Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thanks for this

I'm glad that this page has been made. I'm reasonably new here, and I found it quite odd that there was no clear guidelines page for featured pictures, like there is for articles and lists. I agree with all the suggested criteria, and I can't think of any major ommisions. This was my understanding of what a featured picture should be, but it's nice to have them laid out. Raven4x4x 11:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the comments This link is Broken 20:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pleasing to the eye

While I find this to be an almost essential aspect to FP's, some people seem not to. Is it fair to include this in the definition of what a featured picture is? As evident in some of the recent voting, some people claim to only be looking at what the image does for the article, and not necessarilly how nice, beautiful, striking, etc, the picture looks. I'm amazed anyone would not see this as essential as a requirement of being an FP, but since we can't seem to agree on this, is it fair to include this "pleasing to the eye" aspect as part of the definition of FP's? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To your first question, Yes. To your second, Yes. My opinion on this is based on the criteria that states the image should be an example of wikipedia's best. All of the rules seem to be based off the best goal. HighInBC 22:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sufficiently high resolution

Are there any specific numerical guidelines for sufficiently high resolution? --Christopherlin 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nowadays, 1000 pixels or more is generally required for support. I also added some other, more general quality criteria to the list. Feel free to add, edit or expand as fit, as per past image & voting discussions. --Janke | Talk 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "images under 1000 pixels are seldom supported" mean? Is the text trying to say 1000 x 1000 pixels? abelson 11:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've always understood it to mean 1000px on the longest edge, but in any case, it's a very rough guideline and individual circumstances are always taken into account. 1000px is too small for a modern cityscape, but it's big enough for a unique photograph of a historic event ~ Veledan • Talk 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

I think which tags can be submitted and which can't should be explicitly listed, or at least spelled out more. Anyone agree? -Ravedave 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

N/m I was bold and figured out how to fix it. -Ravedave 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. This needed to be clarified. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the changes have clarified it. The situation can be stated fairly simply: any image whose license is acceptable for Wikipedia is allowed, except for Fair use images. I admit the old wording could have made that clearer, but your new version implies that people have to go and study WP:CF before they'll know whether an image can be nominated, which I reckon overcomplicates it ~ Veledan • Talk 18:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absense of further comments, I've had a go at making it unambiguous without sending anyone to read WP:CF. I've changed the links on public domain and Fair use to the pages which explain those concepts, and added a new link at the end to the list they both pointed to before. Feel free to revert if you think I'm off track ~ Veledan • Talk 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of "bad" examples

I added an explanatory line above the examples - feel free to edit or add to it! --Janke | Talk 05:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think the off center image is suitable, as off center can look good sometimes, and I don't think it's correct to limit composition to centered subjects. --Fir0002 www 04:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats true, although providing an example of what DOES look bad doesn't suggest that all photos exhibiting off-centredness look bad. Eg, showing an example of an image being overexposed doesn't mean that any image with overexposure looks bad. I'm sure its going to confuse newbies regardless though, as composition is notoriously subjective and can take a trained eye, which some people just don't seem to have. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you also add a well known copyrighted photo to the "bad" examples list to remind people that liscense is a factor for FPC-nominated photos? TomStar81 04:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we do that? WP rules forbids "fair use" on any page not direclty related to the subject of the copyrighted image. --Janke | Talk 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to do, the text should be clear enough as to what is accepted.-Ravedave 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed adjustment of criteria

I would like to propose an adjustment of point 8. A featured picture should not only "have a good caption" in the thumbnail inside the article, it should also have a decent extended caption covering the topic directly illustrated and (where appropriate) the means of production, for the image page and also for the Main Page on the day it is "Today's featured picture". Without some reasonable background information in a couple of lines of prose alongside it, I think we are depriving FPs of their full potential. For details, please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Mainpage caption as part of candidate nomination. Thanks.--Pharos 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Someone, maybe you, put it perfectly: The Main Page FP entry is just another Main Page FA entry: about a topic, not about the picture. Of course, not all pictures are going to have much more to say than the topic itself, but photos of historic importance, or paintings, or maps, or diagrams, should not simply have generic text that does nothing to highlight the picture. Should a diagram like Haeckel's get to Featured status just to have some generic text about how "Frogs are amphibians"? I'd rather the text focused on the frogs in the picture, and what was different about them. Bottom line: every main page FP entry should use the phrase "In this image" or "As shown here", or something along those lines. Right now, the text seems like it was written without the picture in mind, and the picture was stuck in at the last minute. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-15 04:53
• Can I ask that you please comment on the FPC talk page, as that's where the discussion is most ongoing. Thanks.--Pharos 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that someone has been bolder than I on this point. I hope this issue will be raised in future on WP:FPC discussions.--Pharos 10:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

New criteria added

I've added a new criteria to the list: Neutrality (borrowed from WP:WIAFA). This applies specifically to maps. I've noticed that some maps do not show the distinction between claimed regions and undisputed regions. This loophole has to be plugged. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

New Example Image

I destroyed an image and uploaded it to serve as a new JPEG artifact example. Anyone so inclined is welcome to examine the old and new images and offer their input as to which is better. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the old image back in. The old image's strength was that no zooming is required. I think they can co-exist. -Ravedave 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Maps as FP

I can't deny this is influenced by todays FP (map of india). Unless its for historic purposes - maps demonstrating how something was im very much against the use of maps as FP. It leaves the entire process open to abuse and will invariably result in contributors from most countries/regions including regionalised maps of their areas with vote stacking to promote (which id say happened in this instance). Today's FP tells me nothing of value about india beyond its geographic divisions, saying its purpose is as a locator map (re its discussion page) is an admission the map in itself is of little value until it has context put on it. A pictorial representation has been nominated to FP status (#5 Add value to an article) with the acceptance the map will be used in the future as a means of adding value. There is an inherent acceptance in that logic that it adds less value as it is than it will when its used properly.

A featured picture is meant to add value in itself.

Im dissapointed with bcasterline's decision and rationale, but its done now.

Does the rest of the community believe in a map exemption clause for future pictures? unless

• a) Its historically informative (maps of historic fiefdoms/nations etc)
• b) Adds value in itself rather than as a possible template in the future

As the decision stands it would be seemingly acceptable to include not only a blank template map of the UK but of every region within the UK and every county there after. What possible value would that add?

Zaq12wsx 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vote on this particular image either when it was promoted or now. But in general terms, if it's an excellently-drawn map, I don't see any problem with making it a featured picture. I also don't see why it matters if we have a hundred of them, though I doubt that would happen. I certainly don't think we should make exceptions for specific types of image. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have faith in consensus to allow the good maps through and others not. I am very opposed to a map exemption, a featured picture is a featured picture. To apply special standards to an entire genre of images is not an option I would endorse while existing policy exists that can be used to prevent the type of abuse you speak of, namely, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. HighInBC 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JPEG images

Are all jpg images not allowed to be FP? Because I believe Image:Solar sys.jpg should be FP, but I am wary about it being jpg due to rule number one of this page. I am trying to find the source to see if it is not jpg, but have not been able to find it yet. --WillMak050389 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is referring to artifacts caused by excessive jpg compression, not all JPGs. As far as I can tell the image you linked is free of them. IT s a good image, I would for sure submit it. -Ravedave 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is 1000 pixels enough?

I agree that if we are setting a minimun that 1000 pixels is fine. But, I have seen too many times people objecting to decisions made based on low resolution by yelling But it has 1000 pixels on one side! It meets the standards..

Perhaps we can reword this to say that while 1000 pixels along one edge is needed, that higher resolutions are prefered? Simply adding that higher resolutions are prefered stops people from claiming unfairness when someone objects based on image size.

What do other people think? HighInBC 22:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is what it said:

1. Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. Generally, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. Information on image size can be found here

And I have changed it to:

1. Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. Information on image size can be found here

HighInBC 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(For Maps) Be neutral,

It says: (For Maps) Be neutral

Should this not say(spelled properly of course):

(Especially in the case of maps) Be neutral,

If an image is clearly not neutral, this it violates WP:NPOV, the way the rule is worded seems to imply that only maps require neutrality. My understanding is that all images fall under WP:NPOV if they are being considered for FP or not. HighInBC 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It should just be "Be neutral" someone added that recently if I remember. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it a bit, I have left the mention regarding maps as it seems appropriate. If this is against consensus, please revert me after discusing the matter here. HighInBC 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maximum size

Ok, there is some talk about not choosing an image for FP because it is too big at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Orion_Nebula_mosaic.

The concern of some seems to be that very large images cannot be loaded well in a browser by people or at all by people with slower computers.

My response to this is:

1. Large images are not meant to be viewed in a browser, the wikipedia software automatically scales the images for use in a browser.
2. A warning at the top of the image page is enough to warn people
3. The Download high-resolution version button should do just that
4. A featured picture should be the best wikipedia has to offer and more detailed images are better than less
5. It is arbritrary, an old enough computer will crash on a 2000x2000 image, while the better computers of today can handle a 18000x18000.
6. Not making the larger picture FP will not stop people from clicking on it, only deleting the larger image will accomplish that.
7. The maximum size of files on wikipedia was increased from 8mb to 20mb, this coupled with the text of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb point 5 seems to indicate that the bigger the image the more prefered it is.

Please give your opinion on this matter. Do you think that a very large image should be scaled down and then used as the FP instead of the large one? Or do you think the highest detailed version of the image should be used? If such a limitation is to exist it should be in this criteria page. HighInBC 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We should make both a full-res image and a scaled version available. Very few of our users can handle 20,000px images, so we need to have something available for them. Which one actually gets the FA star is silly, since they're just scaled versions of the same image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons

Should we not strive to have featured pictures and FP candidates on Commons? I'd like to see a note added to the guidelines suggesting to nominators that their images are better uploaded to Commons than Wikipedia. –Outriggr § 06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I usually send them to the commons. But really anyone can move an image to the commons, just make sure it passes commons guidelines, upload it, catagorize it and put {{nowcommonsthis}} on the wikipedia version. Some admin should come by, check it is done right, then remove the original. HighInBC 13:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My interest is in educating the user, not whether or not there is a way around the problem. –Outriggr § 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. HighInBC 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rephrasing of "historical exception"

Currently, the exception to the high-quality criterion is phrased as follows:

The exception to this rule is the rarity or importance of the image being depicted. The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed. For example, the first photograph ever taken is of poor quality, but is one-of-a-kind, whereas NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images.

I've been seeing quite a few people invoke this to justify support for poor-quality images on the grounds of historical importance. For example, at one point someone defended a poor picture of a museum exhibit on these grounds. I don't think it was the intention of the exception to give a free pass to any vaguely historical image, but rather to justify truly one-of-a-kind pictures that couldn't possibly be taken again.

The main problem with the phrasing is the or in "rarity or importance". This shouldn't be an either/or thing, rarity is crucial. Importance isn't a proper ground for featuring an image if a higher-quality image of the same important subject exists. I propose that we rephrase it to this:

The only exception to this rule is in the case of one-of-a-kind historical images. If it can reasonably be considered impossible to find a higher-quality image of a given subject, low quality may sometimes be allowed. For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. Meanwhile, NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images, so a poor picture of the moon landing would not be accepted given that many others are available.

I think this is clearer as well as remaining in line with the original intent of the text above. Thoughts? I'd like to gather consensus before making the change. Redquark 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd support that re-write, although I'm not sure it should say "The only exception to this rule is...". I'd prefer it to be a bit more diplomatic and say "Typically, the only exception" as (correct me if I'm wrong) we prefer to keep them as strong guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules. Other than that, I think you do explain it a little clearer and leave less room for interpretation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. Okay, it seems that quite a few people have had time to read this page (judging from the voting below) and no one seems to object, and comments from established users in this recent nom seem to agree with the thrust of this change, so I've went ahead and changed it (with "typically" added). Of course, if somebody has a problem with it, by all means go ahead and revert to the old wording and we can discuss the objections here. Redquark 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Adds value in ways other pictures do not...

Rule number 5 states: "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject."

I think that perhaps the first sentence should be re-phrased. From my observation about what has passed as FP in the past, I don't think that it has to add value to the article in ways that other images do not. For example, some articles have many similar images that all add value (or perhaps some don't due to redundancy, but thats another story) but the FP is the one that is technically very good as well as adding value to the article. Therefore the FP does not add value in ways other pictures do not. Perhaps we could crop it a little to something like "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article." That way there is no dependence on any other images in the article. Comments? Unless there are objections I may make this change in the near future. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any problems with this change. Redquark 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not being in SVG format as a reason to OPPOSE...

...Is a bullshit reason. —ExplorerCDT 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? → Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria — Even thou Wiafp is probably common place by now, I feel that the title should reflect that it's a page defining the criteria than to ask a question _→AzaToth 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:What is a featured article? → Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
• Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? → Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria
• Wikipedia:What is a featured list? → Wikipedia:Featured list criteria

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Greeves 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Though if moved, someone should add
  "WP:FPC" redirects here. For Featured picture criteria, see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria.
  to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates —Dgies^t c 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support more professional and straight forward then a rhetorical question. 205.157.110.11 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

the above was added before the three other pages was added, and might not reflect that. _→AzaToth 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support—This was howled down for FA Criteria some months ago, for no good reason other than it was too much bother. Tony 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, supposing someone is prepared to update links accordingly.--cj | talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - sounds good. -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support all of em. Why are articles asking me things? You're supposed to know what a featured picture is, article, not me. Recury 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Let's be consistant. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Strongly oppose That this is too much trouble for a dubious benefit is more than sufficient reason not to do it. If Featured Pictures wants to go its own way, fine; but the others should be left where editors expect to find them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The shortcut for Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates is WP:FAC which would be confused with the new Featured Article Criteria unless you are planning on renaming the FAC page too. Seems like moving for moving's sake. Yomangani^talk 16:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose What is wrong with the current names? Articles and lists already have redirects at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria in any event; I have just created a redirect at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. The natural new shortcut for Wikipedia:Featured list criteria would be WP:FLC, which is currently a shortcut to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. WP:FPC is also taken by a link to the candidature page. TLA-space is quite limited. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps similar should be done with the other featured criteria pages? article, list and portal, as they also are in the question format. _→AzaToth 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

edit: so I did. _→AzaToth 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Alternatively, we could retitle these pages "Wikipedia:Criteria for featured X", to avoid at least simple confusion with candidate pages.--cj | talk 12:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: More comments on this proposal, including at least two opposes, can be found at Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article?#proposed_name_change Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It should be sharp?

