ago I found an image by a former prolific Wiki picture contributor on a rabid far right-wing ultraconservative website. I pointed him to the image which they had purloined without permission off Wiki. He was able to get them to remove the image, but only because he could direct them to the GFDL licensing which they had totally ignored. In your dream-world he should have no say in his image being associated with their messages of hate. I completely disagree. This sort of nonsense if what drives people away from this place. --jjron (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Please don't characterise other folks opinions as "screwy thinking". Just as with politics and religion, intelligent people can hold opposing views without insulting one another. Not everyone agrees with your stance that "if someone's making money off my images then I deserve some return". Writing or taking pictures for Wikipedia is supposed to be a donation, no strings attached. The folk that created the GFDL, like the folk behind Wikipedia and Commons, wanted their work used without restrictions on who could use it. The GFDL was never intended as a NC licence nor one where photographers could pick and choose reuse based on ethical or religious discrimination. The GNU/Linux OS is a classic example of freely donated work that is used by everyone from the big bad banks, tobacco firms as well as medical and relief charities. Your browser is probably free and you are free to use it for reading an encyclopaedia or watching porn or reading scripture or chatting with your friends. Samsung and Apple make billions from selling you phones based on free software. My point is that plenty folk are happy to craft something and make it free to use, reuse and no strings attached. It is just as valid a choice as to say you want total control over who uses your images, though it does sound like this choice is making you unhappy and angry. That choice is much more aligned with a fully copyright system of publication and quite removed from the foundations upon which this site and Commons are built. If folk want a "for Wikipedia only" licence then they should explicitly demand it rather than abuse the GFDL. It wont happen, of course. Colin°Talk 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Bangalore Panorama.jpg

Your comments would be greatly appreciated [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Bangalore Panorama.jpg |here]]. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a clear promote. Just needs a day or two to sort out the angles. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikipedia does Black History Month (a couple months early so that PotD can do Black History Month)

I'd like to suggest that this may be a good time to start thinking about Black History Month (February). If we can get 28 pictures that cover black history in all its variety, Wikipedia can do it properly.

The month is celebrated in three countries, the U.S., the U.K, and Canada, so we should try to cover each of them, but I don't think we should limit ourselves to them - Black History goes back a long way, after all, and I see no reason whatsoever to exclude, say, the Mali Empire, Australian Aborigines, or, for that matter, the history of the Indian Subcontinent. With that much variety in topics, it shouldn't be too hard to create a varied month. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • An entire month of black history related images? I'm not sure that it's is realistic to, at reasonably short notice, find that many images of sufficient quality relating to the subject (but I'm happy to be proven wrong), or appropriate to completely appropriate a significant portion of the main page for a month for this potentially contentious cause. Also, you say that it's celebrated in the UK, but the Black History Month article says it's celebrated in October here, not February. Not that it really broke into the mainstream as far as I am aware. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I did try to find when it was celebrated over here in the article, couldn't find it, so presumed it was the same month as the others. Given it's in the lead, not sure how I missed that. Anyway, I do think that trying to improve systemic bias is a useful goal, and if this helps fix that, why not? I bet I can do half a month by myself. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe you could fulfill that claim, so I won't bet against you. However, can the main page really handle a whole month without any pictures of birds? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It is an interesting idea to have thematic periods in our POTD. But one month is really too much! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe once or twice a week? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The irony is that by featuring only black history images for an entire month in an attempt to fight systematic bias, we'd actually be introducing systematic bias in the way we feature images on the mainpage. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Something "black history" themed for the first and maybe last day is fine, but I'm strongly opposed to a themed month. We don't have something Christmas related every day of December, and Christmas is an international holiday celebrated/observed by billions. Black history month is a distinctly American (and not uncontroversial) not-quite-holiday. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm with JM here, first/last day maybe, but not the whole month. Also this isn't the proper place to discuss it, it would need to be discussed at WP:POTD, although POTD pulls pictures from the FP pool, the FPC is not in charge of or able to dictate what happens at POTD. — raekyt 06:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
One criticism of Black History Month is that it implies that the rest of the year is devoted to "normal", i.e. white history. This obviously debatable, but I feel like in this case, there is some truth: by featuring black-related pictures for an entire month, we might feel less obligated to include them for the rest of the year. I would support doing the first and last days, though, and I'm definitely in favor of any attempt to improve coverage of people of color on a more regular basis. Lesgles (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


I don't think this was closed correctly. Quibbling over a couple hours - when, thanks to the page being purged, the "do not vote" tag hadn't even shown at the time - is not good policy, and FP has never paid much attention to that.

