Template talk:Featured picture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:FeaturedPicture)
Jump to: navigation, search


Shouldn't the image on the tag actually be a featured picture? The Mona Lisa image is too small to be featured as of now. BrokenSegue 03:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the Mona Lisa image because that painting is widely regarded as a masterpiece—people automatically think of fine artwork when they see it, and so it's a natural choice for Wikipedia's finest images. By contrast, I don't think any of our featured pictures have quite that level of universal recognition and admiration. --bdesham 04:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts with metadata box[edit]

You will notice on images like Image:Praying_mantis_india_2.jpg that the featured picture template overlaps with the box. The problem also occurs with Template:Wallpaper, Template:cc-by-sa-2.5 and probably others... However, Template:GFDL seems to scale properly to fit with the box instead of conflicting with it. I tried to fix it, however, I failed. So, if anyone could make it it work properly that would be great. The best example is here, which is Image:Wfm stata center.jpg before I added Template:Clear to avoid the problem... only the GFDL notice doesn't conflict... any help in resolving this for (all) template would be great. gren グレン 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to archive[edit]

I think the template should link to the archive of the image's FPC discussion, like the FA template does. Borisblue 03:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I second this. Every time I see one of these things, I'd like to be able to see what people said and how consensus emerged. This is very helpful with featured articles, since someone contemplating an FA nomination of their own can get an idea what the standards are. Shouldn't be any different with FPs. Daniel Case 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Former featured picture[edit]

Should we have a "former" template for pictures, too, as a courtesy to the creators? I ask because there is currently an active period of de-listing FPs. --Janke | Talk 07:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a pretty good idea to me. What about this:

subst of {{FormerFeaturedPicture}}

Featured picture star This used to be a featured picture, however it was found by community consensus to be not up to the current standards anymore. If you have an image of higher quality, be sure to upload it, using the proper free license tag, then add it to a relevant article and nominate it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschwen (talkcontribs)

Copied the section to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates please continue discussing there :-) --Dschwen 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the nomination discussion[edit]

I've always thought this would be useful. I just tried to add some code to the template to allow a link to an image's nomination, using an optional parameter which if omitted will mean the template displays as it does now, so that all the current tags won't suddenly break. However, although I managed to get a similar sort of thing to work on {{featured}}, for some reason it won't work for me here. Maybe someone familiar with m:ParserFunctions could have a look? Worldtraveller 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it, let me know if it still doesn't work. I'm going to try nesting the #if condition inside of #ifexist to check whether the FPC subpage already exists where it should, at /{{{PAGENAME}}}. Wish me luck! -- Visviva 12:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Someday someone will have to explain to me why FPC subpages are given random made-up titles, rather than following the actual image name. Bargle. I guess the #ifexist stuff could be taken out, unless there actually are some FPC subpages with sensible titles.
In any case, the parameter seems to be working fine now, see Image:Robal.png. -- Visviva 12:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the test for a candidate page that has the same name as {{{PAGENAME}}} works right. I'm not sure MediaWiki can even do that. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg, whose FPC page is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg. Still had to add the parameter. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


{{FA}} {{FS}} {{FL}} - this wasn't used anywhere - except one place where it wazas linked to as if it was the template I redirected it to - so I made it follow the pattern. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps a short documentation page would be useful here; there is no mention, for one thing, of the feature by which one may enter a different name for the nomination's sub-page. Waltham, The Duke of 15:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kmartis, 13 September 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}} change newspaper title to Boston Gazette

Kmartis (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be related to this template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


How about making Categories by month of featured pictures and say the timestamp on the template. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected[edit]

Can you add the following code to this template? {{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|2}}|delist|[[Category:Featured pictured promoted through delist-and-replace]]}}

This will help organize issues related to delist-and-replace.

Code was tested in the sandbox. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492:: Sorry, I made an error, can you change




I used the wrong format in the test. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014[edit]

Please undo this edit that was made without consensus that I object to. There is no reason that identified shouldn't be emphasized whether it is linked to a page or not. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg Reverted. (But it my opinion this was a beneficial change, as it looks ridiculous emphasising that word for no particular reason. So I expect that further discussion will support it.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Why would you put the word "identified" in bold italics if it wasn't linked? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would bold italicize it because it is a key word. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I would say the key words/phrases in that sentence are "featured picture", then "finest images", then "members of the community", then "accompanying article". In my opinion, "identified" comes in at number five, if that. Why do you think it is such an important word - so important that it deserves more emphasis than "featured picture"? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. S., it is the result of the implicit number one parameter. This gives it some weight, "featured picture" is already stood out from the rest of the text since it is a link, same with "members of the community". I have no issue with adding bold italics to "finest images", even though the phrase isn't apparently important enough to try and keep it on one line, and "accompanying article" should be linked. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I don't agree that the template code should have any weight on how the sentence should be bolded; the sentence should be bolded based on the structure of the sentence itself. If you ignore the template code, there isn't anything special about the word "identified" except when it is linked. That's why I changed it to not look special when it isn't linked, but to keep it in bold italics when it links to the nomination page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Then it shouldn't be bolded at all. Either it is an important word, or it isn't. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No logical reason has been given as to why this formatting absurdity should remain, and no further comments have been expressed. So I will re implement shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2014[edit]

Please replace

 {{#switch: {{{category|¬}}}
 | | no = <!-- Blank or "no", don't categorise -->
 | #default =
   {{{category|[[Category:Featured pictures|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{#titleparts:{{{1|foo}}}|1|1}} | Delist
    | [[Category:Featured pictures promoted through delist]]


[[Category:Featured pictures|{{PAGENAME}}]]<!--

--> {{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[Category:{{{category}}}]]}}<!-- -->{{#ifeq: {{#titleparts:{{{1|foo}}}|1|1}}|Delist|[[Category:Featured pictures promoted through delist]]}}

Currently Category:Featured pictures is used to display the actual number of FPs on WP:Featured pictures, and it wouldn't be good, if some of them could be left out of this category (which would make the above number incorrect).

Armbrust The Homunculus 07:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Has it been tested? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, now it is. Made a little modification to, and now it works as intended. You can find the proposed code in the sandbox. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay. Please feel free to check results once the cache has been purged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Face-smile.svg Thank you. Updated the documentation of the template to reflect the change. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Add top star[edit]

I'd suggest we add the following:

{{Top icon | imagename = cscr-featured.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:Featured pictures | description = This is a featured picture. Click here for more information. | id = featured-star }}

Every other piece of featured content, to my knowledge, has a top star as well as any other indicator. This will make things consistent. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added, per WP:BOLD. This change is revertible on request. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)