Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

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

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit


Should FPs be removed from the main page?[edit]

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon proposes that to be the case. It's one of those stealth proposals - not notified anyone affected by it, just going around and trying to give the illusion of some support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I have absolutely no expectation for that proposal to pass. It looks like something you'd see in 1990. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Somehow I got myself involved in a debate there. Oh well, I think you're right. There certainly isn't much support for it yet. I think they're entirely missing the point though. The premise of needing to deliver a page with a tiny footprint is based on the blog of a Youtube software engineer written three years ago about a story that took place six years ago. Internet connectivity in the developing world has improved considerably in that time, I'm sure, and they will continue to improve in the future. Also, Wikipedia isn't a search engine. Yes, it has search functionality but it primarily hosts content. If people really want to find an article on a specific topic, they'll most likely use Google and click the article link directly from there. And if they want a minimalist Wikipedia 'search page', there's And if they're from a developing country on a low bandwidth connection, they're most likely accessing Wikipedia on a mobile device. The mobile version of the English Wikipedia main page is already very minimalist. There's nothing in our current set up that stops people from accessing a minimalist search page if they want to do so. It's a storm in a teacup. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the footprint of the Wikipedia Main Page is way under the footprint being discussed as the size to get under in that blog. An ancient 2400 baud modem would take less than 20 seconds to download our mainpage; anything 90s or later should get it in a second or two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: BTW this is the same as Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview[edit]

Hi all, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's monthly newsletter The Bugle (along with Ian Rose), and we're hoping to run a group interview in next month's edition with editors who frequently work on military history-related featured pictures. I've invited several editors to take part, but have doubtlessly missed some people. As such, I'd like to extend an open invitation to editors who are interested in participating to post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2015/Interview by 14 August. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just curious ...[edit]

Vilhelm Hammershoi - Interieur mit Rueckenansicht einer Frau - 1903-1904 - Randers Kunstmuseum.jpg

... as to how [this] one got out front so soon. Sca (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Because it's in DYK and not POTD. Different parts of the main page with different processes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Doh! Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's cos I was multi-tasking, Sca darling. Belle (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, did you paint it too? While you were preparing cherries jubilee with your left hand? Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Have you been peering through my window again? Belle (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Na, man muss sich auch mal was gönnen! Face-devil-grin.svg Sca (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Machine de Marly graphics[edit]

Dpendery Appears to have put a significant amount of work generating a computer model of Machine de Marly. Machine de Marly was an incredibly complex artifact (for its time) built in 1684 to pump water from the river Seine to the Palace of Versailles. Dpendery's images are posted in the gallery on Machine de Marly#Description. I would like to nominate the computer model for Featured picture, but given that there are numerous views, I am not sure what to nominate. Should suggestions be given to Dpendery to improve on the presentation before an image is nominated? I would think that other views could easily be generated. Any recommendations?
File:Machineanim1.JPG, File:Machmarly3D1.jpg, File:Machmarly3D2.jpg, File:Machmarly3D3.jpg. As well as this aninimation on youtube
Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't comment on the merit of the nomination, but we do sometimes promote a "set" of featured pictures. See: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Star atlas. Jujutacular (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Criteria Changes[edit]

Good day to you all, Due to my life taking a quite unexpected turn towards insanity (not literally, but overall much more busy with studies and work), my participation here at FP candidates has dropped considerably (I consider it more of a hiatus on Wiki at large.) I now have the time to return and resume helping judge the candidates of a high honor here at Wikipedia.

Now for the meat of the issue. I notice the criteria states that the minimum is 1500px resolution. Is there any other major changes concerning the criteria, rule of thumb, consensus, closing procedures, delisting, or has all stayed relatively the same over the past couple years? If nobody knows, readjustment wont be difficult. But, nonetheless, any answers are appreciated. Thanks! Dusty777 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Welcome back, Dusty777. Aside from the resolution issue, we've combined delist nominations with normal nominations (but the subpages are still different), and enacted a rule regarding the minimum age of accounts before their !votes can be considered. The last one certainly doesn't apply to you Face-smile.svg. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response Chris. (I was unaware of who you where until I clicked your Talk page.) I figured most changes were relatively minute. Dusty777 03:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for potential change to voting procedure[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this, but I would like to propose a vote on changing the voting proceedure with relation to supports. For opposes, the requirement is there currently to have to explain why, otherwise your vote is invalid. For some reason this is not the case for Supports. I am personally very "suspicious" (maybe not the right word) of a few editors who seem to support everything, without giving a reason, and often in complete contrast to the previous votes that state quite valid reasons for opposing. While this of course is entirely their perogative to vote how they see fit, it looks more like they either haven't bothered looking at either the nominated picture and comments, or see something that everyone else hasn't... By forcing said users to say WHY they are supporting, this would at least help other editors make a decision if they are currently sitting on the fence...

There also appears to be an editor who seems to support 7-8 noms in the space of a few mins, on regular occasions, further making me wonder whether they are even looking at the pictures...

So how do we go about putting this to vote? It's a very simple change, minimal effect to the process (especially as most editors already provide reasons), and can only be of benefit to the project... gazhiley 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm for it, except what stops "Support" becoming "Support - meets all the FP criteria"? Belle (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If "Support" became "Support - meets all the FP criteria" then at least we will have a claim by the person as to why they support it. I agree that every opinion should be explained or disregarded. If some one just says "Support - meets all the FP criteria" and there is evidence presented that it does not then it should be given less weight too. Chillum 13:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
But that claim is inherent in "Support"; by implication what is really being requested here is that the closers weigh up the arguments for promotion rather than doing a simple calculation; I'd like that more but I don't know whether the closers will. Belle (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. I someone gives no reason then there is nothing to refute. However if a person gives even a pro forma reason then that can at the very least be shown to be incorrect. It is just like at AfD, it someone gives no reason at all then the closer really should not give weight to that. If they so much as say that it meets the standards without explaining how then at the very least the closer can check if that statement has been refuted by others, if it has not been refuted then it is reasonable to give weight to such a comment. Chillum 16:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying Belle, but in the situation where an editor has supported without checking (I believe this is happening) and they type "meet criteria", then if the other editors have proven it doesn't then it should be ignored... To the same extent why do we ask for a reason for oppose? They could just type "oppose - not good enough" but we still ask for a reason... We will never have a perfect system, I just feel that by making it a rule to give SOME form of opinion, we are 'more likely' to get a genuine reason/vote than if we don't ask... gazhiley 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't we like just discuss this a couple months ago? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Sort of. I was trapped in an enchanted fortress at the time; that's my excuse. Belle (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry Chris Woodrich, despite being a regular editor on here, I was not tagged in on the discussion, so was not aware of it... I would have supported the change clearly had I known... gazhiley 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)