If it had opposes, or was otherwise controversial, sure, but not promoting something with 5 supports and no opposes due to timing wastes everyone's time on renominations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree (not because I'm the nominator). There is no a real reason to fail this nomination at this situation, except of over-bureaucracy. Tomer T (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Bureaucracy is always used like a dirty word, but that's not what this is. We used to have lots of problems with inconsistent closures, where loose timings and closer discretion led to misunderstandings and unfairness. We simply have to be consistent. In this case, it was a support only three hours late. Next time, maybe it's five, and this nomination is held up as a precedent. What's another couple of hours? And then what's a few more? Next time, maybe it will be an oppose coming in only an hour late that sinks a nomination that was due to pass. What do we do then? If we ignore the closing time on this nom for three hours, wouldn't we do the same for an oppose after one hour? And why wouldn't we? Seriously guys, this is a slippery slope. Either we stick by what we say - that votes are not accepted after the nomination is over - or we have a potential mess on our hands, like we used to have. I think Armbrust made the right call with his closure. I know it's a pisser but it makes sense. Julia\talk 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, then, let's waste everyone's time and immediately renominate it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with Julia on this one. This instance would be setting a bad precedent. This can lead to the promotion of pictures that have not fairly been elected. The party who voted after the nomination ended really shouldn't have, knowing it's not really honest to promote a picture that did not pass after the nomination ended. Problem solved, not really an issue any longer, but I might as well add my two cents. Dusty777 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The FPC page is often a couple hours out of date if not purged or edited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone who never really supported the strict timings or the timer, I think Julia's right (in her argument about this closure, I don't necessarily agree with her statements about old practices leading to lots or problems or unfairness in the past). With the timer in place it should be adhered to, or you're heading for bush-lawyering down the track. Perhaps the saddest thing is this stink is being raised over an image that I'd suggest isn't even FP quality. --jjron (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


Any chance of a few more eyes here? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hey Adam, ever heard of this? Dusty777 01:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • As I recall, that's for the last day or two only, which isn't that useful if the votes are very slow to come because it's Christmas and everyone's busy, so you've only had one non-nominator vote out of four in the last week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas problems

As expected, there's currently a lot of images about to enter the extension without sufficient voting having happened. Can everyone make sure to look at the images listed in FPC urgents and vote? I'll try to keep it updated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
C.M. Gilbert. - John Hay, c. 1904.jpg John Hay

Holiday extension

If we're going to be strict about closings, I'd suggest we add 2-5 days to the timer over the Christmas period, when votes have tended to be much slower. This can be done relatively easily by a temporary edit to Template:FPCnom/VotingEnds


{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U }} > {{{1}}}


{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U|now+3 days }} > {{{1}}} </nowiki>

(for example). Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd Support say a 5 day extension maybe even 7 day, starting say this weekend until maybe the weekend of the 5th... reasonable to expect far less participation during these few weeks. — raekyt 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there is less participation, than likely there will be less nominations too. A notice at the top of the current section about possible lower participation should be more than enough. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • But that argument only really works if voters only vote on a predetermined number of nominations regardless of how many are available in total. I don't think that's the way it works at all, I think voters vote mainly on nominations that interest them regardless of how many there are, so with lower participation, it's much more likely that some nominations will fail to get enough votes (5) for a result. It's not just theory, this has typically happened each year during the Christmas period. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have no objection --Muhammad(talk) 15:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Effective immediately. The page, in terms of reviews, has been very quiet this week. Another 5 days would help ensure noms got the positive or negative response they need. Colin°Talk 15:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: In this quite period, it is important that folk review as much as they can, rather than just going "meh" and passing. Also, if you are nominating please review at least 5 other pictures -- it is only fair as that's what you need. -- Colin°Talk 15:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I kinda agree with that, I generally don't comment on pictures that I think have no chance of passing unless I really want to chime in... doesn't seem like a good use of time to comment on them. :P — raekyt 05:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. I've implemented this. During the five day extension, it's displayed as such:

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.

And switches back to the normal message after that five days:

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.

