Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures

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

What to do if a FP has to be removed from the MP?[edit]

There's talk on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that today's FP should possibly be removed and sent back for further evaluation. Today's problem is for technical issues with the image, making the situation IMHO not of critical urgency. But it does raise a good point. Those of us at MP:ERRORs tend to be the last line of defense for problems with things on the MP. For DYK, ITN, and OTD, which have multiple items in their panel, if there is a big enough problem with an item, the item can just be removed from the panel without major disruption. But for FP (and FA) where a single item is the entire panel, the question is, what should we MP:ERRORS patrollers do if there is a serious problem with the current FP? I'm thinking that a late-discovered hoaxing or copyright issue would be enough to require a rapid pulldown. But what should we put up instead? If nothing else, I suspect I could grab a random FP from years back and re-run it. But I wanted to at least have a discussion on the issue. And there is still the technical issues with today's FP that, while not the urgency of a copyvio, may need for the current image to come down. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The specifics of the issues with today's pic are already under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Today's POTD. So let's go ahead and not worry here about that issue, and just discuss the general idea of what to do if an image must come down ASAP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been informed that the FA process now maintains a short emergency list of possible FA sets. This list was set up after a different type of incident late last year, but works perfectly well as a source of FAs ready to drop onto the MP if the existing one must be pulled for some reason. Does FP have a similar sort of list? If not, then I would highly suggest the creation of such. That would give non-FP admins a resource if we need to pull an FP down. For instance, I very well might have pulled down today's FP myself for the technical glitches on it, if I had actually had something else to put up instead. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to delist featured image should not fail because voting closed with only two votes[edit]

A nomination to delist [1] should not fail (2-0-?) simply because not enough people bothered to vote.

Voting should remain open until enough interested people cast a vote. In this example, the image is based on original research, but apparently is not controversial enough to bother anyone. But there is no mechanism to obtain 5 votes within 14 days. Yet were it to be nominated to be featured now, no one would support it. Furthermore, the current image in commons is not even the version that received the featured status.

This looks like a problem with the process. An image that garners featured status should not be able to withstand the first challenge so easily. Rather than simply ignoring a delist vote, editors should actually have to record their votes to oppose it. I propose that voting should remain open until at least 5 days after the minimum votes are recorded, 1 day after the last vote is recorded, or 14 days, whichever is latest. (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Delist process change proposal[edit]

If a featured picture is nominated for delisting and has been modified subsequent to when it was assigned FP status (e.g., any modification to address a reason for the delist nomination), then the picture should lose its FP status by default unless a consensus is achieved that current criteria to be a featured picture are met by either the original picture (in which case the picture is reverted) or the modified image (in which case the new picture receives FP status anew). But if consensus is not reached that the picture is worthy of FP status, then the fact of the consensus that the original picture requires modification shall be sufficient to strip it of its FP status (until such time as a consensus can be achieved that it deserves FP status). (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting instructions[edit]

According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, "all discussions about individual featured pictures" should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates, "if the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate" then it should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures.

This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?

This note is being posted to both of the indicated talk pages, and I'll use Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to post my specific comments this time. -- (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, but I think you're searching for WT:POTD. The Featured pictures process has no control over what appears on the Main Page. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fix. It still doesn't address where to post things about FPs after they are no longer candidates. (However, thanks for the pointer to the third talk page.) -- (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The de facto place for those kinds of discussion has been WT:FPC. The instruction might be crap, but that's the page you're probably best off on. Cowtowner (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo[edit]

Could available editors please give their opinion on which of [ these photos] would make a better Infobox pic for the Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Day discussion[edit]

  • I have begun a discussion which may interest readers of this page here. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured pictures on Facebook[edit]

This cover to the Wikipedia Facebook page gave me a wonderful idea. I know there's always been issues over Today's Featured Picture and how it works. In short, perhaps a supplement, or even a substitute, could be to have the Featured Picture serve as the cover of the page for a time - for example a week. The current image of "The Tulip Folly" by Jean-Léon Gérôme is so beautiful, it just made it seem like the perfect platform to showcase Wikipedia's great images.

Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back[edit]

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing picture of the day[edit]

  • I have attempted to edit the selected picture of the day for :March 3 - Mon. I have tried to save my changes, which can be found by following the direction below the image, but cannot make the changes into the protected box. Would someone fix this, as the present blurb is badly written. [2]
  • Likewise, I have corrected ..... which implied that the poem is well received i.e. that it is still popular. No, it isn't. It is of interest to scholars. It was a scholar who "stated" that Mariana had been a heroine, way back in 1830. The statement was not made in 1830, as implied. It was made retrospectively in about 2006. I have written alternate text and it needs fixing, before it goes front page. [3]
  • Also, the illustrations to Mariana are not the poem. Your blurb deals solely with the poem and its subject matter, as if the artwork had no validity except in some imagined context that you refer to as "encyclopedic value" i.e. as if images have no value except to refer to something else and as if the artist William Edward Frank Britten had no fame in his own right.
Amandajm (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of Media Viewer?[edit]

Media Viewer lets you browse larger images on Wikipedia.

Hi folks: because of your interest in quality images, we'd love to hear what you think about Media Viewer, a new tool that aims to improve the viewing experience on Wikipedia and its sister sites.

This multimedia browser displays images in larger size and with less clutter, providing a more immersive user experience, as described here. It was developed in collaboration with many community members -- including over 12,000 beta users here on English Wikipedia, who have been testing it since November 2013. The current plan is to release this tool gradually in coming weeks: it is already enabled by default on over a dozen sites (including the Dutch, French and Polish Wikipedia), and will be deployed more widely throughout May, as described in this release plan.

Can you share your feedback about this tool, to help address any critical issues before its May 15 release on the English Wikipedia? To try it out, please log in and click on the small 'Beta' link next to 'Preferences' in your personal menu. Then check the box next to 'Media Viewer' in the Beta Features section of your user preferences — and click 'Save'. You can now click on any thumbnail image on this site to see it in larger size in the Media Viewer. For more info, check out these testing tips or this Help page.

Once you've tried the tool, please share your feedback in this discussion, to help improve this feature. You're also welcome to take this quick survey -- or join this in-depth discussion on, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing your insights! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, at mw:Talk:Multimedia/About Media Viewer#Page view statistics the development team have indicated that it will no longer be possible to track image clicks. In that section, they are asking for feedback on that issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Featured picture wording[edit]

Hi everyone. User:Technical 13 and I are having trouble agreeing about what emphasis to use at Template talk:Featured picture#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014. If some of you could take a look, it would be very much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

about the presentation[edit]

pssst... i'm not very good at english
why the presentation is ugly ? (ugly dark blue background, very tiny photo, pale introduction)... you should make it look like arabe article (good taste, big photos, more photos...) --ᔕGᕼᗩIEᖇ ᗰOᕼᗩᗰEᗪ (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

#TTTWFTW kickstarter campaign[edit]

I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015[edit]

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion > Diversity in origin of images[edit]

I'm new here but I just wanted to know the diversity that the Featured Picture tries to implement?

Is there a list of all previous images? and is there a way to make sure that there are many different cultures represented? I come from an art history/ visual art education that is heavily eurocentric..

In order to make sure no biases are placed is there a way to gather images from a different location - or have weeks/months dedicated to images from a specific place? X-pert Dreamer (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)X-pert Dreamer

Pradeep Jitendranath Dubey[edit]


         DISTT - CHANDAULI (UP), INDIA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2015[edit] (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Altamel (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Delist based on current minimum resolution?[edit]

I was curious if we ought to be delisting FPs that do not meet the current minimum resolution of 1,500 by 1,500 pixels? Are they grandfathered in perpetuity, or should they be delisted? RO(talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


I propose that we should create a new "musicians" category for our featured pictures of people. We have a sizable enough number of FP images of musicians and musicians on stage to create a new category, but they are lumped together with actors, comedians models, TV performers etc. under the "entertainment" bracket, which would be less cluttered if musicians had their own section. JJARichardson (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Would tenors and composers also go in this category? Armbrust The Homunculus 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Should WP:TAFI return to the main page?[edit]

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.--Coin945 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FPs with watermarks[edit]

Discussion here. Samsara 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue here, not at Errors, that's about the main page, not what should and should not constitute a featured picture, as you know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Move to different subpage[edit]

I think File:Endeavour docked to ISS.jpg should be on the Understanding subpage, based on photos in both the subpage it is in, and the Understanding subpage. Discussion needed? If not, is there a specific way I am supposed to move it? Kees08 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved, as the image's caption links to Space Shuttle Endeavour. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion[edit]

WJM Poster (hyperlinked).pdf
WikiJournal of Medicine logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academic gap.[1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

  • Printing off the advertisement poster an distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
  • Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

  1. ^ Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6. 
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15. 
  3. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 
WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)