I think the FP guidelines need a slight rewrite to consider that not ALL photos need to be tack sharp throughout the entire photograph to be feature worthy. Often times it is actually preferable to have foreground and background elements OUT of focus to help enhance the emphasis on the subject of the photo. This is a well established principle of portrait photography and works in many other cases as well. Yet I see fine photos being dismissed with such cryptic notations as, “not sharp as per FP standards.” --Mactographer 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

High-res wording

Thanks to Redquark for fixing my edit. But I wonder whether "and even" can be removed. Can't see that an amplification is necessary there. "It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated; and even larger sizes are generally preferred." Tony 00:43, 7 January 2007 (U:TC)

"and" can be removed, sure. "even", though, I think serves a disambiguation purpose in that it means the phrase can only be interpreted to mean even larger than 1000px; without the "even", it could mean larger in a vague general sense (perhaps considering 1000px itself as "larger"). In the past phrasing, "while" served this purpose. Personally, although I value concision, I don't think it's necessarily beneficial to remove every little word like this -- they can subtly clarify and help flow. Redquark 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Digital manipulation of photographic FP candidates

I propose that we should add something along the following lines to the Guidelines for evaluating FPs. I'm posting here first, to see if we can get a consensus, before moving to the project page.

• Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, colour/exposure correction, and removal of distracting background elements. More extensive manipulations should be clearly described in the image text. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be seriously misrepresented are never acceptable.

There is a similar proposal over at Commons:Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Digital manipulation of FP candidate photographs--MichaelMaggs 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:RetouchedPicture. Nice guideline, but it shouldn't be limited to FPC, but every image used on Wikipedia. --Dschwen 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I don't think that removal of actual objects in the scene should be considered acceptable at all really. We've been through that discussion before. At the very least, any sort of removal of content from a scene should be disclosed, not just the ones that are done for aesthetic reasons. The only removal I consider acceptable without disclosure are things such as digital noise (as long as it doesn't significantly affect detail and even then, it might as well be disclosed as being noise reduced for aesthetics) and dust spots from digital SLR sensors and the like as those spots are not present in the actual scene. Other than that, good job and I agree with Dschwen, 'all images should follow that guideline for disclosure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Put "stitching" on the list of acceptable manipulations. Though I'm not sure what the point of all this is: you can easily "misrepresent" a subject without digital manipulation. And pretty much every image is tweaked one way or another. Stevage 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True, good point. The split-second the image is captured by a digital camera (or even film), the representation of the scene is manipulated in some way (eg camera noise, jpeg compression, white balance etc). We have to expect that, and disclosing details like camera, shutter speed, aperture, focal length etc would certainly help to evaluate the image. Some may say that its only the end result that matters, and to an extent I agree, but I do think that knowing what potential there was for technical improvement is also important in evaluating whether the image was as good as it could have been. The more details about the capture, the better IMHO. Coming from a photographic background, I tend to be interested in how a great image was captured, but it does still make sense to detail such things regardless. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The camera never lies" is a well known saying - well, compare these two shots: taken from 8" above ground and taken from nomal eye level - I took them just a few seconds apart. No retouching whatsoever! Which one represents the truth? Would the first one fool most viewers? Should it be marked as "manipulated", even if it's not? --Janke | Talk 07:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

He he, excellent example. However I cannot agree with your reasoning that just because Photographers can manipulate by choice of framing and perspective that any kind of digital manipulation is permissible and should not be noted in the image description. Plus your example yields a fair chance of discovering the deceit (compare the size of the grass blades), while a digitally manipulated picture destroys evidence. --Dschwen 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wonder if we can move to some sort of consensus. This is an FP-related proposal, and although I'd be more than happy to apply this to all Wikipedia images, as suggested by Dschwen, I'll leave that for someone else to propose. I don't think we should add 'stitching' as an allowable manipulation, as in my view that ought always to be disclosed. Also, editors use the word in different ways; some mean stitching two shots together to create a panorama, others mean the boundary between the separate parts of a composite image.

What about the following?

• Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations should be clearly described in the image text. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be seriously misrepresented are never acceptable.

--MichaelMaggs 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I object!! Sorry for being late but I strongly oppose this suggestion and would really like to go into this in great depth but I've got a killer specialists maths SAC I'm struggling with and well I just don't have time. School finishes for the term this week so if you could please wait for another few days so I can have a chance to put my input into this discussion I would really appreciate it. --Fir0002 06:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Me too - I don't really know where all this came from, but it doesn't look helpful to me. Perhaps we could start with a problem, agree that it's a problem, then look at solutions, then choose a solution. I don't know what problem you're trying to solve, or how this solution actually solves it. Are you attempting to discriminate against digital manipulation? Are you trying to make image captions more informative? Let's start again, if you feel it's important. Stevage 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought we already established that there was a legitimate problem: namely that digital manipulation can sometimes misrepresent reality through deception or removal of content within the scene (through cloning etc). The latter is a different issue than cropping to remove content although that could also easily be considered misrepresentative if the crop was used to hide a particular reality. I would suggest that any such misrepresentative manipulation is probably inappropriate to any images on Wikipedia, let alone FPs, but if they must be used for whatever reason, such manipulation should be acknowledged. Hence, we're discussing the idea of putting this information on the guidelines and encouraging contributors to disclose such manipulations so that the issue doesn't explode when they are discovered on an image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this just for FPC? What is "is generally acceptable" supposed to mean - that a candidate with this type of editing may still pass? The wording above is excessively formal and heavy-handed. Why not just something like "Nominators are encouraged to disclose all digital manipulation that has taken place on an image. Excessive, blatant editing of an image, or misrepresentation of a subject is not welcome in a Featured Picture." Stevage 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• For one recent example of image manipulation on FPC, compare this original with the promoted edit. Liberal cloning there, ok or not ok? --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm in favour of such editing - we're primarily about producing nice images, not about recognising photographic talent. Someone did some similar edits to my Chambord image [Image:PanoChambord2 yfb edit04.jpg] but the promoted one had the original people in it. The edited one is the one I show people. Stevage 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have to disagree, at least in the encyclopedic context, that "we're primarily about producing nice images" - not so, if this means altering the factual nature of the subjects illustrated. The Egeskov example is interesting, however, as it illustrates what I'd say were two entirely distinct issues.

First, for Commons use (where this example appears) I'd be quite happy never knowing about the edit as the picture is much more "pictoral" without people draped all over it. I'm not interested in its factual accuracy in this context, I'm only more impressed with its artistic merit. To appreciate this, of course, I'd need to be informed of this somewhere in the image description, so for commons - even FPs - it's just desirable additional info and need not be compulsory. Really.

Second, for Wikipedia (where the edited version also appears) I would object to any undeclared edit as it obscures, manipulates and downright invents (however minor) factual details - the step on which the foreground people were sitting, the shape of the entrance to the right, even the rocks on the riverbank to the left - such that, were I looking for reference for entranceways to Danish castles, I would definitely want to know about it. As it is, the image page is tagged to declare the manipulation; in cases like this though, I'm inclined to go so far as to argue in favour of a more prominent warning, possibly on the article page, to this effect.

Re: COM:FP, I'm inclined to say that good digital manipulation is no less impressive than skilled in-camera work form the pov of photographic skills. I used to think the same about deft darkroom work and this is no different. In commons (and only in commons!) if an artist would rather not disclose his/her "trade secrets" we should respect that decision. mikaul 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're veiw on COM:FP is bang on, but it shouldn't be restricted to com - it belongs on en as well. Even if you were familiar with the castle you'd be hard pressed to tell that any manipulation had occurred! And who is really gonna care that the shape of a brick is slightly wrong - it's a picture of a castle for crying out loud! --Fir0002 06:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Much as I sympathise with your position, I think your ambivalence about the factual importance of wikipedia images is off the mark. The nearest existing non-image-based guideline is one of the fundamental tenets of wp - attribution - where your wp:source is the reality the image represents. Ok, claims to 'actual representations of reality' are always spurious, for reasons amply elaborated here; all images are by their nature manipulated in some way. You obviously need to reproduce a scene, but not re-originate significant parts of it without good reason and/or declaration. What needs expressly declaring for wp is any modification which re-originates relevant detail, no matter how well done. In the castle example, you're probably right - the shape of a brick isn't relevant detail. On the other hand (and this is probably not the best example) the shape of the step the foreground people were sitting on has been comped out of nothing and *might* be relevant to someone. For an encyclopedia there's just no reason *not* to declare such changes to material detail. --mikaul^talk 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to put the proposal in context: the aim is to make it clear that large-scale hidden manipulation that results in an image which is materially deceitful or misleading is not welcome. But provided the manipulation is disclosed in the text, anything goes. It's all to do with trust. The problem to be solved is that Wikipedia and Commons have recently had photos proposed for FP status which were undisclosed composites, resulting in misleading images that were much less encylopedic than they appeared. One image was promoted on Commons and then immediately demoted whan the deception came to light: Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Male and female superb fairy wren.jpg. The same image was rejected for FP status here as the deception was fortunately discovered before the vote closed: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2007#Superb fairy-wrens. --MichaelMaggs 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it makes the motive for this guideline much clearer. The main impression I came away from the "fairy wren" controversy with is that that no-one wants to be taken for a Conan Doyle ;). I see the Commons guideline is already in place, where I think it's pitched about right, although there is one unresolvable contradiction; if some form of substantial manupulation is sufficiently well-done, as stipulated in the opening statement, you will never be able to detect any undescribed or mis-described manipulations which may have been perpetrated. As I said, I think this is way less important for COM:FPC anyway. In contrast, WP:FPC (and WP images in general) really should be very up-front about factual innacuracies in uploaded images. In this context there really is no excuse for any deliberate material deceit; in some ways we almost need an extension of NPOV to cover those images which are expressly encyclopedic in nature. I'd support something tagged to the end, along the lines of, "For use in the encycolpedia, images should be as literal and unaltered as possible, and greater credence will be awarded to those in which this is judged to be the case", effectively adding a plus-point in consideration of images for FP. The WP Special:Upload page should also feature the Template:RetouchedPicture as an option for all uploaded pics. mikaul 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My view on this discussion is the same now as it was back here when this issue was discussed in great length. I see no problem whatsoever of cloning etc as long as it does not alter the main point of the image. So in the case of the castle above, removing the people is fine because it is illustrating the castle, not the people or it being a tourist destination. A photo is merely an illustration, nothing more. To take such a puritanical view on image manipulation is simply ridiculous. Again to take the example of the castle above, by the logic of saying it's unenc if it's got no people in is to say that the original is unenc because it doesn't have the exact second the image was captured included. Because unless you have the exact second it is unenc because a second or two later the people can be in a completely different position. Even the captured exif time might be wrong (wrong time setting in the camera's clock - doesn't say time zone etc etc) so a minute or two later the people might have gone altogether! So you just have to settle for the fact that a photo is just an illustration, and as such if it hasn't dramatically altered the castle (which it hasn't) then the edit of the Egeskov is completely OK IMO --Fir0002 06:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But what about where it has dramatically altered the main subject, as with Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Male and female superb fairy wren.jpg? That's what this is about, not the removal of a couple of small people in the backgound. The castle example comes under "removal of distracting background elements" which is not affacted by this proposal. --MichaelMaggs 06:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Castle OK, wrens NO GO. --Janke | Talk 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops sorry Michael, I thought this was trying to ban edits such as the one on the castle. I entirely agree that the wrens went too far. --Fir0002 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know if people here are aware of this recent case which shows just how seriously the US news media takes any form of digital manipulation, on the basis that:

[...] readers expect an accurate record of the event [and] editors are not allowed to change quotes or alter events to make them more dramatic. Photographers and photo editors cannot digitally alter the content in the frame of a photograph to make the image more powerful or artistic.

Am I alone in thinking that the encyclopedia deserves something approaching this level of commitment to faithful reproduction of its photographically-illustrated content? We certainly expect FA contributions to be factually accurate (and the rest of the encyclopedia, for that matter) so why should FP images be exempted? I'm thinking of instances like the recent debate at WP:FPC (Broadway Tower) in which some users considered the removal of an unattractive feature of the tower to be perfectly ok. Surely we need to specifically advise against this kind of cosmetic modification for the encyclopedia and amend WP:FP critierion 10 to read, "Any manipulation which causes the main subject of an image to be seriously misrepresented is never acceptable." This would still allow for things like (good quality) stitching etc, particularly (though not exclusively) where the veracity of the result is verifiable with ref to other images. mikaul^talk 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: a related discussion has been taking place on the FPC talk page where it has been suggested that the whole issue be brought here for consideration. I think thats right: I don't know whether there's a protocol for this, but here's an edited cut & paste of points raised there - mikaul^talk 12:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should have a look at this:

NPPA Code of Ethics Greetings, --Janke | Talk 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
*Weird, I came here to post the same link. There's a lot of talk about this in the photojournalistic world at the moment, following the resignation of an award-winning photographer found to have been submitting "shopped" images: good article here examining the fallout, plus a formal apology by the newspaper he used to work for here. (Let's not forget the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy while we're on the subject). My thoughts are that image-based misrepresentation is a real issue to which Wikipedia contributors should pay as much attention as they do text-based misrepresentation. The wording of the [WP:FP?] photo-manipulation criterion is still too wooly, IMO (I've just added this point to the earlier discussion on the WP:FP? discussion page) and I'd like to see the criteria for "normal" WP image uploads (where IS that, exactly?) carry a similar notice. - mikaul^talk 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Musing over this a bit, would it perhaps be sensible to request that, in addition to {{Retouched}}, the uploader provide a copy of the original unretouched image, either as an en. upload or as a photobucket/flickr/whatever external link, for significant modifications? For example, I recently did a bit of work on the images in Kaziranga National Park per Nichalp's request above (not finished yet due to OMGsomuchwork IRL) and in addition to tagging with Retouched, I linked back to the original upload in the Summary box. The modifications I made were pretty significant in some cases. Does anyone have an opinion on this sort of edit, if properly declared (beyond "you made a rubbish job of it" :P)? I was working with pretty limited source material and as it's not my own photography, there wasn't the option to go back and reshoot. Thoughts? --YFB ¿ 19:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good job on the Coracias benghalensis. While I've made my standpoint on image manipulation pretty clear by now, I must say that the blurring of the bg (which I did myself on request with the blackbird image) is entirely tolerable for me. It could have been achieved with a different apperture more or less and the edit is clearly marked with links back to the original. Beter focus on the subject, better suited (at least as thumbnail) to illustrate the article.--Dschwen 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I really don't object to sharpening, blurring, shading, dodging or anything which either emulates a different (better) lens or lighting technique, even when that changes some apparently fundamental properties of the subject, like colour, the 'customisation' of which is pretty much commonplace (vis. in-camera colour tempertaure and saturation settings) - notification of such modifications in post-processing is nice, but probably not much more than than half the d/a conversion story.

