Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria

Minimum size criteria

There is currently a proposal at "Featured picture candidates" to rephrase and modestly increase the minimum size requirements of new featured pictures. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal to change size critiera. -- Colin°^Talk 12:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Video

For clarification, it says video and animation can be "somewhat smaller"; what's "somewhat"? 1080p? 720p? A more precise guideline is needed, even if it is negotiable; "somewhat smaller" is too ambiguous. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing requirement

In a discussion on WT:CSD, someone pointed out a paradox between how GFDL-only images are treated between Wikipedia and Commons in regards to their respective Featured Pictures programs...

A GFDL 1.2-only file can't become a featured picture on Commons, but the file may be hosted there. On the other hand, the file may become a featured picture here (unless I have missed something), but it may not be hosted here.

Since the relicensing clause has lapsed, GFDL 1.3-only is almost effectively the same as GFDL 1.2-only, which has been banned by the community of the English Wikipedia. As such, they should not be given recognition. Thus, I propose this change:

4. Has an acceptable free license. It is available in the public domain or under an acceptable free license. Fair use images are not allowed, nor are images solely licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Any questions? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we explicitly say that a pixel count is not required for svgs?

Cirt You reverted my change.

What difference is there between these statements? Is what I said not a simplified way of expressing what was there before?

Before - status quo -

• Note that vector graphics in SVG format can have a nominal size much smaller than this, as by their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality.

After - my attempt to simplify -

• This rule does not apply to vector graphics in SVG. By their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality. Quality is still expected, but it is subjective, and number of pixels should not be considered.

We also talked about this on my talk page. I do not understand this deeply enough to see the difference. What difference do you see?

What exactly should anyone "note"? Is the note that there is no specific number of pixels required for svgs, whereas for other files, a specific number is required? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, the reason I reverted your change is because Crisco 1492 and Godot13 objected to changing the rules so fast. I happen to agree that the prior version is just fine. The prior version says: "Note that vector graphics in SVG format can have a nominal size much smaller than this, as by their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality." This is just fine. The problem is not the wording. The wording is quite clear. The problem is for some reason some people were finding the wording confusing, and I'm not sure how it is unclear. How do you think we can make it more clear? — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt Instead of saying "note (this fact) and (imagine the implications for yourself)" I would rather cut to expressly stating the implication. It seems to me that the point being expressed is "if the file is an svg, then disregard the rule about the pixel count, and also judge the file by other quality measures than resolution".

I do not find the prior wording clear, because without further thought, the connection between "files must be 1500 pixels" and "svgs can be scaled" was not obvious to me. I must not be the only one, because I was not the only one to make the demand that the svg be a higher resolution. When you tried to explain to me that svgs were scalable, I had trouble making the connection that what you were trying to express was a counterpoint to my request for a 1500 pixel file.

Since the demand is for a 1500 pixel file, I think this exception would be clearer if it said "a resolution count should not be made for svg files" if that is the intent of the rule.

Thoughts from anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just having trouble understanding why anyone would be confused about SVG files when it says they're scalable to infinity. I think that makes it quite clear, in the original wording, that infinity is larger than 1500, you know what I mean? — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt I think I would rather avoid talking about infinity or any premise and only state the conclusion. Alternate text could be

• Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit the requirement for any pixel count.

I talked this through with another user at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Trademark_with_limited_permission_already_granted.3F. The issue there was whether SVGs are allowed as English Wikipedia WP:NFC. One argument is that SVGs are low pixel images, but another argument is that they are infinite pixel images. Is it better for English Wikipedia to have small files of SVGs or bigger files of raster images which are made to look like small images? I would rather avoid the question and just state a best practice in guidelines that raise the issue. Counting infinity is always confusing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a change again as described above. The intent of the statement was to say that there is no pixel count required for svgs, and I wanted to say that explicitly. Cirt says that the count of infinity is greater than 1500, which is true, but infinity is also smaller than the number 1500. I would rather avoid counting infinity and clearly say that counting need not be done. If anyone can articulate a resolution requirement on svgs then please help here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable blurbs

There has been some recent attention to the quality of articles that the featured picture is in. The main issue is that the blurb accompanying the photo is properly verifiable. Since the blurb is written when the article is chosen for a specific day, if the article is of low quality, there is burden on the individual choosing the PoTD. Although the criteria currently state the picture must be verifiable, I believe that is more for information graphics, not for text accompanying the image.

There are a couple of ways we could deal with this.

• Option 1
  • Require nominators to write and cite the blurb during the nomination process
• Option 2
  • Remove the blurb from the main page, so it is just the image
• Option 3
  • Maintain the status quo
• Option 4
  • Add minimum article standard for bolded article to criteria

Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The quality of the article, in which the image is used, is currently not part of the featured picture criteria. @Amakuru: If an image only appears in unsuitable stub articles, than it should be placed on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, and the file categorised in Category:Picture of the day/Unused. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• 1 or 3 would be OK with me. Definitely oppose 2 though. The whole point of FP on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) is to marry high-quality pictures with encyclopedic topics. If we're just going to put up a picture with no blurb or encyclopedic context, then we're not fulfilling WP:5P1.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1. Why should POTD be the only section on the main page which regularly blurbs unverifiable material? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Or, even better, insist that the article for which the FP is nominated must be up to at least the standard that we require of ITN, DYK and OTD entries. That way citable material for the blurb should be automatic. This will create more work for the nominee, of course, but ultimately the point of WIkipedia FPs is to highlight the article concerned. Also we're not supposed to earn a "featured" badge without any work, and compared to a featured article this is still a low bar to cross.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  I totally agree with Amakuru on his thought. Earn your pay. The bar has been still pretty low for FP. Fiipchip (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  I, also, am in agreement with Amakuru on this. We generally have minimum standards for ITN, DYK, and OTD for bolded articles; standards that while they are below GA/FA standards, still require articles to be mostly cited, be free from orange- or red-level warnings, not be a stub, etc. We should have the same standard for the bolded article in POTD; while the focus of the section is on the picture, we also should not be directing readers to check out crap articles. --Jayron32 13:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  Well, pile on then. Option 4 looks like it needs to be written out. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  Added. Sounds like that is what people want to go with, so would one of you be able to word it how we want it in the criteria, and we can officially propose it via an RfC or something? Kees08 (Talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any reason we don't just adopt Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality as the standard for POTD? If there is a rough agreement that text is acceptable, I or someone else can put it up as a formal RFC. --Jayron32 11:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  The suggestion by Jayron32 looks good to me. As long it has a minimum requirement that we can be compare with, it would be fine.
  Option 4 added by Kees08 sums up everything. Fiipchip (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  That wording seems fine. Might be good to define what orange and red are in that context; other than that the criteria are very clear. Kees08 (Talk) 19:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, it mostly looks good, although we should probably go slightly stronger than one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, and not allow those tags at all. I believe that's the way it works on the ground at WP:ITN/C. As an aside, this wording would be good to incorporate as a general main page standard, not just for ITN. (Although that doesn't affect this proposal, since we're talking about the FP promotion process here, not speficically what happens when it gets to Main Page, and of course the article quality will need to be evaluated again when the FP becomes a POTD).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree no article should make it to the Main Page with a citation needed tag. But POTD seems to be the weakiest link. So raising the standard at POTD should be our main priority. Pinging a random assortment of contributors to the POTD guidelines and any other interested parties I could think of: @Howcheng, Gobeirne, Angela, Crisco 1492, Zzyzx11, Art LaPella, Stephen, Fish and karate, Sca, Iridescent, GreatCaesarsGhost, FR30799386, Killiondude, Anomie, and Alex Shih: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)