Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

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


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
Domine, quo vadis.jpg Quo vadis?
STRONG, Caleb (ABNC engraved portrait).jpg Caleb Strong (engraved portrait)


Shortcut:

Recent influx of new editors[edit]

I've noticed that, in the past two weeks, we've had an influx of three or so editors whose first or early edits were to FPC. It's rather... suspicious. Does anyone feel we should initiate a minimum number of edits rule, like on Commons? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I totally agree with this. We should have a minimum number of edits rule. I think brand new editors who's first edits are to FPC are not actually brand new editors but they might be socks of some banned or blocked users. Jim Carter 05:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Crisco 1492. National Names 2000 and Bryant2000 are especially suspicious. (1) The have a very similarly formatted username, (2) both make the same mistake by signing their posts (1 & 2) and (3) both of them are marking (almost) all of their edits as minor. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. There are more than three. And some them can be simply sleepers put suddenly in activity. Edits 300-2000 edits since 2006 - 2008 - well, that is not much activity. Hafspajen (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, the IP from England, that is not the same editor that used to edit from Canada. He, according to himself got an account. Hafspajen (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I am a new user in this page :P --Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support That is a reasonable thing to do. In Commons the guidelines read: Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per all comments above; I'd be inclined to set the bar regarding number of edits etc higher than those quoted as used at Commons though as 50 edits/10 days isn't a lot. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -50 edits is not a lot, perhaps more...--Godot13 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ten days in, there looks to be a bit of support. Any thoughts of using wording similar to on Commons? "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. All editors can vote for their own nominations." Or do we want to go for more, say 100? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say go with the higher figure. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Above idea and proposed wording by Crisco. A bit of experience and understanding of the project is a reasonable requirement. I also think that more often than not a brand new user who finds their way to FPC is in fact not a new user. I think the exception for nominators makes sense as it has happened in the past the skilled photographers have joined specifically to add their images. Chillum 19:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the idea by Chris. May be 100 or 125 (at least 25 edits in Wikipedia pages) can be the threshold with the account older than 25 days. - The Herald (here I am) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If they have edits on commons could count too. But a good editor can easily make 50 edits a day... 100 is very much only a minimum. I would put that figure much higher. Actually - edits per day would be ideal. X edits - in X days - as X edits per X days. Commons could count too. Hafspajen (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Dislike that Hafs. That's why I said for at least 25 (or more) edits in Wikipedia pages.  - The Herald (here I am) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Haffy, that's why there is a 10 day minimum in the Commons wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd still be inclined to set the bar regarding number of edits higher than those quoted as used at Commons though as 50 edits/10 days isn't a lot. The idea is sorting out editors and avoiding socks, I belive. They simply start editing 50 edits. They can go on to recent changes and adding 50 welcome-templates. Sorry to sound cynical, but my latest experiences kinda rock my fait in how Wikipedia is edited by some. It can simply boil down to one thing: there are editing rules but some have no problem whatsoever breaking them. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - with the restrictions that Crisco mentioned. AtsmeConsult 23:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Could somebody who is not involved close this? It looks like the consensus is perfectly clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:..Can you close?  - The Herald (here I am) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The motion is passed. However, the exact details aren't clear. The most consensus seems to be for 100 edits, 25 days, exception if you're a nominator. Are there any objections to that? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Though we may need an exception for self-noms, like at Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The rule has been added to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Header. If it causes problems, we can alter it later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I made an amendment that I felt necessary, to clarify that anybody is still welcome to _comment_ on noms. Samsara 17:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And though I realize this discussion is now closed, if anyone thinks that input from more editors would have been good to see, I would have been very glad to have chimed in (though in this case it would only have been to affirm my support for the exact conclusions that were, in the end, reached). Please think of me as someone "pingable" (not a word??) in the future for such things: am always honored to be invited to contribute thoughts in places where I know thoughts might be wanted, and Featured Picture business more than most. I just don't always know what's happening, that's all! KDS4444Talk 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

General question about streams[edit]