It's a whole different matter when the subject ends up being substantially altered in a way which would normally not be possible in-camera. In this definition, things like perspective correction and distortion, stitching, selective framing and cropping are all permissible modifications of a subject. Double-exposure-type modification is a notable exception, as it is capable of radically changing a subject's original settings in an unrepresentative way. Removal of a subject's original detail (or addition of new detail) via cloning should only be permissible in exceptional circumstances, when it can be proven (as we are used to doing with WP:SOURCE but with another image, as suggested) that the detail in question was wholly appropriate. mikaul^talk 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor nitpick, but the d/a conversion should be pretty tame with the main artifacts introduced at that point being sensor noise. The real in-camera image manipulation occurs when processing the raw digital image to JPEG whereby white balance, sharpening, contrast etc takes place. ;-) I agree with you though for the most part, but I would start to take exception with the idea of altering the image's lighting technique digitally, as this is almost impossible to do properly and will almost certainly affect the content. I wonder if we could summarise our digital manipulation policy (and actually have it implemented without problems) with something along these lines:

Minor digital image manipulation is generally acceptable as long as it:

1. improves the image's encyclopaedic and visual accuracy (ie matches the scene as it was captured as accurately as possible);

2. aids the viewer's understanding of the content;

3. does not deceive the viewer through selective addition/omission of content that may be relevant to the scene, even if doing so improves the aesthetics of the image

I know there is some potential to interpret these guidelines in various ways but it is probably important to make sure we leave some room for interpretation as each case needs to be discussed and it is difficult to rule on what specifically is and isn't acceptable on an individual basis. What do you think? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Fir, I don't think you did really disagree with what I said in the discussion you referenced. You referred to the castle FP and how you believe that removing the people was perfectly acceptable because the subject was the castle and the people merely got in the way of the subject. While I see your point and to an extent I agree with you, I still don't personally think it is acceptable but I do think your views can be incorporated into the guideline I mentioned above, since it frowns apon manipulations relevant to the scene. By your argument, the people were not relevant and therefore I can't see your reasoning for disagreeing with the guidelines. As I did mention, there should always be some room for interpretation and discussion so I don't want you to think I'm trying to ban all cloning or anything. Did you have any other specific disagreements with them? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Diliff, but I guess I'm a little edgy with the criteria now after the whole caption issue. Yes that is the only objection I had with those guidelines, that the castle is an example of acceptable cloning. But I still stand by that really this discussion should be happening back over at WP:FP? --Fir0002 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I like User:Antilived's illustrated approach below :) We're very much on the same lines, I think, it's just my loose terminology. I was using d/a a bit poetically... "analog" to refer to the Real World, "digital" to our photographich treatment of it. By "lighting" I meant the sort tonal corrections (incuding shading/dodging) which could conceivably occur if a shadow or additional light source appeared in the Real World. Your list of policies looks like the right sort of thing, but the language needs to be firmed up - I would emphasise changes to subject and/or the setting wherever possible, to avoid confusion. If we refer to an "image" or a "scene" or "content" it's fine for some shots but seems to exempt more encyclopedic object-based shots. Subject is the real issue and as a term it covers everything relevant, or could do with a little bit of qualification. What do you think? mikaul^talk 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples:

	Acceptable	Unacceptable
Before		Before
After	After	After

--antilived^{T | C | G} 11:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it helps, but if I look at the example of the bird on the left, at first glance the only change I see is the cropping. The blurring of the background isn't immediately apparent. Could use a better example, as you said, and it would probably go a long way in providing real world examples of what we've deemed to be good and bad modifications. First we still have to reach some sort of conclusion about where to draw the lines though. Seems we're not quite there yet. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Neat graphic, good idea, possibly a bit arbitrary in the examples you chose but it would be a great way of illustrating typical examples of acceptable/unacceptable manipulation in each instance. I can see this taking the form of an wp:article, with relevant points based on something like this list which would ensure we cover the subject comprehensively. There could be a comparitive graphic for each point. As Diliff pointed out, they only need to be reference guidelines with room for manouver and debate; at the minute, there's nothing but vague and rather "technical" statements on some of the usual problem areas. This way there would be an example resource to hand to refer to during discussions. Maybe it's just a question of where to put it, rather than whether we should do it. Any ideas? - mikaul^talk 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By and large I agree with that idea, but would add to those examples that of the castle discussed on WP:FP? --Fir0002 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So... where are with all this? Looking a the WP? project page in general, the example images are a mess and could do with arranging as per Antilived's illustrated approach. Most points are clearly and concisely stated above but could be spelled out much better if there was a slightly more elaborate, illustrated version, corresponding to each point, lower down the page. As for point 10 (digital manipulation), I'd suggest adding something like Diliff's further qualifications to its illustrated section and extending that section to include as many examples as it takes to get the various points across. I hear the howls of derision about over-bureaucratic rule-mongering and I'm no fan of it myself, but given that amount of (potential and actual) mis-understanding of the guidelines and spurred on by the importance of the manipulation issue, I think it needs to be done. If there are no objections, I'll make a start on it soon. mikaul^talk 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the relevant part of Wiki policy to the manipulation issue is at WP:NOR, not WP:SOURCE as I originally thought. mikaul^talk 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria #8, Caption & Extended Caption

There is a discussion on this criteria and voting on featured picture candidates here. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Caption_Issues Once there is a consensus here as well (or resounding silence), I'll change the criteria. Enuja 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus is pretty much attained as regards to the community feeling that caption do not have to have be suitable for POTD, although it is a recommendation. --Fir0002 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, POTD can be sorted out after an image is promoted. -Fcb981 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. In an encyclopedia, images are worthless without good captions. This is not just a POTD issue.--Pharos 09:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, consensus has not been reached that opposes based on captioning and/or contextual or meta information are not valid. Only that captions need not be POTD quality, and that some things require less context than others. If encyclopedicity is compromised by insufficient information, it will still fall within the featured picture criteria.--ragesoss 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then perhaps you should take a look at what the criteria currently says "The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page." What I was saying is that consensus has been reached to remove or modify that to only being a recommendation. --Fir0002 07:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, as far as I can tell. Such "recommendations" have never been followed in the past, which is why there was a significant movement to incorporate extended captions into the FPC process in the first place.--Pharos 23:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do as all a favour Pharos and actually read the related discussion. "I think the subject's information remain the responsability of POTD (and/or the nominator, if he wishes to help)", "my reading of the requirement that the extended caption should be on the image page is to ensure that the picture is explained even outside the context of an article", "I don't want rehashes of the article -- I can do that myself when I write the POTD blurb" etc. It has been clearly established that a Featured Picture Candidate does not need a caption worthy of POTD. This sentiment is even endorsed by Howcheng, the guy primarily involved in POTD! And as such I have made a start to the changes. --Fir0002 07:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Howcheng is doing an admirable job with POTD captions - for instance, he has contacted me on several occasions regarding the captions for images I've uploaded, asking for comments and improvements - and I have never been able to provide any of the latter, since his captions have always been excellent. --Janke | Talk 07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In support of <1000px submissions

The one that got me started...

Awful at 3MP, lovely at 1200 pixels

Fine at the submitted size, would likely not have been promoted at original capture size

This has some of the same issues as the church image but is great at <1000 pixels

The hi-res pic User:Thegreenj is referring to

I would like to propose that the resolution size in criterion 2 be upheld more regularly than it is ignored.
This comment was originally posted by me on the WP:FPC page in defence of this image (opposite)
I'm honestly not just being obtuse when I say I really like this image and think a lot of the oppose comments above are a bit harsh and even off the mark. I'm thinking more of future submissions when I say we shouldn't, and frequently don't, condemn an image because of the manner in which it was nominated (quite often a successful FP will have been edited by contributors here before it made the grade) and yet this one above made the mistake of being submitted too big, nothing else.
Encouraging - even insisting on - 3MP+ submissions is unfair on images which look perfectly good at 1000x750, as this one does. It looks awful at twice the size but I could care less what it looks like twice the size, it's a really nice image at full-screen resolution. I've been looking in here for about six months and seen some travesties of non-promotions based solely on dimensional image size and pixel-level clarity. 1000px is all that is necessary (a) for appreciation purposes and (b) to allow for reasonably sized print repro. 1000 pixels makes for a good 4-6 inch print in repro and looks great on my monitor.
This is why the minimum size guideline is.. 1000pixels.
At this size I can tell the image above is a fine capture made with equipment better-suited to small repro and screen resolution viewing: why insist on pixel-picking at unreasonable magnification, as if 30x40 is the smallest size human beings can perceive for pictoral evaluation purposes? I can think of some very fine images of which that most certainly isn't true.
This rant isn't over, but really do have to go out now.. I'd welcome any comments in the mean time.
mikaul^talk 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• (I had an edit coflict with Mick and did not take has new text into account while writing this.) Here's my rant, then. I just want to remind you that pictures that barely meet the guideline are often shot down for just that, and not without good cause. Why should we fix the standard at a low level? Obviously, if a picture cannot be retaken and is low resolution or lower quality, it is an exception. Otherwise, however, why should we let a low quality 3 megapixel image pass when we can get a high quality 3 megapixel image? You seem suggest we keep an artificial minimum to image quality. If the image could be captured at 3 megapixels, somewhat out of focus, soft, and poorly composed, then it must be possible to take a picture at 3 megapixels, in foucus, sharp, and well composed. Why keep the minimum when more is possible? I believe that any image that meets the guidelines but that goes not further should not pass, and that seems to be the way featured picture candidates is currently. 1000 pixels is simply not going to meet the requirements for the next generation of high-definition standards. Furthermore, 1000 pixels will not provide much more detail zoomed in, even at current standards, than is provided in the preview. Just as an example, look at this picture. Sure, it could have been uploaded 1132 by 855 pixel image, and I invite you to downsaple it yourself. Can you see the intricacy of the cloak of the Statue of Freedom? Can you see the lettering on the signs on the first storie doors? Featured demands something extra, not just the minimum. I cannot clearly see your POV, but I would be happy to change my mind if you address the issues that I have just stated. J Are you green? 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  

If you don't mind, I'll answer your points after my last comment below, for continuity purposes - mikaul^talk 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. the Orkney chapel shot, I didn't notice the original and what I'd taken for USM-exaggerated edges actually appears to be the result of clumsy masking, on second viewing, although the crop and tonal tweak is the making of it. There's some chromatic aberration, of course, as you'd expect from a compact. Maybe I like it a tiny bit less than I did (the fact is I have a soft spot for Scottish churches :)) but my point doesn't concern the absolute merits of this particular image, it's the relative demerits of assessing all images against those taken with two thousand dollar optics.
As someone pointed out in another comment on this nom page, there are some good FPs taken on point-and-shoot cameras. There are also many older FPs which are well under the 1000px guideline and which I would strongly oppose any delisting of, for reasons I gave earlier - they do it for me at 6x4, more than they would at 20x16. The church one -tonal correction, mask outline and all- works well enough at 1200pixels to be considered primarily, not incidentally, on its merits as a picture.
FP images like this or this or this (all thumbnailed opposite) just don't cut it at mega-size and are (quite rightly) FP images because they're fine, descriptive photographs, as the one of the church is, at this smaller size. The problem is that the resolutionaries (hehe) are having it their own their way, effectively enforcing a 3MP image size "rule" which subjects less detailed shots to the same misplaced criticism as this one. 3MP+ compact shots look much, much better downsampled to 1200 pixels; it's what they were designed for. You click on the FS file here and instead of a full-screen picture you get a less-than-attractive display of jpeg artifacts, fringing, noise reduction and other in-camera efforts at correcting these issues - correcting them for 1200 pixel display.
- All I'm suggesting is that, with certain exceptions (macro shots, most landscapes and things like maps) 2500 pixels of horizontal resolution should be a nice bonus, not a FP prerequisite, and compact camera submissions should not have to conform to such resolution stipulations. I'm convinced submission quality would be raised, not lowered, if this were more regularly observed and positively encouraged. mikaul^talk 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• [Re. thegreenj above:] I probably need to restate my case more clearly and I'm grateful for your comprehensive reply, which will help me do so. Your main points:

1 I'm not arguing to fix the standard at a lower level. I would like to see the current 1000px longest-edge minimum recommendation respected for images which are not suited to higher magnification.

2 A high quality 1MP image is way preferable to a low quality image at 3MP, even if they come from the same source file, which might often be the case. Some images need to be viewed at 3MP resolution, some don't and look awful if they are. If you insist on 3MP uploads, there's no easy way of viewing it at its best, ie. at full-screen size. The most important point I'm trying to make is that Quality is not an exclusive property of resolution. If we wanted to exclude images based on their suitability for A3 enlargement, it would say so in the crtieria. We don't; hence the minimum is set, sensibly, at 1MP. High qualtiy is perfectly feasible at this resolution; see the examples above.

3 I'm not sugesting a minimum quality, I'm arguing in support of the roundly ignored minimum resolution which only has some bearing on quality. High pixel resolution simply isn't the most important factor, IMO, whether we're talking FP or not. Does a Featured Article have to weigh in at 70Kb? Must the greatest paintings always be made on huge canvasses? Can't small be beautiful too?

4 Zooming-in is for nerds ;)) ..seriously, I like to look closely at (some) images as much as the next person, but there are many which are better appreciated sitting back. Viewing distance is a crucial factor in image appreciation. The last competition I entered stipulated 10x8 prints, smaller than the size of my 1024x768 monitor.

5 The image (bottom thumb opposite) you linked to might show the nostril hairs on the guard on the balcony and be beautifully exposed, but it's skewed and it's cropped-off at the bottom, half the lights are off and the image generally is boring and unopportune. It could clearly be reshot a little earlier (for the sky) or made more compelling with some cloud cover or - anything to lift it out of the "ho-hum, another 10MP stich-up" run-of-the-mill. Forgive me, but (like you?) I wouldn't have supported this at 1MP and zooming in to it's awesome mega-detail simply isn't enough to stop me reaching for the "oppose" button. As you say, it's nothing special at 1132 by 855. As I said before, quality is not an exclusive property of resolution and IMO high resolution (or rather, techincal competence) is far from enough for FP.