I'd suggest we go back to normal (by simply rolling back my edits to Template:FPCnom/VotingEnds) no later than January 5th.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to check, is everyone alright with all the extensions abruptly end sometime[*] on January 5th, and that all noms that were in the extension period end at that point? Better to decide this while it doesn't actually affect any specific nominations. =) I don't think that there's any point mentioning this in the template before January, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
[*] As soon as someone remembers to rollback my changes.
I did not see this conversation before you made the change, but I'm fine with it. It is true that contributions to this page are always down this time of year. Chick Bowen 05:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Adam, that is really not ideal because it means that pictures that are nominated later are going to end all at once which will be confusing at best and means that even with fewer holiday nominations there will be a backlog on January 5th (or thereabouts). The only solution I can think of would be to substitute the template on every nomination during this time and then stop and revert on January 5th so all nominations within the extension period are treated the same, but that's probably more trouble than it's worth. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion this is hardly an ideal solution because it mucks things up around the end date but it's better than having a crisis of insufficiently voted on FPCs during this time and the only alternative I can think of (see above) would be impossibly complex to do. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say the only alternative. We could do something like gradually reduce the length of the extension, at a rate of, say, 1 day out of every two. I can see an easy way to code that, it's basically instead of "now-5 days", you replace it with now - 5 days + (day of month/2) days starting January. Probably need an #expr in there, and you'd need an if to turn it off on the 10th, but it's doable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably not worth the effort, as long as we make sure on the fifth or whatever that no nominations are cut short sooner than they'd be regularly. Cat-fivetc ---- 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be possible to reduce it below the normal length, unless we really screw things up. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)\
Never underestimate the human capacity to really screw things up. The corollary to Murphy's Law, which tends to go well with this kind of human/cosmic nature, is that if there is a particularly important time when you don't want things to go wrong, that's when things will go wrong. Cat-fivetc ----
Well, all that needs done is wait until January 5th, then revert the template back to this version. Nothing else needs to change. Hopefully we can handle that safely. =)
It will mean that we have a lot of nominations to close when that happens, but even if we're lazy and take a few days to catch up, that's not really a major problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Note that if we intend on making this a permanent annual occurrence, it would be worth it to just code it in. -- King of ♠ 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Quite doable, but let's wait until after this finishes, so we can do a post mortem. I'd like to discuss exact dates a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. Regarding the actual dates, this is my opinion: There are 10 days between 12/24 and 1/2, inclusive. During the period from 0:00 on 12/24 to 0:00 on 1/3 (UTC), we pretend that time passes twice as slow. For example, an FPC begun at 0:00 on 12/15 should end at 0:00 on 12/24, just as usual. But an FPC begun at 8:00 on 12/15 should end at 16:00 on 12/24; an FPC begun at 0:00 on 12/24 should end at 0:00 on 1/7; an FPC begun at 0:00 on 12/27 should end at 12:00 on 1/8; etc. -- King of ♠ 00:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI

John Jay portrait by Gilbert Stuart and everything below it on the list ends at 0000 on January 5th. The next one up on the list, Ricardo Arjona at Managua, Nicaragua, ends at 0555. That is assuming I did my figuring correctly. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Dar es Salaam

Hi, an editor and I can not come to an agreement over which is the better image for the Dar es Salaam infobox. I have set up a RfC and as part of the publicizing, (and since one of the images is featured,) I thought I could ask here if FPC reviewers would give their opinions there. Talk:Dar es Salaam#Request For Comments Infobox Image. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we still good ending the extension on the 5th?

Does the 5th still sound like a good time to end the extension, or should we extend it another week? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It's an arbitrary date (then again what isn't) but hopefully enough people will be active again in time to participate. Cat-fivetc ----
What do you think about dropping it to a three-day extension at that point? It worries me that votes still seem a little slow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Adobe giving away CS2

Just a heads up to everyone here, you might well be interested in this: Gizmodo: Grab Photoshop and CS2 For Absolutely Free, Right Now --Fir0002 01:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Turns out, you can only legally download it if you own it a license. Without a valid license, you can still use it but it would be considered illegal :( --~~
Hah... Well if the reason for making the install files and serial numbers available was due to the decommissioning of the activation servers for CS2, then I can't actually see how they can know you're using it illegally? Seems like they've all but made it free, and they've given up trying to control access to it, so for all intents and purposes, it's there for the taking. I suppose the only thing stopping you is your own ethics, since Adobe likely won't be chasing you. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

FPC delists

With appropriate use of FPC urgents, we've actually been doing very well with all the noms. I think we've had maybe two or three not pass because of participation issues since the extension came in just before Christmas. Delist nominations, however, have a major participation issue. There's two, both have run for nearly two weeks (the limit), both are fairly clear-cut replacement-with-a-bigger-image things...

