Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

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

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit

Commons images[edit]

Can pictures uploaded in commons be nominated or only those pictures uploaded in English Wikipedia will be nominated. Another thing is that if a picture in featured picture in Wikimedia commons then is it considered featured picture here, or any separate nomination is done here? --Rainbow Archer (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In FPC here you must have the picture in free copyright, i.e. CC-BY-SA or in public domain. Per Wikipedia file policy, those pictures are moved to Commons, which is a file repository by Wikimedia. Pictures featured in Commons are not considered featured in (English) Wikipedia, and hence they must be nominated for FPC separately. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@The Herald: That's not entirely accurate - there are a few cases where Wikipedia file policy either permits or requires the image to stay here, sometimes with a copy on Commons. {{KeepLocal}} and {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, for instance. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict:]

@Rainbow Archer: In order:

  • They can be uploaded to either here or Commons; uploading here, however, is generally for something like the Käsebier image, where it's out of copyright in America (which is sufficient under English Wikipedia rules) but not in its home country until next year, so can't yet be moved to Commons.
  • Commons' Featured picture process is its own thing, with its own rules, and any featured picture status there does not affect here, and vice versa. Commons generally ignores its value to the encyclopedia, English Wikipedia's featured picture process makes that arguably the most important thing. For example, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2, which would never even have a chance here because it's been manipulated in a very misleading way, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vivian Malone - an important historical image that would have no chance on Commons due to the compositional issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hope that helps! Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Echinoderms[edit]

Tried to rationalise Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others. Of them, two were miscategorised, five were Echinoderms, which I split off; the rest I organised a bit. We could possibly split off Nematodes, but, while it has four images, it's really only three subjects - C. elegans has two diagrams, which are a set. Seems a bit small. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


@Adam Cuerden: My nomination for WP:FPN didn't come in the voting list. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerial photo of Mount Everest from the south. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The nomination needs to be manually transcluded at WP:FPC. Regarding the image in question, it has been a FP since 2012 (in fact, it was one of my first nominations). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What's an acceptable level of graininess?[edit]

I hope this is the right place to ask. I've taken some pictures which I would like to propose as FPCs once they've been in their articles (possibly also once I've fine-tuned the contrast etc). The problem is that I took them with a Canon PowerShot SX410 IS, which is compact and has excellent zoom (which means I can get pictures of things that we didn't previously have good pictures of) but has a relatively grainy sensor even at very low ISO speed. Are images like these too grainy: File:Freedom Monument close-up.jpg, File:MS Romantika MOB boat.jpg? (To be clear, I'm only asking about image quality. Composition, encyclopedicness, etc would be for an actual FPC. I just don't want to waste people's time nominating images that don't have a chance). Smurrayinchester 09:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a shame no one has jumped in with a response.
The short version: my opinion is that there is too much "graininess".
The long version:
  1. At 1:1 (100%) noise/smearing is very strong, which can be typical for small sensor cameras.
  2. But, the files are 20 megapixels in size, and downsizing to the FPC min size of 2 megapixels the noise is tough to spot.
  3. A current FPC is very noisy, but it is historical so it may pass.
  4. Commons:Quality images could be a place test out if the image characteristics are acceptable, but under the "Noise" heading at Commons:Image_guidelines it says "Images should not have distracting amount of noise when viewed in full size"
Apart from the noise I love the images.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I'll downsize a little and see if I can denoise it a bit more with G'mic. Smurrayinchester 08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)