6 "Featured picture" doesn't and shouldn't mean featured cameras, nor featured optics. "Sharp", "well-exposed" and "high resolution" are things cameras do, often without a great deal of help from a competent operator. Pictures are what photographers make, whether on a Canon 5D with a 2.8 prime or a 100-dollar compact.

mikaul^talk 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm. Ericd 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good old Ken :o) he does love to go off on one.. he makes some good points about digital capture, one I was only half-aware of (horizontal pixel res was an eye-opener) although typically free with the hyperbole for the most part. Interesting and pertinent argument though, thanks! mikaul^talk 11:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement about horizontal pixel res is a bit misleading though. If a 3mp camera has 2000px and 14mp has 4500, thats more than two times the viewable width at the same DPI and of course it is also more than two times larger in height too. In reality, it is 2.25 * 2.25 larger in total area, or almost five times more actual detail, which is what the MP really is. Of course having more MP isn't necessary if you aren't interested in the extra detail available and I will happily concede that most digital camera buyers won't appreciate a higher resolution camera because they'll only ever print 4x6 or display on a low resolution monitor, but that doesn't mean there are real tangible benefits that some people will pay good money for. His points are aimed more at the brainless consumer than the enthusiasts and photographers. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

delisting criteria debate

There is currently a discussion between different schools of thought on Delisting Featured Pictures. Central to the debate is the "burden of proof" for a delisting - whether to require a photo to justify being an FP, or conversely, justify being delisted. Please comment at: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria For Delisting.

Witty Lama 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #1 re-write

I've been looking at this guideline for a while, with a view to cleaning up some ambiguities and making it more to-the-point and easier to follow. The first one is in the heading itself: That a FP should be "high quality" is more appropriate as a general heading for all criteria. This heading should be changed to describe what it actually covers - technical problems - without the slightly random, casual style. The "things a FP is" should be neatened up by listing in three sections, like this:

• it has good contrast, accurate exposure and natural colour balance;
• it is free from compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files), burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess"), and other processing errors;
• its main subject is in focus, has good composition and is free from obstructions and distracting elements

Examples of common technical problems can be found here.

The link is (for now) to my userpage draft of a new gallery-based page containing all of the images currently at the foot of the FP? page, sorted according to the three points. I'm thinking that the "exceptions" part(s) of these criteria should be inline-referenced to a "Notes" section, rather than clutter up the main points.
Some of the other criteria could use a similar treatment, including "examples" pages, but I thought I'd float this one through here first before getting in too deep. mikaul^talk 20:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, following that underwhelming response, I'm going to assume "slience equals consent" and make the change. Due to the verbose nature of these criteria, I've also started an experiment with a {{reflist}} footnote section and a seperate image gallery page. It could probably all use wikifying a bit more, which I could get on to as soon as I've had a go at #3 (see below) but please, feel free to chip in! mikaul^talk 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, criteria #3 re-write

I've noticed that a few people recently have been citing #3 (Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work.) as a reason for opposition. Obviously this is something that we do expect but how can you really determine whether it is 'among' Wikipedia's best work? In effect it provides the ability to oppose any nomination without full justification because it cannot really be objectively argued against. My opinion is it should probably be removed or at the very least clarified further. I don't see why it can't go, because the spirit of it is basically incorporated into all the other criteria by definition anyway - if it fails the other criteria, it probably fails to be among Wikipedia's best work too, doesn't it? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, it has the same over-generic terminology problem that #1 has, and it's equally true of #7. I've always taken #3 as trying to point out that a FP should be the best example of a given subject that WP has. I've been meaning to point this out in the debate raging over at Fir's tomato nom; for all it could perhaps be better lit and be a little more exciting, it's far and away the best shot we have of the tomato fruit, which IMO trumps the co-redundant "pleasing to the eye" (#7). This latter heading bears no resemblance to its content and is equally in dire need of re-writing to explain the aesthetic considerations most often applied to noms. Its current content ("is taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture makes readers want to know more") has precious little to do with aesthetics and clearly belongs in a revised #3. mikaul^talk 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm.. Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria uses something very similar and other criteria besides, and a parallel move to revamp them is being proposed. Worth watching, as there are some very similar themes. mikaul^talk 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mick #1, #3, and #7 are a little too vague, and I would rather have them all combined into one rule. However, I disagree that they exist as an excuse for a meaningless oppose. Although I would prefer that most judgements be objective, part of a how good a photograph is, quite simply, how much it gives to the veiwer. There are some qualities that you cannot specify or quantify. Of course, some explanation of useage should be required, but I think that some form of #3 would contribute to judging FP worthiness. Admittedly, it is a weak point in the criteria, but I think that unless something drastic happens, the consensus will protect it from abuse. J Are you green? 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's still scope for outlining the "best of" sentiment. As Diliff says, without being specific about something of which "the best wikipedia has to offer" actually is, it becomes a kind of oppose excuse without any scope for rebuttal. A kind of merger of #3 and #7 (plus the incongruous heading of #1) to fix the problem might look lke this:

3. Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.

• It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph should have good, descriptive lighting; diagrams and other images should be clear and informative.
• A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. If an image is rare, historically important, or highly graphic, it may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.

Obviously, the Best featured picture gallery doesn't exist yet, but I think it should; not only because it clarifies in the most subjective way possble what a top-quality image looks like, but because of the fun we could have deciding which half-dozen shots we should include in it :o)

We then need a revamp of #7 to specifically address the "aesthetics" dilemma, which I'll set out as a separate discussion item below.

I'd really appreciate some more opinions on all this. mikaul^talk 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against the creation of a "best featured pictures" section. It may not work in reality, but I think that Featured Pictures are the best featured pictures; they are the crème de la crème. I my opinion, any image that I would not place in "best feature pictures" should be delisted. I am not proposing that this be done; in fact I would oppose something that radical. However, I think creating a "featured of the featured" section defeats the entire purpose of having featured content; this isn't an tiered rating system - we don't have B-class images or image stubs. Featured is the best. Furthermore, I don't think what is best should be defined; everyone should be entitled to a opinion unique to that person, whether or not another person would consider it valid. OK... now that I've flamed about a minor point, I think that your proposal is on the right path. With the removal of the "best featured picture" part, I would support it as a replacement for #3 and #7. J Are you green? 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I've amended the proposal to include salient parts of #7, which I propose should be abolished. Instead of "best of" FPs, the gallery would include all of those examples currently listed at the end of #7. mikaul^talk 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! J Are you green? 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I've never commented on this page before (weird) so it wasn't on my watchlist. I'm broadly in agreement with the changes proposed here, but I have a few misgivings. Mick's new #3 has "among the best examples of a given subject"; I'm not entirely comfortable with that wording. We already get enough people saying "it's the best picture we have of X, go and take another one if you don't like this one" and I think moving from "best of Wikipedia" (which is admittedly vague) to "best photo of a so-and-so" is only going to reinforce that standpoint. I'm not pulling a Vaelta, but I'm a little worried that we're going to dilute the criteria so that every sharp, non-tilted, blown-highlight-free studio shot automatically gets promoted. There's a very large number of household items, vegetables, etc. out there and they don't all deserve a featured picture, IMO. Once you've got the shot set up for a tomato, it's not a big task to drop in a carrot, then a potato, then a beetroot... and suddenly we have a harvest festival instead of a collection of eyecatching, informative images (sorry to pick on Fir as an example). I'd support the promotion of a set of such shots, but individually they don't stand out enough to make me want to read an article, which I see as one of the main reasons for having FPs. Basically I think we need something in the criteria which differentiates between "workmanlike, no major flaws" and "outstanding work!". On another note, I might not go the whole hoglet but I'd give J's "delist the ones that aren't the featured featured" a second thought, because at the moment there's a very broad range of quality levels in the FP stack and I think we need to be clearer about whether it really is the crème de la crème or just a bunch of pretty nice photos that people liked once upon a time, perhaps when we had very few decent photos, but still, I don't suppose there's much wrong with them. </undeclaredrant> --YFB ¿ 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about watering-down, but really this is a firming-up exercise. While "the best we have of subject X" is clearly not enough for promotion, I think the advantages of stipulating this outweigh the dangers you mention, which are always mitigated by the other criteria anyway. An earlier comment about the vagueness of the current "among our best work" statement is right, IMO; it should either clarified or deleted. Bearing in mind that it's now proposed that the new #3 be a merger of three very similar "best of" criteria, I think deleting would prove a poor (and unpopular) choice. Therefore, it needs to point to something specific: where "best of Wikipedia" is a hugely vague question, narrowing the field down to a candidate's subject area makes it much easier to be objective. For example, you could argue forever about the world's greatest person, while reaching a consensus on the world's greatest sprint cyclist is relatively simple.

Stressing "subject" is really important, IMO. It is a defining concept in seven of the current ten criteria and rightly so, from an encyclopedic pov. Far from being played down, I think it needs to be raised as much as possible! Does this mean automatic promotion for every sharp, well-exposed, 3-megapixel vegetable-on-white? I hope not and I think we should make it clear that that's far from enough. There's a lot more to consider, particularly lighting and other presentation criteria, which (thanks to you!) I've added to #3 above and which I hope goes some way to alleviating your concerns about us being taken over by alien vegetables ;) I really don't see the problem with those shots, as long as they meet the criteria and achieve consensus. Being shot on white can ruin lighting and decontextualise (sorry) the subject, or it can clarify detail which might be lost "in the wild" and be hugely encyclopedic: that's what the selection process is there to decide, not what FP criteria needs to proscribe.

As I say, I've amended the proposal for #3 again, in light of all this. I would hope it made FP promotion more, rather than less, exacting. Comments appreciated.

mikaul^talk 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your considered response, Mick. As I say, I agree with what you're trying to do here. The revised version is definitely an improvement - I think it's important to have something in one of the criteria which emphasises the need for visual interest as well as technical quality and enc. I don't have any objection to the white-background shots - they're a valuable way of illustrating something in a clinical, uncluttered way. I'm just wary of having hundreds of them as FPs - really they should be the basic standard of illustration we aim for in articles about inanimate objects. I'd be happy to have them promoted as sets but not for a different vegetable to appear on the main page every other day :-)

I'm not quite sure about "good, descriptive lighting" - what's descriptive lighting? I think I know what you're getting at, but the wording sounds awkward. Maybe "photos should have appropriate lighting to maximise visible detail" or something? Otherwise, looking good. --YFB ¿ 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not the best wording. I'm getting a gallery together for #3 at the moment to illustrate "rare, historically important" and "shocking, informative, compelling" as well as "good presentation", which should include an example of good lighting. "Descriptive" lighting, for me, would be anything which revealed good detail or good colour saturation, or just accurate modelling (for architectural shots). I prefer your wording suggestion though & will work it in a bit later. In all honesty I have to say I'm also with you on the value of the white-background shots, but I can't help thinking that for all you feel inclined to de-value them for their lack of "wow" factor, you have to re-value them for their encyclopedic relevance. I'm just not sure I could see a sucession of them as PODs, which seems to tell me something... I realise I'm always banging on about it, but if they were as well lit as they were enc they would deserve to be up there every day. The ones I've seen so far remind me of supermarket packshots, rather than compelling studies of colour and form. Another thread, maybe. :) mikaul^talk 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New version of Featured Sound Criteria

I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria after a week or so to form consensus. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. Tony 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #7 re-write

Further to the #3 re-write, I propose #7 be amended thus:

7.Is pleasing to the eye. It has high aesthetic value. As well as beautiful, it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative.

• It should be noted that a picture's encyclopedic value ranks higher than its artistic merits. While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.

• Exceptions: if an image is rare, historically important, or highly graphic, it may not have to be classically beautiful. Examples are: the first photograph, the only photograph of Chopin, the map of Lewis and Clark's expedition, the lowering of the flag on Zuikaku, the Solvay conference of 1927 and Whaling in the Faroe Islands.

The beautiful, shocking, impressive, informative part is cribbed from the WP:FP page. As per the other re-vamp proposals above, the examples at the Exceptions part might be a piped link to a gallery of FPs which aren't pretty pictures first and foremost, rather than the current, rather clumsy, list. mikaul^talk 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that your rewrite of #3 encompasses this in that it suggests that it "is the best that the encyclopedia has to offer." Perhaps a little expansion of your rewrite to suggest this would be nice, but I think that #7 is trying to define an opinion - an invalid point IMO. I don't disagre with it, but I think that it should be more implied than defined. After all, this is a community consensus, and I think that the overall opinions of the community should be able to define what is best. Perhaps something in regard to encyclopedic value as opposed to artistic merit would be better. J Are you green? 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree and would gladly get rid of the awful "pleasing to the eye" heading. Maybe I'm just not being WP:BOLD enough... the idea of rewriting #3 to include the bones of #7 was floated in the previous section but I wasn't convinved about removing all mention of aesthetics. I've amended #3 there to include the salient parts of #7, which I've struck out here and propose be abolished. The enc criterion stays in #5. mikaul^talk 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Earwax

This picture is my comment on this issue -Ravedave 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, highly eloquent comment, how could anyone fail to agree? :o) mikaul^talk 06:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've merged #7 with #3 and moved some of the examples to a gallery page with a link to the Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History section, which is (almost) what the original list represented. The earwax shot is in there, for now at least :o) mikaul^talk 22:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of getting everybody back on their various hobby-steeds, might I suggest we either re-nominate the earwax shot for consideration under the new criteria, or remove it from the "examples of Featured Picture qualities" gallery? It does seem a bit daft having an image in there which isn't actually an FP. Maybe third time lucky? :-) --YFB ¿ 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see YFB caught my drift. The earwax shot has been nominated several time but shot down for being "yucky". I personally think it should succeed, as it is illustrative and well done. -Ravedave 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I caught it too :o) I completely agree, it's a great shot and the perfect example of FPs being informative first, and aesthetically pleasing second, or even third. There's bound to be complaints such an prompt resub, but I think it's justified. Looking at both previous occasions, it was unfairly shouted down, plain and simple, without proper reference to the criteria. Is there a precedent for a third submission? I certinaly hope the new wording of #3 (and the removal of "pleasing to the eye") would be a positive influence. Comments like "it's just not FP subject matter" (and there were a good few like that) are simply inappropiate. I do think we should replace it on the gallery page, at least in the interim. Any suggestions? mikaul^talk 11:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons Pictures

Are commons featured pictures automatically FP here? Is their a process that could make that process faster once pictures are promoted their they are automatically voted on and promoted in a week? The Placebo Effect 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Commons FP requirements are different than here, so they are evaluated under the same criteria as every other nominee. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Major copyedit

The main motive for merging categories was to reduce some of the more vague and repetitive points and also to try to make the criteria appear more succinct. I hope people agree the longer criteria look neater bulletpointed, for example. The {{Reflist}} footnotes are a way of making more space for the bullets by taking out more incidental, secondary qualifications to the bottom of the page. I'm thinking we could also merge #6 and #8, as they appear to cover very similar ground, but I'm really not sure enough as yet. One final thing: how do you get rid of unwanted Contents boxes? That one wasn't there before and really isn't necessary. mikaul^talk 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we still need a gallery for #9 (manipulation), if anyone feels up to it. There was a template for it suggested up the page somewhere. I'll try to get onto it next week if not. mikaul^talk 22:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I wasn't as busy IRL as I am - I'd really like to get more involved in this process. You were about, Mick, when it was suggested we put together a "How-to" for featured pictures; I think that's a good idea but there's no way I'll be able to get stuck into that, or manipulation galleries etc., until my finals are done. Can we put everything on hold for a month?! ;-) --YFB ¿ 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to remind me where the "how-to" was floated, I've had a quick look & can't find it. There's no rush for anything! I'm a bit less busy than I have been and can chip in the odd hour here and there, so I could set something basic up to edit later. The problem with galleries is they need to be done all at once, which means trawling through commons etc for good examples & which always side-tracks me :o/ Good luck with the finals! mikaul^talk 12:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a feeling I might need it :-/

The how-to thingy was suggested by Nichalp at the bottom of this discussion - I told him on his talk page that I thought it was a meritable idea and that I'd have a go at putting something together during the summer. As far as manipulation galleries, it may be easier to illustrate this effectively by just doing a bit of manipulation of our own. Perhaps if we get a list together of permissible and verboten edits that we want to show examples of, it'll give us something to work from.