And both are horribly under-participated. We don't have actual rules for closing delist noms, but perhaps we should discuss how best to handle them. Personally? I'd say put


on them and shove them in with the others, but this could be awkward with closing and such. So, what should we do? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we do this: Have delisting nominations run initially for 9 days. If there are at least 5 delist votes or at least 2.5 keep votes, the nomination may be closed. Otherwise, keep extending the period by 5 days until the threshold is reached. (Note: I shortened the period from 14 to 9 days since a long duration is no longer necessary to guard against insufficient participation; it will keep being relisted indefinitely until the threshold is reached.) -- King of ♠ 07:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Or just have a commonsense provision for increased resolution and the like. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? That any current FP below the required resolution is automatically delisted without discussion?? -- King of ♠ 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I think he means that when the same image [usually a painting], but at higher resolution is found, one could expedite the process of delist and replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this really the version that became FP?


This just doesn't seem like the sort of thing Durova would do in a full restoration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting this up for delisting. I really don't know what's going on; maybe we can figure it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a minimal restoration of File:Racistcampaignposter.jpg, the border damage wasn't repaired but a bunch of the internal damage was. — raekyt 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
But Durova didn't really do minimal restoration. I can't think of any other example. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I would probably have (tried to) fix(ed) the borders as well, but it's possible that she felt uncomfortable doing so. Perhaps worried something was supposed to be there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This is one of her earlier restorations, which may explain the different approach. At any rate, I think we would judge within the context of all FPs, not just her work. Jujutacular (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
True, though it has a lot of issues within that context as well, mainly down to being a rather bad scan from the LoC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No description

I admire the art of Mbz1, such as today's green turtle swimming over coral reefs in Kona, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture for January 20

Sorry if this isn't the right venue, but I wanted to post this note somewhere where it will be noticed. I have an issue with the description for File:Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union edit.jpg, which is scheduled as the featured picture for January 20. The description, taken from the Library of Congress website from which the diagram is taken, says the picture shows "42 states and Indian Territory".

The diagram shows the 34 states that had been admitted by 1862, plus the nine territories of the time: Nebraska, Nevada, Dakota, Indian Territory, Utah, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. The description seems to be counting each territory other than Indian Territory as "one state" because each one eventually formed the core of a state. It counts Indian Territory separately, apparently because its name differs from the name of the state that was eventually formed out of it, Oklahoma. But the name of Dakota Territory isn't identical with the name of the two states that were formed out of it (North Dakota and South Dakota), not to mention that Dakota, Nebraska, and Washington territories included land that would later form the territories and then states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Together, all the states and territories on the diagram include all the land that makes up today's 48 contiguous states.

So the description isn't wrong, exactly, but it's rather arbitrary and misleading. I think it would be better to change our file description to reflect the situation at the time the diagram was made: it lists 34 states and nine territories. A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the file description. I'll note that the mistake seems to have come from the Library of Congress. Howcheng should be able to write the main page blurb appropriately now. Jujutacular (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

re-discussing/reconsidering the minimum vote requirement

I know this gets brought up from time to time and generally gets shot down but especially after the number of nominations that were closed for not enough votes recently, especially over the holidays, I think we really need to re-discuss whether we want to keep the five vote limit and extension rules as is. I can understand wanting to not promote nominations without a good deal of input to be able to accurately gauge the support level and the views among the people who watch FPC.

To use Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Acrocinus_longimanus_MHNT_femelle.jpg as an example (I have no ulterior motive for choosing it other than it was the first one I just saw), there's no reason why a nomination with total support shouldn't get a fair chance. Note: I did support this nomination but that's not why I'm mentioning it.

One suggestion that might work is requiring 4 votes, 2 of which are supports, which comes out at 50% support, to extend the voting period, and 6 votes, 4 of which are support (66.67% support) to pass a nomination either outright or during the extension. It could be a one time thing, so if a nom goes through the extended voting, which would have to be set at a fairly short period (maybe 4 additional days), and still doesn't have enough support it then fails. That's slightly more complex than the current system but in my opinion it would work a lot better.