I have about a couple dozen QIs of streams and creeks on Commons that are in articles. It's obviously impossible to show the entire length of a creek in one picture since a) they tend to be long and not very wide, b)they aren't straight lines, and c) they are often obscured by forests and the like. It seems that many of the FP people are sticklers for showing the entire subject, so do any of these have a chance of passing? I have so many failed nominations that I wanted to ask here so it doesn't look like I'm disrupting the FPC process. --Jakob (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Crisco 1492: So some of these might have a reasonable chance of passing then? --Jakob (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lighting and other considerations have to be thought of as well. The one river was an aerial view, and the others had some really nice lighting. Flat lighting will have trouble. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Thanks for the help. I've looked very closely at a few of those pictures with a critical eye and most have minor technical flaws, but then again, they are all QIs on Commons. So, last question: is it common, unusual, or unheard of that Commons QIs fail FP here on technical grounds? --Jakob (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The lighting will likely be a problem. Any chance of going when it's not an overcast day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of my pictures seem to get burned in sunny weather, especially when there's water in the picture, like this, which is why I do most of my picture-taking on cloudy days. I do get lucky with burning occasionally though: Huntington Creek, Maple Run, Painter Run, Shamokin Creek, and West Creek were all taken on non-overcast days, IIRC. --Jakob (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your tips. I'll try to keep them in mind next time I go out to take pictures. I guess since (as I said) a few non-overcast photos managed not to get burned badly, so I'll try nominating them, starting with this one. It's sort of pointing towards the sun, but on the other hand, there's a lot of dense foliage. --Jakob (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Traditionally, our FPs tend to focus on stream features such as bridges. Including such a feature in the picture should considerably increase encyclopaedic value, which is the most important criterion in evaluating an image. Samsara 04:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate and support what Samsara is saying: although a good, technical, quality picture is the foundation of an FP nomination, in order to round up votes of support it helps a great deal to have something in the picture that makes the casual viewer go, "Ah HA!", something to capture the viewer's interest and make them think for a moment. Your image of Huntington Creek looks like it is very good technically, and also has some pleasant lighting and water action/ turbulence going on, but doesn't have what feels like a visual a focal point, a "thing" in it that brings the viewer into the image, that makes the eye want to linger over it— something such as the aforementioned bridge, or a waterfall, a rapids, a dam, a ford, a delta, an old fallen tree, a patch of water lilies, an old mill, a dock, a canoe, a hiking trail sign or path, etc. Is there something— anything— about a given stream that makes your image of it both encyclopedic as well as visually interesting? Because that becomes the stuff that FPs are made of! I hope this is helpful and if anyone disagrees with me here please say so, but those are my own thoughts on streams. KDS4444Talk 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you could get a greater field of view, to include both the stream and the forest... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting started[edit]

I'm venturing into a completely new area of Wikipedia, I beg your patience (I may be asking in the wrong area). I create article about historical recordings, and occasionally take pictures of the records from my collection. Does anyone think these have potential for featured picture status? For example: File:Little Marvel 2 sizes.JPG used on article Little Marvel. Thanks you! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • 78.26, for an FP of a record (assuming that's possible), a cut-out would probably be accepted. Like, File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png, except in higher resolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to say, I can't imagine that it would be easy to photograph a record in such a way as to make it both interesting enough and encyclopaedically valuable to be a featured picture. I think it would have to be photographically excellent in some way, not just a record on carpet shot from directly above with a simple point and shoot camera. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you both for your valuable insights. Being a record collector, I can't imagine anything more fascinating, of course. How do you feel a high-quality shot of a record label compares with say File:2006 American Buffalo Proof Obverse.jpg. Is it a difference in subject matter? Some record labels that pre-date 1915 are unusually colorful. I'm in a uncommon position to provide images of scarce, historical recordings, and I'd like them to be high-quality and of interesting presentation. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    That coin image should be delisted if its not being used. I wouldn't mind a well-executed record image, though the sleeves (if free) would be much more interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sleeves from that era tend to be plain brown wrappers for the smaller companies, unfortunately, or were often sold in sleeves provided by the dealer, which are interesting but not directly related to the record. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving candidates[edit]

Shouldn't all candidates be archived, regardless of the amount of votes they've received? I was surprised to see that this candidate was deleted Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl Reading a Letter by an Open Window - Google Art Project.jpg. – Editør (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The nomination was reconsidered by the nominator, and hadn't received any participation yet. In that case, I think it's OK to delete instead of archive. If someone else wants it nominated they can still do so. Jujutacular (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Achiving previous candidates is useful for future nominations. I don't think this withdrawal should be treated any different. – Editør (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It says the author requested deletion, which leads to G7, which is a privilege we grant and not a controversial reasoning. You may find it regrettable in this instance, but you equally should not let it stop you from nominating the file if you so intended. Samsara 14:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sandow returns[edit]

This got put up just before a flood of other nominations, and rather got buried. Could I beg a few more eyes on it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

5,000th FP[edit]

So what was our 5,000 FP? We apparently reached it, but I have no idea who the honor went to. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)