There's not really any reason for you to hang about waiting for me to stick my oar in - you're doing an admirable job of driving these changes without my help! I'll try to check back here from time to time and see how far you've got by the time I'm free to chip in without "should be working, damnit" guilt... --YFB ¿ 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent copyedit: animation sizes

Just finishing a copyedit of the first two criteria, and can't ever recall coming across a size stipulation for animations. Rather than leave them bunched in with historical and unique images (ie for lower permissible resolution) I've stated separately that they are "generally smaller". Is there an equivalent to the stills "1000-pixel" guideline? mikaul^talk 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

What's the rationale behind the capitalisation at the beginning of each criterion/bullet point? It's a bit of a mess and I feel certain there used to be some method to its madness... mikaul^talk 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... changed to conform with FP:FA and others. mikaul^talk 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging criteria (again)

Ok, this one I probably do need a wider consensus for. I think criteria #6, #8 and #9 ("accurate", "neutral" and "digital manipulation" respectively) should be merged, as they all fall under the same broad category, ie faithful depiction of the subject of an image or it's context. While I realise it seems a stretch, the three do cross over quite a bit and cover very similar ethical ground. Here's a rough starter proposal to be going on with:

7. Is a faithful representation of the subject.

• It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page.
• It illustrates the subject objectively and does not promote a particular agenda or point of view.(footnote 1)
• It avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text; any undeclared manipulation which causes the main subject to be seriously misrepresented is never acceptable.(footnote 2)
  
  

1. Images of maps, for example, must be uncontroversial in their neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
2. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.

Small text indicates proposed footnoting of what I think is slightly extraneous info. I've piped the the NPOV link (#8) but left it in the footnote. I think there's quite a bit of scope for more piped links to explain techincal terms, which would cut down the need to explain "manipulation" in such detail and explain not-so-obvious terms like "colour balance" in this and other criteria. Finally, I think it's high time we had another gallery to link to examples of acceptable/unacceptable manipulation, as proposed some time ago.
Thoughts, please!
mikaul^talk 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think #9 Digital manipulation needs to stay as is, because it's something that needs all of the explanation it's got. However, I think your proposed merge of #6 and #8 clarifies and simplifies the guidelines. Enuja 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution guidelines needlessly exclude quality images

Or, put another way, FPCs are much more likely to be promoted due to high res than any other criteria, such that poorly-lit, badly-composed and ill-conceived images are gradually lowering the denomination of Featured Picture quality.
I realise we've been here several times before. I also acknowlege that, barring total irreplacability, the 1000-pixel min requirement is a hard, fast rule which might even be raised to 2000 for some editors, such is their insatiable hunger for more pixels. I sincerely think it's a nonsensical situation: if there is sufficient value in an image, it should be recognised, just as high-value historical shots are. Value is not always numerical, nor is numerical greatness always valuable. Small is often a lot more beautiful and imparts that beauty perfectly well without being examined in minute detail.

The little beauty currently at WP:FPC

There are many other fine (small) images which fall foul of this rule, but the current one getting my goat is Image:Absinthe-glass.jpg, presently being booed down for being titchy over at WP:FPC. I'd very much like to see the resolution guidelines allow for the occasional dimensionally-challenged shot like this to slip between the pixel-peepers legs, and urge your support. My rationale for supporting the absinthe shot, for the record

1. It's very much suitable for print, being well lit and sharply focussed; without upsampling (which it might stand) it would be 2x3 inches at 200dpi
2. Although absinthe shots are quite reproducible, the spoon isn't so easy to come by; hence it's very enc and reasonably unique
3. As a picture, it has a certain quality, which I'm not going to waffle on about, but which sets it apart for the ordinary run-of-the-mill
4. I like it a lot, and so do many other people, and
5. Rules are rules, except when they're guidelines
   

mikaul^talk 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I protest!

I protest against the criteria that we use to promote photos to Featured Photo. It seems that too much weight is put in for the quality of the photo. I don't think this should always be a priority. I think the uniqueness of the photo should have priority. For example, if one takes a photo of a specie which was thought to have died out, that photo should be able to become FA, even if it is a bad shot. People don't always get the time they need to react and make the photo look professional. Such is the case here, where a castle is besieged. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you fully understood what that picture depicts? It's a re-enactment of a castle attack at a reproduction castle at a theme park. I believe that the theme park puts on displays like this every day, and there are other places putting on displays on similar lines. None of which is a bad thing; but this particular picture isn't at all unique or irreplacable. TSP 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was modern warfare. Of course I know what it represents, but such stunts are expensive and I don't think they do it "every day." And I was only using that one as an example. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This fits the description given on their web page ([1]) of their standard show - "...Suddenly, giant war machines appear and the keep becomes the scene of a fierce battle..." - I think, in fact, that they do this several times a day during summer ("there is also a timetable of ‘shows’, which take place several times a day" [2]).

I do agree that things like historicity, importance to the encyclopedia, rarity and so on should be taken into account as well as just image quality; but I don't think this is a good example. TSP 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. If a comparatively low quality image has to be promoted, it should only be done for images of immense historic significance. the one mentioned certainly isn't on high encyclopedic value. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The classic example is Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg. Carcharoth 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "digital manipulation" by "manipulation"

This is good sample of Wikipedia cognitive bias. Who care if the manipulation is made with Photoshop, glue and scissor or in wet darkroom ? The rule about manipulation should be same. Ericd 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the same. I think that point is reasonably provided for in the fourth bulletpoint there. The criterion was drafted to address the fact that it is so easy and commonplace to "adjust" scanned-in or purely digital images en route to the encyclopedia, nominees might be forgiven for thinking that anything goes, so to speak. Some undeclared and controversial digital comping and cloning of FPCs came to light and the new guideline followed soon after. The criterion is so thorough, I can't think of a clearer way of saying "undeclared manipulation is never acceptable", and the addition of "whether with glue and scissors or in the darkroom" would seem kind of superfluous. mikaul^talk 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my proposal is not to add "whether with glue and scissors or in the darkroom". It is that "Avoids inappropriate manipulation" is enough for point 9 "digital" just weaken the rule. Ericd 14:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image dimension requirements are a bit arbitrary

"Still images are a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred. Animated images are generally much smaller. Further information on image size can be found here."

Doesn't that sound odd? By that definition, I could upload an image of 1px x 1000px. Seeing as how HD is generally the standard for high quality video outside of studios, I don't see why our requirements shouldn't be the same. My suggestion:

• Still raster images should be a minimum of 0.92 megapixels, but the actual dimensions must be at least 1280×720, while 1920×1200 (2.3 megapixels) is the recommended minimum size – to fully fit a HDTV-compatible computer monitor. This dimension requirement may be modified or waived on a per-nomination basis at voters' discretion, based on the quality and contents of the nominated image.
• Animated raster images must be clear and legible at their original size. No dimension requirements are set, as they may vary from image to image based on the animation nominated.
• Vector graphics images have no formal dimension requirements, though they must scale without distorting the image from its original design.

♠ SG →Talk 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that by 1280×720, I mean the image cannot have a width smaller than 1280 nor a height less than 720 pixels. That means no odd 1000×1000 cropped photos (even though they exceed 0.92MP). This basically limits us to accepting at least 720p photos. I would certainly prefer to have a minimum of 1440×1080, essentially 1080p in a 4:3 configuration, but I'm being a little conservative, as I know there are a few people who would complain about this resolution. ♠ SG →Talk 03:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How about 360 degree panoramas? I like that your suggested requirements are meaningful instead of arbitrary, but I think having things exactly fit monitors misses out on things that are supposed to be oddly shaped. Enuja (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to explain why large images are prefered, but I don't really think that digital video resolutions have any significance to still images visible on a PC on Wikipedia... To be honest, it sounds like the rationale behind using HD resolutions is just as arbitrary as saying 1000x wide. Common sense says that the proportions should be appropriate and that panoramas are probably going to be judged more harshly than images with 1:1 proportions. Even if this isn't stated explicitly in the guidelines, we all still reserve the right to suggest a panorama with 1000x200px is a bit small. In the end, regardless of the guidelines, we all vote based on our own intuitions just as much as we vote with the guidelines in mind. As long as our reasons are justifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

By and large I agree with what Diliff said above - why should the sizing be based off digital video resolutions? However the idea of say a 0.92MP guideline is not bad, though I would disagree with changing the current minimum of 1000px minimum side length. --Fir0002 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the original preferred size was 800x600, based on the resolution of the (then) standard SVGA computer monitor. Maybe I dreamed it or something.. but I'm fairly sure the idea was that images would then be suitable for wallpaper use. This has been quietly dropped in favour of a pixel count more suitable for print, but (not surprisingly) no-one has ever come up with a set of x-y dimensions which define "printable" - and 1000px is barely enough for a decent 5x4-inch print. I've previously ranted at length on the only sensible criterion, which is that an image be big enough to properly evaluate for quality, which in effect is entirely subject-based. If fine details constitute an important criterion for a given subject, the image needs to be of sufficiently high resolution to show them clearly. A panorama, like most landscape shots, needs to be considerably bigger than a portrait of the Queen of England, which, frankly, I could evaluate better at 800x600 than I could at 3000x2000. While a good working average for all this might be around 1000px, based on nothing more than the ability to view a reasonable amount of detail for most subjects at more-or-less full screen, it clearly should be an arbitrary figure; the problem is that people regard it as mandatory. This would be the case no matter how you expressed it, in x-y dimensions or megapixels – worsening the problem, I think, the more specific (cf "0.92Mp") you make it. People jump on that figure and if an image adds up to less beans, they oppose. The only solution is to weaken the criterion, not firm it up. --mikaul^talk 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"it might be shocking"

Concern has been raised that the potential negative impact of some "shocking" images that have been selected for the front page may be greater than the value gained in showing the images. Difficult to know at what point the negative shock impact of a strong image placed on the main page overweighs the educational value - but I can conceive that some images may be so repelling that people are turned away rather than drawn in. I have come here looking for the guidance on such shocking images. What I see is "it might be shocking" without any other qualifying remark, which appears to leave the door open. I'd like to see a criteria paragraph along the lines of 2: "Is of high resolution." that a picture should not be highly offensive or strong enough to be reasonably expected to shock or stun, with an exception along these lines: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'd find much support for such a proposal. If you'd taken part in the discussion, you should be aware is that there is no way you can define what is 'resonably expect to shock or stun'. In some societies, any nudity is offensive, and is likely to shock and stun. In some societies, two men french kissing may be offensive and is likely to shock or stun. I think you may have misunderstood the criteria. I see no evidence that the specific images that have drawn complaints were chosen because they were 'shocking'. Far more likely they were chosen because the are an excellent illustration (which is the whole reason for FP) of shocking but sadly common behaviour. It is the behaviour depicted that is shocking not the image. Nil Einne 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a fine dividing line would be difficult to draw up, but that difficulty shouldn't mean we don't have a discussion to see what solutions we can offer. The current Featured picture criteria don't appear to have any suggestion that an image involving child pornography would be rejected, yet it clearly would (wouldn't it?). I think it would make sense to have a section in the criteria which makes editors at least PAUSE and consider before selecting an image which may have a negative impact on Wikipedia's reputation. Few of our guidelines are clear cut - there is always an allowance for the situation and sensible adjustments. But what the guidelines do offer is just that - some guidance. What images are likely to shock? Images involving violence, especially sexual violence. Graphic images of sexual behaviour. Images which violate religious beliefs. Images involving extreme abuse of children and animals. Intense images of bodily violence involving blood. You know, the sorts of images that tend to cause controversy in even the most liberal of societies. I'm not suggesting that such images are banned, but that it is suggested that caution and care be applied when considering using such images on the main page. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure an image of child pornography wouldn't be put up because, as well as being shocking, it would be pretty illegal. Hammer Raccoon 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So we have a starting point. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Images which violate religious beliefs." I'm not so sure what you mean by this. Does a picture of a woman not wearing a a Hijab count? Because that violates the religious beliefs of some Muslims.
As for the child porno picture, I believe that it would violate current policy simply to upload it. In my opinion, anything that violates U.S.A., and Florida state law must not be uploaded. Furthermore, most porno is copyrighted so that would be another issue. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As Puchiko has pointed out, Wikipedia abides by United States federal and Florida state law. Therefore, lewd photographs of anyone under the age of 18 or non-consenting adults is prohibited. Now, should we be the recipients of a high-quality photo of, say, a naked woman, it should undoubtedly be featured and eventually make its way to the front page. Wikipedia is not censored, and so the quality and encyclopedic value of an image must outweigh any ethical concern about political correctness, so long as we stay within the law. Saying that an image should not be featured or displayed on the front page because it MAY be shocking to certain people is against the purpose of an encyclopedia. Besides, all of those images would STILL be there on their respective article pages, so limited censorship defeats the purpose. I strongly oppose any such rule, and if it were ever enforced, I'd leave Wikipedia immediately.