The reasoning behind that suggestion is that there might still be some noms that just don't get enough support to pass but it would catch most nominations that don't get enough support initially and it would retain a fair consensus barrier to promotion both for nominations that don't need an extension to know that they won't pass and for nominations that get an extension and voted on. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to change it, let's keep it simple: Change it from minimum 5 supports to minimum 4 supports. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That will have a much more limited effect but I'd support that. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The lack of participation in a nomination can be seen as a lack of enthusiasm for the picture. The criteria states that the image should illustrate the subject in a compelling way. Considering that many of the nominations that ran during the holidays received plenty of activity, I don't think we have an issue here. Jujutacular (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
With due respect, there's no criteria for interest in a nomination and the basis of Featured Pictures and of Wikipedia itself is not what is popular, it is what is the best information, and the most important information that should be documented and spread around the world. Not garnering attention isn't the same as being unimportant and it isn't the same as having a lack of encyclopedic value and quality, both of which are FP criteria. The fact that people have been supporting, and in my opinion getting away with (as in not being challenged) supporting the flawed premise of disinterest equaling unworthiness is something I consider a failure on our part. Cat-fivetc ---- 08:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize that, somewhat ironically, if the three of us are the only ones who bother commenting on this topic, this discussion is really going to go nowhere because of lack of interest. Cat-fivetc ---- 08:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Juju though. it's true that FP is not about what's popular, however, we've always expected a 2/3 majority and a decent amount of participation to ensure that only the best images are selected. If we accept a 1/2 majority and only 4 votes, it is opening the door to more gaming. It would then only take the nominator and one friend, sympathiser or co-nominator to pass, if interest is low. And in addition what Juju said above, I think low interest in a nomination is an indication that if people were compelled to vote instead just ignore the nom as seems to happen, they'd probably oppose it. Whether there would be justifiable reasons for opposition or just an 'I don't like it' vote, that remains to be seen I suppose. I think it's far better to just renominate if it fails to get the required votes (given a bit of time to let the dust settle) than to lower the standards to allow more nominations to pass. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's talking about changing the support required to 50%. My initial proposal would have made it a hard 66.67% support which would actually clarify the rough consensus that we require now. I realize the reasoning behind rough consensus vs a hard barrier is that we don't like to think of it as a vote but it may be necessary to change that. I don't accept that logical leap at all that if people were forced (rather coerced, since we can't force people to vote) to vote that they'd automatically oppose, that's a possibility but if that's the case then what's the harm in giving people the extra time to write a few words down? Unless there's a compelling reason like a ridiculous number of open nominations cluttering the page (which is hardly ever the case) then we should always default to allowing more votes rather than fewer votes. Cat-fivetc ---- 09:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You did say "One suggestion that might work is requiring 4 votes, 2 of which are supports, which comes out at 50% support", which sounded like talking about changing the support required to 50% to me, but I can now see that you meant it as a condition to extending the voting period, rather than passing it on that basis. It doesn't sound very easy to manage though. If we had a bot that could formalise and automate the process, it would be manageable, but I'm not sure it will work well as things stand. Also, I didn't mean that everyone who currently refrains from voting on a given nom would automatically oppose any noms that they were forced to vote on, I just meant that there would be some who are letting their silence speak for itself, rather than actively oppose. This isn't necessarily because they think the nom is uninteresting (although that may be the case in some), I think it's because there are times when people feel that if you haven't got anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • When we raised the min no of supports to 5, the no of participants was considerably more. How about allowing a nomination with 4 supports and 0 opposes to be promoted? --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    That's a good idea. I've always supported the notion of using net support rather than raw support to determine interest in an image. I would suggest changing the threshold to 4 net supports, which would have the effect of allowing in 4/0 and 4.5/0 (which would have been disallowed) and disallowing 5/1.5, 5/2, 5/2.5, 5.5/2, 5.5/2.5, 6/2.5, 6/3, 6.5/3, and 7/3.5 (which would have been allowed), while leaving everything else as it once was. I'd say serious deficiencies causing people to actually oppose is a bigger reason to not promote an image than slight lack of "wow" (especially given that this is Wikipedia, not Commons). -- King of ♠ 05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose reducing the number of votes required for promotion as I think five is about right. Also agree with all those who say that the lack of votes is often equivalent to a meh weak oppose. --ELEKHHT 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer fatigue

