Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria
Deprecate waiting period
I think the suggested pre-nominational waiting of "at least 7 days", although not formally binding, is a moot obstacle to promotions (the rationale and the reason for choosing that week-long duration really evade me). Some images may be removed and restored back in the articles because of errors, edit wars, undeletions etc, thus disrupting the suggested waiting duration. In my view it's only important to have an image in the articles at the time of nomination. The current nine-day voting time plus main page queueing in the case of promotion are enough for an image to root itself in the article. As such I think it's time to amend the criterion #5 accordingly. Brandmeister t 21:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- This felt like a recent addition, but it's actually a year old. See discussion here. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like you've answered your own question - "errors, edit wars, undeletions etc". That's exactly what the waiting time is about: to demonstrate that the image isn't going to be orphaned a few days down the road. I'm not sure that 7 days is enough. I think 30 days would be preferable, given how little attention most articles now get. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Notification of proposed changes to criterion 7
There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Really_confused_about_captions to change the wording of criterion 7 from "caption" to "image description" and drop the criterion of succinctness since the image description ideally should give as much context as possible. This is just to notify those who are watching only this page and not the other one. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 Δόξατω Θεώ 08:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
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?15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)