I think User:Shir-El too put it best on that talk page: "An encyclopedia should reflect its contents". ♠ SG →Talk 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point: an encyclopedia's images should reflect its contents as descriptively as possible. The current situation is that we depend on the consideration of those editors involved with a given article way back when a controversial image is uploaded to that page. It's the same for controversial written content: if it's notable, and more pertinently, essential to the understanding of that article, it will be included subject to current guidelines. Much later, a picture may become Featured based on its excellence as an image, period: the ethical inclusion/exclusion wrangling will have been over with long before the WP:FPC process begins. We should not be shying away from recognising outstanding images as Features Pictures based on the imagined sensibilities of a minority of faint-hearted visitors. I'd suggest you take this issue to one of the POTD pages, maybe Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day or even Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines, but I'd guess you'll get an even stronger response there: if it's in the encyclopedia and it's been selected as premium content, it has surely been vetted enough to appear on the front page without any qualms whatsoever. --mikaul^talk 10:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of fonts

The lack of a standard for fonts used in maps and diagrams has given Wikipedia a random mis-mash of different styles. This is especially problematic for SVG files where the labels may not render properly if the image is using a font not found on most computers. There are numerous examples of SVGs I can point to where this is a problem. Most encyclopedias have a standard set of fonts that they use for all images that include rendered text; Wikipedia should be no different. I think it's time that we create a guideline/recommendation for which fonts are preferred in diagrams and maps. These should be clean attractive fonts that can be found on most computers (Mac and PC at least). Verdana, Arial, and Trubuchet MS come to mind as possible recommendations. Kaldari 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with that, although there's no need for more than a few words in the FP criteria. Many of the FP criteria merely reiterate Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:MOS and I'd suggest you find some consensus there to spell out the guideline, which can then be linked to from here. --mikaul^talk 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have opposed (i.e. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bttf.png) a number of FPC due to poor typography (which is partially an issue with using SVG without embedded fonts). I think forcing users to use something like Arial is a bad idea. While in theory, standardizing illustrations/diagrams and branding a look for wikipedia is all great, I do not believe that with such a massive, diverse project, it's implementation would be feasible. I'd be more interested in Wikipedia working towards giving us designers more font options besides default (because if we want to use a custom font now, we must convert the text to outlines, and thus partially defeating the purpose of SVGs because text converted to outlines cannot be edited or selected by end users). Maybe Wikipedia could work on licensing decent fonts, or team up with an open source typeface project. Or maybe Wikipedia could develop some way to securely embed typefaces in a manner similar to that of PDFs or Flash. But as of now, I do not think it would be worth it to block FP promotion because a user used default font X instead of default font Y. As it goes for FP, my personal standard is based on my knowledge of what is and isn't "good" typography. I do not want to create a scenario where perfectly good images are rejected based on not using font Y, while the flaws of poorly designed images are overlooked because it meets a standard criteria of using font Y.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit about the technical issues involved in using fonts in SVG images? Does "embedding" a font in an SVG mean it is converted to outlines? If so, I agree that would not be an ideal solution. If we are not embedding fonts, however, I think we should at least encourage people to use common fonts so that most people can see the text as it was intended. Most designers are familiar with the idea of "web-safe" fonts, so this shouldn't be very difficult for people to adhere to, IMO. Kaldari 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

SVGs support font embedding (a copy of the font is coded into the SVG file). Wikipedia has disabled this feature, so if you upload an SVG file that you encoded with Adobe Illustrator and checked the "embed font" option, the SVG will not display properly once uploaded. I image the reason why Wikipedia has disabled this feature was due to copyright concern (I'm not sure how secure SVG font embedding is. perhaps it is easy to extract and therefore "steal" the fonts?) but it could also be that SVG files can become fairly large and bloated if multiple fonts are embedded. So now, the only options designers who want to use a custom font are to use a raster image (png, jpg, gif) or to convert the text to outlines for an SVG. I agree that websafe fonts is an issue that most designers are aware of. However, designers have also created technologies/hacks, such as sIFR and FIR to give back font control to designers when it comes to headline text. I can live with body text being Verdena or some other default, but the fact of the matter is, the main body text of the article is where the body text is supposed to go. Illustrations should rarely, if ever, have "body text", but will instead have titles and labels. On top of that, I can think of scenarios where an image could be improved with the use of custom typefaces over the defaults (for example, a period typefaces could accompany a period map to help set the mood and create a historical feel for the whole image).-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. If Wikipedia has disabled being able to use SVG images with embedded fonts, why is it that when I download Image:Tugboat_diagram-en_edit.svg to my computer and open it in Illustrator it says "MS Sans Serif: Default font substituted for missing font"? It seems like there is a font embedded in the image (and it's apparently a font that I don't have). Kaldari 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the same thing that HTML/CSS has. You can specify a specific font for a webpage, but if the user does not have the font on their computer, they will not see the webpage in the desired font. Similarly, you can tell the SVG file that a certain text box will be displayed in font X, but if you don't have font X, it will revert to the default. However, none of this embeds the font into the document. It just codes for the font attribute (if that makes sense). You can also embed the font (physically putting the font info into the SVG file), thus eliminating the need for the end user to have the font already installed on their machine. Make sense?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Too bad the default font for SVGs on a Mac is a huge typewriter font! Kaldari 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Help create a Manual of Style for maps and diagrams

Right now it seems that Wikipedia provides no guidance on the best practices for creating maps and diagrams. These types of images are rapidly proliferating on Wikipedia. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has just started a grant program to pay illustrators to add new diagrams to articles in need. It would be nice if most of these additions followed similar styles and conventions instead of continually reinventing the wheel (with various degrees of success). Although I don't believe Wikipedia needs to enforce one particular style on all maps and diagram, there are some helpful conventions that I think we should put into writing somewhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy doesn't seem like the appropriate place for this, so I've decided to be bold and create a proposed Manual of Style page for maps and diagrams. Right now it is mostly blank as I would like to know what suggestions the Wikipedia community has to offer. Feel free to hop over there and edit it to your heart's content or add ideas to the talk page. Thanks! Kaldari 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

At one point in time Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps was discussing standardization (see the top topics on the project's talk page). Don't know if this should be crossposted there, or if that old proposal resurrected. Also, where did you hear about the Wikipedia Foundation grant program?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know about that WikiProject. I've crossposted there. I heard about the grant program on the Wikipedia Signpost (last week I think). Kaldari 01:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital photo manipulation bullet needs to be stronger

This rules.

This sucks.

I'm still pretty upset that the digitally manipulated photo Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg is a featured picture. I don't know if the top of that boxer's head looked like that at that moment. Nobody does. This is a fantasy image - part photo, and part painting. I don't see this as a minor retouching. What's next - airbrushing head-shots to remove unsightly skin blemishes? This photo contains inappropriate digital manipulation, and Featured status should be removed from the photo. And our policy should be that featured pictures are not allowed to be digitally manipulated to add features to a photo, or subtract features from a photo (other than by appropriate cropping of course). Tempshill (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'd prefer that the latter be our policy on all Wikipedia photos that are included in articles (who cares about userspace); but adopting this policy for Featured photos is a minimum. Tempshill (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest you nominate it for delisting, then re-nominate the original for promotion. --mikaul^talk 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FP eligibility for animal pictures

There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

amended footnote for #7

I've tweaked this footnote following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Captions(again), mainly to remove the confusing phrase "extended caption", which is an option (per the final sentence which desribes optional main page PoD prose) rather than a requirement.--mikaul^talk 09:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #7 clarification

Suggested clarification further to discussion at FPC:

7. Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. A complete caption:

• Is succinct
• Properly identifies the main subject, including latin and technical names where applicable
• Describes the context of the photograph
• States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc)

Captions are explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Captions

I can't think of anything else right now. I'm happy enough with the prominence of the word "succinct" as it stands, others might want to stress the point more.. or less.. --mikaul^talk 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No I think that's a fine amendment. For the first few weeks as nominators get adjusted to the new requirements, it may be worth adding that POTD captions are not required (or in some cases even desired) and adding a link to the discussion on the WP:FPC talk page --Fir0002 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's easily done by tweaking the footnote, which already mentions POTD. In the fullness of time there should be no need to mention POTD captioning, as it's a separate process to FPC.
I do think there's something to be said for a good description on the image page, which might help with POTD captioning, but this is basically (a) up to the enthusiasm of the contributor (b) is only really valuable if it's not already in the article (ie picture context) and (c) the potential for anything substantial varies widely with subject area. Not something you'd want to make mandatory for all candidates, I think. note: I've tweaked the second point --mikaul^talk 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Consider removing the italics on most relevant, since italics are not used in any of the other criteria. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right enough; sorted :o) --mikaul^talk 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made two minor changes...

I've added a note to "Is neutral" clarifying what is the actual policy in operation: Historical images that advocate a historically-sigificant point of view or agenda may be highly encyclopaedic for articles on those points of view or agendas, and regularly pass FPC.

I also added a link to commons:Help:Scanning, to help give advice for preparing images. Remove it if you like. 13:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Historic exceptions: wording

On the FPC talk page, Durova suggested we clarify the historical documents exception for resolution on the criteria. I don't know too much about printing, but the general idea I get is that people are willing to have historic documents be less than 1000 pixels on a side, and much more willing to promote historic documents that are at or just over 1000 pixels on a side, but people are unwilling to promote even historical images that would not look good printed. Because of this, I suggest that historic exception bullet point for Resolution (requirement #2) be merged with the pixel size bullet point, so the requirement to be printable is no longer modified by the historic exception.

As far as requirement #1, I think that it was previously clear and now [3] is a little bit too long. What do other people think? - Enuja (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that's at all accurate. Image:Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg would not look good printed. It's an FP. Likewise Image:Edgar Allan Poe 2.jpg. It's more to do that it should be reasonable to expect that no better image, or reproduction of the image, will be forthcoming, and the subject is important enough that encyclopaedic value trumps the low quality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that #1 is way too wordy now, in fact most of the edits from this one onwards are nowhere near concise enough. Why not use footnotes for clarification points?
    The issue with historical images isn't their age per se, but their rarity; quite often only a small scan or whatever is available anywhere, but it holds huge enc value, as Mr Holiday points out. The repro consideration is mostly wheeled out in justification of minimum pixel counts for FPs in general, usually in delist noms. It's a common sense thing which needs little in the way of rules but plenty of ad hoc examination. It's also covered quite well in #1, of course. No change needed, IMO. --mikaul^talk 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, 1's too long now, and most of the new indented bullet points are long and hard to follow, and aren't really going to help anyone understand the point above that they are just elaborating on. They could be done as footnotes if someone's really attached to them. --jjron (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Right. I've cut my deathless (In that it's so belaboured to count as undead) prose. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Is Neutral - just delete?

I'm not entirely convinced that we need a featured picture criteria point to say that images are neutral. Generally, I think images don't need to be neutral, they just need to be to used in a neutral way. There is probably not a neutral way to use a non-neutral map, so a non-neutral map therefore can't meet "5. Adds value to the article." Any images that shouldn't be promoted because of neutrality issues already shouldn't be promoted because of encyclopedic issues, so I think that we should remove criteria number eight to prevent instruction creep. - Enuja (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in it is at all useful as a hard-and-fast rule. The fact is, we break it all the damn time, and the only possible use it might have is when talking about user-made works. And what it tries to say would be better and more precisely said as "user-made diagrams and maps must strive for accuracy and must not violate WP:FRINGE". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that we should delete the requirement? I'm not sure if you're suggesting new language to replace it or to be put into a different point, or if you'd also like to see it go. - Enuja (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should go. It MAY be useful to mention accuracy in user-made works somewhere in passing, but as a whole, it should go. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I've never seen any image not promoted solely because of this issue and the only times it's been cited were (pitiful) attempts at political correctness. Images are generally only as POV as their captions. The only case where it might be applicable is, as stated above, in user-created maps. Heaven forbid we don't see a map of Liancourt Rocks, certain Balkan regions, or anything else that may be subject to arbcom sanctions. MER-C 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its a waste of space, especially with #6 and #7 covering similar ground. Get rid. --mikaul^talk 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

True, my eyes glazed over point 6, meaning that the only cases I could see that point 8 would be significant would be if, say, a user-created (or PR-firm created, I guess) diagram entitled "Why intelligent design/reflexology/flat earth/conspiracy theory X is true!" using fringe sources. And, if that really needs to be said - (I don't think it does unless all the denizens of WP:FPC suddenly lost 50 points of intelligence) - it could be stated in point 5 with more clarity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It can go. I don't think I've ever used it as a reason myself to oppose or support, and have rarely (if ever) seen anyone else successfully use it. If anyone's concerned about people sneaking things in, maybe #6 could be made Is accurate and neutral just in case? --jjron (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I done did it, and I didn't add any extra language into #6. I really think "contributes" and "accurate" together really cover this one. If we need to add language to another point, let's keep it as concise as possible. - Enuja (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about a couple things here. First, that this went from discussion to implementation with only four people contributing and in one day. "Be bold" applies to article editing, but I don't think it does (or should) apply to significant changes to policy. I really think there should be more discussion on this before a criterion is struck.

Second, there are good reasons for the neutrality criterion w/r/t featured pictures that were missed completely in your brief discussion above, and they have nothing to do with "political correctness." Essentially, you want to sidestep the neutrality requirement by pointing out that non-neutral images can be used in a neutral context, based on how they're used in a particular article or articles. But images exist independently of articles, and just because an image is on a particular article now does not mean it will be used on that same article tomorrow or next week. This might happen for entirely good reasons - maybe the article content is edited or improved, and the image is no longer entirely appropriate, or maybe an image better-suited to the article will replace the existing one. What you have then is a non-neutral image that has endorsement (featured status) totally devoid of the context that makes it "acceptable" as such.

I'd also like to point out that featured pictures are, by the very fact of their featured status, inserted into various pages in Wikipedia devoid of the context of the article(s) that make their non-neutrality 'okay.' To pick one of many examples, they are placed on the front page, devoid of the full context that supports them in the article. True, they get a short summary that might help explain the context -- but it's possible that a short summary will be inadequate to provide proper context. A more troubling example are the pages that simply list all the featured pictures by category or by promotion date, which (by design) lack any context for the images. Somebody browsing those pages without reading each of the articles the picture is used in might come across one of these non-neutral images and (quite understandably, IMO) wonder why Wikipedia would feature something non-neutral and/or patently offensive. Nevermind the question of whether the image is used neutrally in an article that sets the context for its use. Somebody browsing featured images (as I have done many times, especially before I had an account here) just for the sake of viewing the images won't have the 'benefit' of the context given in an article.

If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, neutrality must be taken seriously, and even the appearance of non-neutrality must be considered. That's quite applicable here. -- Moondigger (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say I wasn't surprised to see this criterion gone when I logged on this morning. Four (actually five, if you look back) fairly unanimous posts is way more consensus than changes normally get here... I'm not sure when the neutrality clause came in, but it was certainly before similar issues were addressed in related criteria. For example, #7 was updated very recently to clarify the need for contextual captioning of FPCs, and (as jjron suggests) there is scope for amplifying the call at #6 for objective (or even verifiable) support for image content at description-page level, if the subject matter is controversial or whatever. However the link to example subject matter at #3 is another possible area for elaboration, one that is also linkable from #6.
I'd say this was a case of demonstrating that a real problem exists first, and according it the weight that problem merits in these guidelines. If we start chasing what-if scenarios with over-elaborate criteria we open a Pandora's box of rule creep, as evidenced with #1 the other day. --mikaul^talk 12:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be worth re-including as a note on criterion 6. It's applicable so rarely that it doesn't need to be a whole criterion on its own, but if it does apply it might be quite important; for example if someone were to draw a map of Israel and Palestine and include only one side's views of where the borders lie.