I strongly oppose reducing the number of votes, which is even lower than on Commons. Lack of votes is a "meh" indication from the community but can also reflect overload wrt nominations vs reviewers. We've currently got eight nominators with more than one nomination, Tomer T is in the lead with 7 nominations, Elekhh with 4, AXE and JJ Harrison with 3. We have currently over 60 active nominations. That's just too many for folk to reasonably browse and review. The temptation to skip images that are unpromising is high. Add to this the fact that many nominations are made almost simultaneously on Commons and there's an overlap with nomators and reviewers on both sites, and we have a recipie for reviewer fatigue.

I think we should throttle nominations to 2 active, like on Commons, and to keep reminding folk that if they make a nomination they should ideally review at least 5 other images. Both measures should help ensure every picture gets a fair chance and a representative number of votes. Colin°Talk 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

However, the throttling does hurt active content creators (who can easily develop an archive they can never get through), and particularly discourages those who know about a type of content from nominating other people's work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the point is to not be able to get through all images you might want to nominate; it forces you to select only what you believe are the best of the best. At least that is how Commons explains it. -- King of ♠ 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Which may be good in theory, but it restricts the best, most productive content creators far more than less productive ones. If person A makes great content about every 2 days, they'll be badly hurt by the restriction, whereas person B who makes great content once a month won't notice it at all. In addition, this is counterproductive to the long-term survival of POTD: For the past year, we've been running slightly behind the one-FP-a-day needed to break even, with 331 promotions out of the 365 needed to break even. Restricting the number of FPs further would likely worsen this situation. Strongest possible oppose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I don't believe there are any content creators on WP who would be harmed by this. Certainly some folk can mine Commons or Nasa or Google Art, etc to overload FPC but no individual has ever been that productive themselves. This is a situation caused by insufficient reviewer community. We wouldn't consider throttling if there was an oversupply of reviewers. Supplying the main page with unique FPs is absolutely not the purpose of the FP project so I'm strongly opposed to making things worse for nominators just so a few individuals can churn out FPs at a high rate. I think if we reduced the number of active nominations considerably, then we could probably then reduce the nomination duration or introduce rules for early promotion/elimination. Currently, the once-a-month nominator can get his nomination instantly buried by several other nominators -- Tomer T frequently nominates two or three in one go. -- Colin°Talk 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, think this is horribly misguided, and oppose. There isn't even good evidence there's a problem - with theexception of a few during the holiday period, we've generally been doing fairly well with nominations. Maybe 1 in 8 is getting closed with insufficient participation, a number that's comparable to FPC throughout its lifetime.
And, to show it'd hurt content creators, I shall provide a unique nomination, self-created, every day this week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proof content creators can beat out a 2-every-nine-days nomination cycle:

Date File 7-day wait?
January 10 Irish WWI poster - Is Your Home Worth Fighting For? - Hely's Limited, Litho, Dublin.jpg No, no other illustrations for article; obvious inclusion.
January 11 You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg Replaces low-res version, hence unneeded.
January 12 Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte.jpg Replaces low-res version, hence unneeded.
January 13 David Dixon Porter - Mathew Brady's National Photographic Art Gallery.jpg Replaces low-res version, hence unneeded.
January 14 Battle of Belmont, Boer War - Kurz & Allison.jpg Reworking of image already in article, hence unneeded.
January 15 All but done, however, due to RL issues, can't do the multi-hour upload process today. It can't be nominated today due to the 7-day rule anyway, so would've been noted and not nominated until later.
January 16 Official program - Woman suffrage procession March 3, 1913.jpg Not necessary.

Just to be clear, I'm just going to put in a bit of extra effort; I don't intend to nominate anything I don't think should be at FPC. I just feel that sometimes, you should put your money where your mouth is, and prove it. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment As I've been mentioned above as the second contributor overburdening the system at the moment, I just want to say I am happy to voluntarily restrict myself to no more than two active nominations. This is probably the first time I'm above that limit, and indulged myself only after a long absence from FPC. However I am against complicating FPC with more rules, so I don't think there is need to formalise any restrictive rules on nominations. Alternatively, whenever there is agreement that reviewers can't cope with the flood of nominations one could simply place a banner on top of the page asking nominators to restrain. --ELEKHHT 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This page isn't about nominators, photographers or uploaders. It's about recognizing quality content on wikipedia, and increasing the quantity of said quality content via a feedback and interest generating process. Also, more nominations tends to bring more reviewers over time in my not-so-rigorous opinion. Artificially restricting nominations is a silly idea in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Adam, please don't create and nominate a pic every day this week. It isn't puting your money where your mouth is, it is being WP:POINTy. Nobody has ever sustainably produced anything like that amount of content. All that will happen is total reviewer fatigue and you'll only end up doing another of your posts starting with "Any chance of a few more eyes on this?". The fact that you keep doing this, and nobody else does btw, just shows that reviewers aren't sufficiently interested to begin with. They might show more interest if there weren't already 60 other nominations crying for attention. Can I request that you stop posting such requests here. JJ, restricting nominations isn't a "silly idea" as it works very well on Commons and not is not an uncommon restriction in many competitions. -- Colin°Talk 08:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a reason there's a 7-day column. Some will be done this week, nominated next. I rather expected there to be more already, but today's is, and possibly tomorrow's, depending on which I do. In any case, you are aware that if I'm not motivated to work on images quickly, Wikipedia is likely to get far fewer? I don't see how that helps anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative to a simplistic restriction on nominations at 2, we could request that folk don't nominate another picture until any existing nomination has received 5 votes (of any kind). If the reviewers are keeping up with the demand, this won't be a problem. If they aren't then back off. I don't think this needs to be strictly enforced as a rule. It is simply polite not to flood the system with your own nominations. -- Colin°Talk 08:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think 'reviewer fatigue' is a real issue, but I don't think throttling the nominations by individuals is a particularly good solution. We don't want to discourage good original content, and we don't want to keep adding arbitrary new rules for nominators. For example I'd rather come here and see 5 good original noms by JJ, than 10 nominations from 10 separate individuals that were simply images copied off GoogleArt or NASA.
However over the many years I've been off and on here I've come to feel that the 'sweet spot' for total nominations is roughly between 15 and 30. Less than that and people lose interest and reviewers start to drop off. More than that and reviewer fatigue clearly sets in, with insufficient reviews, but also and probably more importantly, with insufficient quality of reviews. It shouldn't just be about garnering 5 half-arsed disinterested Supports because people feel obliged to vote, or because they have some 'quota' they need to fill because they've made a few noms. There needs to be genuine votes, and that may include contrary opinions and Opposes, despite the reticence many have to make them due to the far too regular paybacks.
In short, if there was going to be any throttling it should be on 'total' noms, not individual nominators (while 30 is at the top of the range for my sweet spot, you could give some flexibility and say 40 total active noms at any time). But rather than add new rules I'd really prefer to see nominators, especially regulars, having the individual commonsense to make these decisions for themselves and not flood the page, especially if it's already busy. --jjron (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

However, there is the other issue. As I told Colin, maybe this shouldn't be true, but if I'm not motivated to work on images at a certain rate, I don't. So if I'm being throttled back in nominations, I probably won't make more than the throttled rate. The thing is, making an image, uploading it, and putting it into an article is a completely thankless task, since one can't even be sure anyone has seen your image. At least if they're on FPC, someone's seeing them, and might be encouraged to reuse them, and, as such, FPC provides the needed minor reward that I can use to keep up the rate of work for Wikipedia, and, frankly, a few noms failing isn't a major issue, unless it starts disincentivising categories of restoration work.

Given how thankless shoving an image into an article can be - it's unlikely anyone will even note it exists publicly - FPC nominations serve a useful psychological purpose for encouraging more work, and throttling them likely discourages content creation rates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I basically agree with what you're say (including the point about how image work can be 'thankless' :) ). That's why I say I don't really support any throttling, preferring to rely on the commonsense of nominators not to flood the page. But if there were to be throttling then IMO it should be done on the page as a whole, and set at a fairly high limit (honestly, how often does the page exceed 40 active noms?), rather than being targeted at individuals. And as I say, I'd rather see good reviews than some of the half-baked stuff we get more often than we should that can result in undeserving promotions, especially as the 'fatigue' sets in. --jjron (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)