It is sufficient for neutrality for an image to be accurate in what it claims to portray, however. A historical diagram portraying, say, an outdated view of racial origins, or a map showing the Japanese claims to Sakhalin Island, would be fine as long as it did not claim to portray any more than those opinions. TSP (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Moondigger, I do normally wait longer to implement changes, but this appears to be a bit of an open season on the criteria. I figured that I should jump in and change things now, when a large number of people's attention is on the criteria individually and as a whole, so that, in the end, we get as much imput as possible from as many people as possible, and so that people are editing the criteria as a whole, together. I do understand that it might be better to edit some of the other criteria because of this change, and since the other criteria are in active flux as well right now, I thought that flux should include the input that the neutrality bullet point is very likely to be missing.

Do you think that the American WWII poster with anti-Japanese sentiment should not have been promoted as a featured picture? - Enuja (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally located the relevant policy for NOR in images, and linked to it in #6. Hopefully this will address concerns about the removal of the neutrality criterion. If any more clarification is needed, I'd suggest a footnote using text from the poilcy: and example like Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader might be useful. Or completely unnecessary, depending on your POV ;o) --mikaul^talk 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Panoramas

I added a size remark about panoramas - we've seen some with a height of some 400 px or so, and that's just too small... --Janke | Talk 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely worth a mention, although past discussions have failed to come up with a consensus on the preferred minimum so it's always been left out. I've always argued for a minimum height, because there is no standard panoramic format, hence width is a poor indicator. So why not mention height as the indicator in the criterion? --mikaul^talk 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling on it (and I mean this with respect to my own panos) is that they should reach the 'minimum' in the short dimension. In other words, for most panos they should be a minimum 1,000px in height. My only concern with putting this in the criteria is that people argue against images 'on size' when they are right on or just over the minimum - this isn't valid, but it is done regularly. Thus if we made this a criteria, they'd be jumping on panos 1,000px in height and claiming them as too small. Personally I don't want to 'give away' my panos at much more than this (I often go to about 1,200px), and I think many other contributors feel the same way. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm against an absolute measure. The general quality of the image will what to decide upon. --Janke | Talk 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But the same logic behind the standard image format minimum applies equally here, even if I do kind of share your misgivings about it. Other considerations aside for the moment, it's partly a question of resolution being enough to display an image full-screen. It might be that it's important that FPs are suitable as a wallpaper or desktop image, but for me, full-screen is the ideal display size for appreciating the vast majority of images. Personally (FPC criteria notwithstanding) I'll normally mark down a FPC which can't fill my screen (even if that does make me slightly biased against some portrait-orientated stuff...) and get annoyed by overly-large images which I have to download to appreciate at screen size. Scrolling a pano which is waay taller than my screen is almost as frustrating as not being able to make out detail in a 400px one.
If I may be permitted to waffle on a bit more, the lovely thing about a full-height pano is that on-screen scrolling is like panning around the original scene, just like viewing macros should be like holding a magnifying glass over a specimen. I'd be much happier if our size criteria were based on practical viewing considerations like that, rather than enforce arbitrary dimensions with more than half an eye on print repro size. But for consistency's sake, if we do stipulate minima for standard formats, we're bound do the same for panoramas. --mikaul^talk 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd pretty much agree entirely with that. The resolution thing is oversold (I've seen votes recently where the sole reason for supporting - and even nominating - is something like "huge resolution"). I rather view a pano at roughly screen height - another reason for my aiming at around 1000px in height. And searching through any huge image, pano or not, is usually more frustrating than rewarding. I often wonder where the 1000px requirement came from, it was certainly here before I was, and is often applied too readily IMO. Having said which, I don't really understand Janke's "I'm against an absolute measure...etc" statement, especially as he started this discussion, he's almost arguing against himself; the "general quality" may well be good enough at 400px, so why bring it up? If nothing else the current 1000px gives an objective starting point for regular images. Just waffling on in some vague way about them having to be 'big enough' or 'not too small' is pointless and will get no outcome. Stating a minimum at least gives you a solid baseline from which to begin. --jjron (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing against myself... at least I try not to! ;-) It all depends on the subject. A flagpole can be 10,000 px high, and only 200 px wide, and have enough resolution. If you hate vertical panos, then imagine some other subject... But I hope you see why I may say that in some cases 400 px is not enough, while it may be in other. So, it's the "general quality" that will decide my vote, as I said. --Janke | Talk 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming in a bit late in the discussion, I do think that 400px is probably a bit low for most panoramas, but as others have mentioned, it really depends on the subject. Like Jjron, I'm loathe to upload full resolution these days (although still uploading at a res that is clearly of marketable size, at least I can reserve my absolute highest quality image for unrestricted commercial use). Recently, I uploaded the panorama of Tower Bridge and the Thames which was (from memory) 2500 by 950ish. It was slightly below the 1000px mark that was discussed, but I think it was sufficient given the sharpness, as it was downsampled so significantly. I do think that around 1000px height is a pretty good ballpark figure for panoramas, since we use 1000px as a minimum dimension and panoramas are typically multiple photos that have been stitched horizontally, so you would expect them to be just as detailed as a single image in the vertical dimension.We should be realistic, though, if the content does not warrant ultra-high definition. A flagpole is a pretty good example of that (but I can't imagine one being featured - what makes one flagpole stand out among other flagpoles!?). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Animations

Whilst on the subject of image size, has anyone got any suggestions for animations? At the moment Criteria 2 just says "Animated images are generally much smaller." (i.e., than the 1,000px minimum for stills). Should a size be given, even say 500px? At the moment we're seeing an 'anything goes' situation, where apparently animations at 200 or 300px are perfectly acceptable (e.g., this recent nom). Seems a bit unfair. --jjron (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to make a hard-and-fast rule, because an animation or video with a very large number of frames may HAVE to be smaller than one with only a few, due to the 20 meg limit on uploads, if nothing else. How about a guideline of about 700px instead of an absolute rule? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm against an absolute measure. The general quality of the image will what to decide upon. Some animations only need to be 100 px, others may need 500, or more. --Janke | Talk 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing, though, has to change. "Animations are generally much smaller" is awful phrasing. "Although animations may be of smaller size than this." would be better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm maybe a bit biased as I'm not much of a fan of animations and videos (slow to load, awkward to use, seem awfully prone to error, and limited applications beyond the webpage), but I still see it as a somewhat unfair with such differing size requirements. And as I write at least two more videos with resolutions of 320×240 pixels are soon to be promoted (1, 2). Agree with Shoemaker that at least that awful wording should be improved. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

colour/exposure "correction" is getting out of hand

I really think the wording about digital manipulation needs to be strengthened. We are now routinely promoting images that are severely over-processed and unrealistic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel magazine, the images we feature should be as documentary as possible, not "perfect" eye-popping images (which unfortunately are the norm in the photography world right now). Can we add some kind of wording discouraging excessive "correction"/manipulation? As HDR becomes increasingly popular in the ampro world, this is going to become even more of a problem. Practices such as blending multiple exposures and over-saturating colors should be more discouraged in our criteria. Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote as you'd like, but it's going to be difficult to convince me that Diliff's Colosseum shot is anything but superb. If you don't like other-worldly dusk lighting and yellow artificial lights, you may oppose all images taken during dawn and dusk, but I happen to like them. The kayaking image has two versions, and the current version is actually less color saturated than the first version. I think it is a misuse of criteria to try to slant the images towards the type of images you happen to like. If it's about preference, let it be about votes. If it's about technical quality, then, sure, we can have criteria, but I think, if anything, the criteria should be simpler than they currently are. - Enuja (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that Kaldari considers anything other than bog standard lighting conditions and completely unedited photos straight out of the camera as being overprocessed, as per our discussions in various nominations and on my talk page. I agree completely with him that genuinely overprocessed images have no place in an encyclopaedia, as they misrepresent reality to a great extent, but I don't think we see eye to eye on what constitutes overprocessing. I go to great lengths to make sure my processing of images is not overbearing and of course such things will always be open to interpretation, but it certainly isn't something I pay little attention to. In the case of that Colosseum photo, from memory there was very little processing done at all. The existing lighting did all the work for me.

Kaldari, I ask you, what exactly prohibits the Colosseum image from being 'documentary'? Can you provide any specific evidence about what is so unreal about it? I doubt you can, because you weren't there and you have no idea if the scene is accurate or not. You're just using your intuition and while that probably serves you well most of the time, it isn't infallible, and it has let you down twice recently (the Trevi Fountain photo, which you assumed was from HDRI and arguably, regarding the colosseum photo). In the end, when I press you about why it must be false or overprocessed, the only arguments that I cannot refute are the ones that are so subjective, it comes down to opinion/faith, in much the same way that belief in the existence of a god comes down to faith. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Colosseum picture looks unrealistic because of the sky. I've never seen a sky that looks that color in real life, but maybe the skies in Europe are weird :) I know for a fact that the kayaking picture is oversaturated because if you look at the original the guy's skin is glowing red. When I brought it to the photographer's attention, he tweaked the skintones to something more believable but left the rest of it as is. Anyway, I suppose you're right. It does come down to personal subjective opinion. My eyeballs just don't like pictures that I can tell are manipulated. While Diliff's opinion is that some manipulation is fine, which I agree with, his threshold is obviously a lot higher than mine. I guess I'm just amazed that most of the people voting on images here don't prefer more realistic coloring and saturation for photographs in Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, the sky is accurate in that photo, I even went back to the raw files to have a look and no processing has been involved whatsoever. Have you never seen twilight before, where the sky is a deep blue (hah, coincidentally the colosseum photo has been added to the article as an example. I wasn't aware)? It is an extremely popular time for photography specifically because of the lighting conditions. As I mentioned before, I do think you need to question your eyeballs occasionally, as they just don't seem capable of determining accuracy every time. ;-) I don't think it is just my threshold, because nobody else has ever questioned the accuracy of the colour in my images to the extent you have. Thats okay though, as I like a good challenge every now and then, and I feel confident that, with few exceptions where my processing has been incorrect (in which case I will gladly go back and try to do a better job), I have nothing to feel guilty about. That said, I think you are absolutely right about the skin tone on that kayaker. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Colosseum pic is very good indeed. I question your reluctance to endorse pictures which look abnormal. If a picture is unrealistic in the sense that it represents something which exists only in the creator's imagination, then I agree that it has no place in an encyclopaedia. If it illustrates in a non-deceptive manner something which is relevant to an article, then I believe that it is appropriate, even if it does this through an unconventional way. I agree that digital manipulation which is deceptive should be discouraged. However, manipulation in and of itself is not a bad thing. For example, most good astrophotographic images on here will have been extensively manipulated, to the extent that they comprise the composition of not just different exposures, but different exposures of different wavelength spectra.

Similarly, the fact that something rarely visible in the way it is portrayed in an image is not in and of itself a bad thing. I give you, for example, photographs of cutaway models, photographs taken through telescopes, photographs taken of things which have ceased to exist, etc. For what it's worth, the sky looks so blue because of the colour temperature contrast with the sodium vapour architectural lights. Alternatively, you could just be using a cheap monitor which oversaturates colours to appeal to consumers in a supermarket.Arpitt (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5 - adds value to an article

Hi, I am pretty new in the WP:FPC circuitry (less so on COM:FPC). After having observed the process for some time and also trying to nominate a few candidates, I have started to wonder if criterion 5 always does good? If I understand the way this criterion is reinforced in practical terms, the image has to add value to an existing article, right?

Images are often forced into an article by the nominator shortly after upload and shorlty before nomination at FPC. As I see it this is sometimes done just such that it can be nominated. One use case is for images illustrating an encyclopedivcally valuable subject for which there is not yet a suitable article. As a consequence the image is pushed into some other article where the image is of marginal relevance just such that it can be nominated.

Sometimes an illustrator or photographer has EV FP featurable material for which there is not yet an article. Why not change this crierion such that it is evaluated if it has encyclopedic value irrespective of whether it currently is in use in an existing article. In the nomination, suggestons could be given as to which subjects the nominee are relevant for. If is promoted it would then be relevant to perhaps replace some existing images in existing articles. In this manner you can also upload and nominate (which is the most motivating process) without having to wait for stabilization of article content.

As an example of what this could be about, I recently had this FPC and assume for a moment that it is a good and valuable illustrations of the lichen family Teloscistaceae for which there is not yet a Wikipedia article. With more than 100 known species of this family of lichen I would say that the existance of such an article would be of relevance. It just has not been written yet. (It is not that I want to change the rule just to get my stuff nominated, it is just an example.)

As the crierion is now, I find it reactive, the good illustrations comes after the articles. Why not turn it into a more proactive citerion promoting featured pictures telling editors: Hey we have some fantastic high EV images, why not write some relevant articles about the subject? In this manner we can also avoid the selfish image pushing prior to nomination into articles. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see your point and agree to an extent, but as I understand it, featured pictures exist primarily to associate with articles, since articles are what Wikipedia is really about - technically the photos typically live only in Commons which is not part of the English Wikipedia. Of course they are closely linked, but here, images are nothing without articles that they contribute to. I do agree that sometimes, images are forced upon unsuitable articles and contribute little to them, and that is regrettable but I'm not sure that this criterion could be removed as it would singlehandedly defeat the entire purpose of FPs. ;-) Thats just how I see it, anyway. I think the trick is to try to encourage the article to be written, rather than change the criteria of FPC to accomodate it. Easier said than done of course. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree, that ideally the trick is to encourage the article to be written. Unfortunately, the turnaround time for that is long and in the process image contributors loose momentum and interest. As I see it synergy is lost. By I agree with you, that Wikipedia is primarily about articles and not images. Images are the spice which gives articles flavour and makes them eatable (IMO). -- Slaunger (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, I completely agree about the spice analogy. And I happen to like spicy food, that must be my attraction to photography... The thing is though, potential featured pictures can wait. There is no requirement that a great picture must also be a featured picture. When the time is right, and the article exists, then it can be nominated. I don't think an article should be written just to provide a home for photos anyway. They should be written for the purpose of completeness of the subject! Featuring the picture is just the icing on the cake. Or is it the garam masala in the curry? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating a new article as stub when this issue comes up. If it is a large, important group of organisms, then an image on a brand-new stubby little article is really quite encyclopedic all on its own. In my opinion. So I don't see this as a problem. - Enuja (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have agood point, but my problem is that I am not a native writer and I hesitate to contaminate this well-written English encyclopedia with my poor school English. Recently, when I have made some observations about an article or suggestions I am now consistently raising the issue on the talk page of an existing article as an observation/suggestion for the relevant capable editors. Images do not speak a language, which is one of the reasons why there are quite some non-native speakers are in the image forums at EN. I have the feeling that other non-native image creators feel the same way. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Slaunger: The English language in your note above proves that you can write any stub you need to! I consider criterion 5 very important, after all, this is an encyclopedia. Photographers needing a little "ego-boost" can always put their shots on Commons... ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He, he, yes on Commons you can upload and then nominate, but I do not see a parallel to ego-boosting in that, it is just a more light-weight and less tedious process. But no big deal, I sense most WP:FPC regulars finds the current criteria 5 fine as it is, and then I think it should be kept that way. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"not intended to deceive"

I want to suggest a change to criterion #8. I don't like the phrase "not intended to deceive". Who cares about the creator's intentions? The best intentions can result in a deceptive image. I think it should simply read "not deceptive". I know there was a lot of debate before this criterion was added which is why I bring up the issue here before making any changes. I hope I'm not being too legalistic but the current wording irks me. --D. Monack | talk 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections, I made the change. --D. Monack | talk 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria #8 again - Captions

Just noticed that the criteria still includes the requirement of a full caption. I don't think consensus has really been sought to the extent that would be needed to remove it from the criteria (last time it was mentioned was over a year ago, and that fizzled out without much debate. From what I've read previously though, it is generally agreed that providing an extended and appropriate caption is a good idea, but not mandatory (and therefore probably shouldn't be a criteria, lest those who take it gospel might oppose on that basis alone). Obviously I'm not suggesting we be lazy and make captions Somebody Else's Problem. It should probably remain as part of the nomination creation process as a recommendation. I'm just saying that it isn't always the nominator that is the best person to provide one, and those in charge of POTD such as Howcheng are generally very experienced and adept in cobbling up one. Of course, if the nomination fails because of the lack of a caption, it will never reach them, which is unfortunate and bureacratic.

What say you? Is a caption necessary for all nominations? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think at minimum we should have a caption that explains what we're looking at and which points out various details in the image. Any more than that is really out of the scope of FPC. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally we can copy and paste from an article for that. Sometimes that caption may be ready for POTD as it is I suppose, but it would be quite rare. We could just word the FPC nomination process differently to put more importance on a valid basic caption instead. So if we're agreed on that point, would you support removing #8? The fact that its a criteria implies it is mandatory. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support rewording #8 to make sure that it's the nominator's responsibility to tell us the salient details, but I would argue against eliminating it. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What about NPOV?

Example of an image (video, in this case) that is not POV

There's nothing in the criteria demanding a picture to be NPOV -- taking the phrasing from WP:WIAFA, demanding that it "presents views fairly and without bias". I came here because of the FPC nomination of Image:Execution of Mussolini (1945).ogg (right), which in my opinion should not be promoted because it presents a very slanted view on the subject. Shouldn't we add an NPOV criterion? Kane5187 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The caption should be NPOV. A picture is just something that happened, it has no POV, it is easily the most neutral thing on Wikipedia. Regarding the video in this case, it happened, exactly as shown, the where, why, how, who and what are up to the article. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, pictures are not NPOV. Ericd (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating non-photographic entries

Evaluating photographs is fairly straight forward: focus, lighting, composition, etc are all determined at the time the photograph was taken (more or less).

I find it nearly impossible to evaluate pictures of artwork, and as such, generally abstain. I have no idea what this or especailly this even is, let alone if it is worth featuring.

Any insight would be helpful.

Thanks,

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all very subjective and largely obfuscated by expert evaluation. One one level, your photographic expertise is only tangentally useful in establishing the encyclopedic value of a photograph, and the same is true of fine-art savvy for paintings and engravings; on another, you don't need to be an art critic to say you find an image utterly compelling or profoundly dull, and your opinion will still count the same as the next guy. Occasionally, a submission can claim technical merit relevant to the subject, usually because the artist is notable or the execution is so arresting that a visitor would be compelled to find out more.

Hence the FPC process ideally has two kinds of contributor: expert editors and interested bystanders, because the majority of visitors are (correspondingly) visually literate people looking for quality information. A keen eye is preferable to a trained one. Expert image critics bring so many esoteric criteria to the table that the true value of an image is either inflated, obscured or entirely lost, depending on the prevailing wind; most of the time, your opinion is more valuable for its lack of them. mikaul^talk 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting recent changes

A lot of rule creep, albeit necessary, makes for daunting reading if your're here for the first time. Footnotes have worked well in the past & I hope my edits have eased up the space without diluting the message. I can see a few more wordy elements that could benefit the same way. If there's no objections, I'll footnote the specific examples in #8 and the stuff about vector image sin #2 as well. mikaul^talk 12:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Excluding GFDL 1.2-only images

Now that the license migration has been approved by the community and the WMF board, I don't see any reason why we should continue to feature GFDL 1.2-only images. Once the license changes are implemented on en.wiki next month, those images will have to be removed from their articles, since GFDL 1.2 is not cc-by-sa compatible (which will become our preferred license for article reuse). Once the images are removed from the articles they will no longer meet the Featured Image criteria. It seems like a waste of effort for us to continue promoting them in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not having looked at the latest updates regarding this license change, is it actually true that GFDL 1.2 images will be removed from articles and/or Commons? I thought I remembered reading that GFDL would continue to be accepted even though all GFDL 1.3 content would essentially be migrated. Could you point me to discussion/policy where this is confirmed? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing: "4. Has a free license (except GDFL-1.2)?". commons:Template:Common Public License and commons:Template:FAL are licences that are not GDFL, not CC-BY-SA and yet both acceptable for commons, article usage and FPC. Given the ability to use obscure licences like that I find it doubtful that GDFL-1.2 would be banned. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Diliff: GFDL 1.2-only images can still be uploaded, they just won't be used within articles. Noodle snacks: The difference is that GFDL 1.2 is a strong copyleft license, the others are not. This is why it is not compatible. In other words, if a work includes a GFDL 1.2 image, it must be licensed as GFDL 1.2, it cannot also be dual licensed as cc-by-sa. (This is the same reason why GFDL 1.2 protects your photos from being "exploited" through commercial reuse). Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've sent an email to the foundation mailing list and the license update committee seeking clarification on this matter, BTW. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It looks like I may be jumping the gun. According to Erik Moeller, there isn't a wide consensus on when the GFDL acts as a strong copyleft and when it doesn't. Apparently the wording of the license is somewhat vague on the issue and it isn't clear if a Wikipedia article would be considered a "collection", "combined work", or "aggregation". So I guess you can disregard my post. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Kaldari mentioned that "GFDL 1.2 is not cc-by-sa compatible" and it seems that cc-by-sa compatible images are more useful/valuable to Wikipedia as they complement the text licence. So would it would make sense to add to section #4 (Has a free license) something like "cc-by-sa compatible licences are preferred".--Commander Keane (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• strongest possible oppose - see Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. As long as the image is licensed freely/compatibly enough for use in Wikipedia articles, licensing as GFDL 1.2 only should stay. There are a lot of issues with the attempted forward compatibility of licensing that long time and substantial contributors to the project have issues with. There seems to be a concerted effort to exclude the photographic contributions of those who disagree with the open ended nature of the GFDL 1.3+ licensing system. I don't believe that doing this is in the best interests of the project. Until this issue is more satisfactorily dealt with, we shouldn't be driving contributors away. Mfield (Oi!) 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" - if they were giving away horses it would be great, but they are giving away rides (GFDL 1.2 only) on Shetland ponies (reduced resolution). I do agree that exclusion is not the way to go, but surely we need to recognise better licences (like with the note in the criteria I suggested).--Commander Keane (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Text based pictures

• The images in question: File:German instrument of surrender2.jpg and File:Instrument of surrender Japan2.jpg.

I find myself taking great issue with these images being labeled as featured pictures. The basic problem is that they just don't work well as illustrative images for articles. Using today's featured image as an example, look at its use in the article Japanese Instrument of Surrender. First off, its use is immediately rendered redundant by the section "Text", which transcribes the image in a readable format, but the bigger issue is how it looks. As a thumbnail, it's completely illegable: rectangles of white with specks of black. I argue that these types of images do not "illustrate the subject in a compelling way". Even after clicking on the image, the preview on my screen is still unreadable. It requires viewing at the full resolution to see the image properly at all.

In my opinion, featured images are meant to be images of high technical and informative value that work well both within articles (as thumbnails supplementing text) and outside of articles (as standalone, great images). I find these images work better as supplementary material and belong in WikiCommons, not as thumbnails in articles.--Remurmur (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point about the compelling nature and informative value, but, it has to be said, Wiki FPs are all about working within articles, almost regardless of their status as standalone images. Those, if anything, are what belong at Commons. Another thing given significant weight for WP:FP is historical value, such that original documents pertaining to important events will always be very highly prized; I doubt you would get support for a delisting, although you're obviously welcome to nominate it. Although I do wonder if the encyclopedic value of the Japanese document is demonstrated by its use in the article (you would expect it to be the lead image, at least) I think it's fair to say it was featured more for its documentary value than aesthetic reasons. In general I think you might be overlooking that fact that there are no equivalent "featured document" or "featured diagram" projects – the FPC project accepts a wide range of media that don't need to be (and often aren't) outstanding outside the context of their subject matter. --mikaul^talk 11:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Licence

The 4º criteria states that images must have a free licence, ruling out non-free images uploaded locally under the non-free content criteria. But what about images that are uploaded locally because of being in the public domain in the US but not in the country of origin, and as such are requested not to be moved to Commons? (See Category:Images in the public domain in the United States) Can those images be considered for featured status? MBelgrano (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes... we can't use non-free images due to the policy that they only be used on pages that we can justify on, and displaying them here would be against that. But a PD image that isn't PD in it's country of origin but PD in the united states would be allowed to be displayed anywhere on this project, so it should be eligible for a FP. I don't think we require FP's to ONLY reside on Commons, although some editors I think prefer this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical document restoration and FP criteria

I am seeking clarification in the FP criteria (WP:WIAFP) regarding the restoration of historical images. The current WP:FP criteria offers lots of direction with regards to photographs but little direction in terms of other types historical documents. Criteria 8 doesn’t offer much in terms of the appropriateness of digital manipulation for the purposes of restoring images to their original state. I understand that FP is certainly more subjective than other feature works. However, this does not void the need for defined selection criteria. As of current, there is nothing to provide that documents should, or should not be, restored to original state. The issue has come about in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First World War maps and differences of opinion on whether to restore or not restore images is making consensus difficult to reach. A policy clarification is requested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Either you draw a new map eventually linking to the original scan as a source, either you provide a scan with minimal digital manipulation. I don't like the middle of the road attitude. Ericd (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

When we look at a restoration here, we almost always compare, (at least I think all the regulars here do) what the original looked like to the restoration. We require that the restoration be "true" to the original, as in your restoring the digital file to be most likely how the original image looked before it deteriorated or was damaged. Recreating major parts of an image or changing something, would likely disqualify it for a FP. I'm not exactly sure what your asking though... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To add, on the linked nomination I think most of the opposes was on EV grounds, which is a completely separate issue. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Waiting period

I've noticed that some images are being nominated, usually by their creators, within a day of their being uploaded. I'd like to propose changing "The image is used in one or more articles." to "The image has been used in one or more articles for at least 30 days." in order to counter this. My thinking is this will help ensure that FP nominations are supported by the community as a whole rather than just the person who created the image.--RDBury (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think many people watch this page. You'd have better luck posting this at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on advertisements

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"EV"?

I've seen this term in a Featured picture debate, but it wasn't wikilinked and isn't mentioned on this project page. Could the latter be fixed? --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

EV is Encyclopedic Value. It's mentioned in the 5th criterion. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glossary as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The fifth criterion does not currently mention "EV". Newcomers to this process will not easily find your Glossary. I'll add it here. --Dweller (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Video

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing requirement

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? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we explicitly say that a pixel count is not required for svgs?

Cirt You reverted my change.

What difference is there between these statements? Is what I said not a simplified way of expressing what was there before?

Before - status quo -

• Note that vector graphics in SVG format can have a nominal size much smaller than this, as by their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality.

After - my attempt to simplify -

• This rule does not apply to vector graphics in SVG. By their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality. Quality is still expected, but it is subjective, and number of pixels should not be considered.

We also talked about this on my talk page. I do not understand this deeply enough to see the difference. What difference do you see?

What exactly should anyone "note"? Is the note that there is no specific number of pixels required for svgs, whereas for other files, a specific number is required? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, the reason I reverted your change is because Crisco 1492 and Godot13 objected to changing the rules so fast. I happen to agree that the prior version is just fine. The prior version says: "Note that vector graphics in SVG format can have a nominal size much smaller than this, as by their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality." This is just fine. The problem is not the wording. The wording is quite clear. The problem is for some reason some people were finding the wording confusing, and I'm not sure how it is unclear. How do you think we can make it more clear? — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt Instead of saying "note (this fact) and (imagine the implications for yourself)" I would rather cut to expressly stating the implication. It seems to me that the point being expressed is "if the file is an svg, then disregard the rule about the pixel count, and also judge the file by other quality measures than resolution".

I do not find the prior wording clear, because without further thought, the connection between "files must be 1500 pixels" and "svgs can be scaled" was not obvious to me. I must not be the only one, because I was not the only one to make the demand that the svg be a higher resolution. When you tried to explain to me that svgs were scalable, I had trouble making the connection that what you were trying to express was a counterpoint to my request for a 1500 pixel file.

Since the demand is for a 1500 pixel file, I think this exception would be clearer if it said "a resolution count should not be made for svg files" if that is the intent of the rule.

Thoughts from anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just having trouble understanding why anyone would be confused about SVG files when it says they're scalable to infinity. I think that makes it quite clear, in the original wording, that infinity is larger than 1500, you know what I mean? — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt I think I would rather avoid talking about infinity or any premise and only state the conclusion. Alternate text could be

• Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit the requirement for any pixel count.

I talked this through with another user at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Trademark_with_limited_permission_already_granted.3F. The issue there was whether SVGs are allowed as English Wikipedia WP:NFC. One argument is that SVGs are low pixel images, but another argument is that they are infinite pixel images. Is it better for English Wikipedia to have small files of SVGs or bigger files of raster images which are made to look like small images? I would rather avoid the question and just state a best practice in guidelines that raise the issue. Counting infinity is always confusing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a change again as described above. The intent of the statement was to say that there is no pixel count required for svgs, and I wanted to say that explicitly. Cirt says that the count of infinity is greater than 1500, which is true, but infinity is also smaller than the number 1500. I would rather avoid counting infinity and clearly say that counting need not be done. If anyone can articulate a resolution requirement on svgs then please help here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)