As regulars here may know, I nominate a lot of portraits for featured status, and I generally think we are a little harsh on them. However, comparing nominations of mine that passed with those that did not, I think I've noticed something. The following four images are images that I successfully nominated for for FP status after we received them through the photosubmissions queue on OTRS.
Notice anything? How about if we compare them to four images that failed...
Here are some more photos/portraits of contemporary notable people that are now featured-
Now, I accept that I have selected the images in the last batch to make a point, and I accept I am perhaps not the best judge of beauty, but is it just me, or are we more prone to feature images of particularly photogenic, pretty, attractive or even sexy people than we are more "normal" looking people?—Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)
Not necessarily.
Generic formal military portrait. Stiff pose; not much personality.
Cut off at the top of the head.
Distracting blue lights framing face.
Generic formal political portrait. Contrasty with the face a bit overexposed; smile looks insincere.
Some of the ones that passed I opposed, particularly Nataliya Gotsiy whose expression still looks like an eyelash is caught in her contact lens. We've reviewed a number of other portraits of famous people that didn't get promoted but looked gorgeous, including one recent Playboy model (fully clothed) which had some technical shortcomings with the pose and framing. Durova39400:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, she was one of mine. Naturally, I don't mean to suggest that it's a major factor, only that it does play a part- it's more of a trend, I suppose. Do you disagree that it exists? As I say, I was only musing... J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Would tend to agree with Durova. A number of the ones that did pass were relatively close calls as well don't forget. Personally I'd suggest the 'generic' portraits of the politicians and army guys will usually struggle and typically fail unless there's a general change in sentiment around here. Having said which, you don't need to only talk about photos of humans to see the influence of attractiveness :-) .--jjron (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds somewhat perverse, but on some level, if we insist on 'wow factor' being an unofficial factor in voting, why shouldn't attractiveness of subject affect our voting decisions? ;-) I mean, attractive buildings tend to make better candidates than bland, boring ones too. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think any of those should be featured (they're all either semi-notable people or bad portraits), and yes, I'm sure physical attractiveness plays a large part in their being promoted or not. I try to judge strictly on EV x Quality of picture, but I'm probably not 100% consistent myself. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What I have noticed is that people are particularly harsh on portraits though. I'm not the only one who's noticed. Many of these cited above are actually professional-standard portraits. Whether they're the best of the best, that's arguable (and subjective), but they're clearly 'of commercial quality' because they probably actually have been used in that manner and it's through that channel that they've been made available to us. You can argue that commercial does not always equal encyclopaedic, and that's a fair point, but are these truly unencyclopaedic, or of insufficient quality? Or do you just not like them for some other reason? Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of them are unencyclopaedic, some of them are insufficient quality. "Commercial" doesn't equal outstanding quality. Frankly I think we're rather lenient on portrait quality. Anyone with proper lighting equipment can take a commercial quality portrait. To take an outstanding portrait, however, requires an eye for composition and pose, an interesting (though not-necessarily attractive) subject, and a bit of luck. These are good portraits:
Personally, I think we're too hard on single-shot macro photos, requiring an impossible combination of depth-of-field and sharpness, to the point where we overwhelmingly favor flawed focus-stacks over nearly-perfect single shots. That's why I don't nominate any of my own work any more. And according to Durova, we're too hard on restorations. I also think we're not hard enough on licensing issues. I guess we all have different opinions on the process. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that if we looked at the percentage of portraits, macros and restorations passed, the portraits would have the lowest pass rate. But that's just a feeling. Also, Muhammad, Fir002 and Noodle Snacks haven't struggle too much with getting their macro photos passed. They're obviously good with their craft, no doubt, but it's clearly not impossible to do it without focus stacks. If you say that anyone with proper lighting equipment can take a FP quality portrait, then why don't we have more? Could it be because very few people are able to set up an umbrella on a stand and ask notable people to pose for them? ;-) In any case, I'm flattered that the only non-historical portrait you included in the above gallery is mine. Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the difference is clever composition. The four FPs you show all have different composition and don't rely on the face front, body tilted plan of the four below. I don't think there is a bigger differentiating factor between those two groups of photos, frankly (PS I still question the validity of the NYS Senate photo; I don't believe his office has the right to release it, but that's neither here nor there, really). upstateNYer21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but as one of the "too hard on portraits" crowd, I would concede that doesn't matter- to take the comparison to macro-shots (and I'll use fungi, as that's what I love) we are happy to feature both the incredibly pretty and intriguingly composed, as well as the more standard shots of generic fungi, providing the quality is high enough. Compare some of our fungi shots below (apologies in advance if I misjudge the intentions of any photographer- naturally, this is a highly subjective assessment).
Artistic shot and a pretty fungi
Another pretty fungi, angle chosen for beauty rather than encyclopedic value
Documentary shot of a comparatively boring fungi
Simple but high quality shot of a common and fairly ugly mushroom
If we're happy to accept both the striking and the documentary with macro shots, why not with portraits? It seems macro shots that shows necessary details and are of high enough detail are almost guaranteed to pass (no offence meant to our macro shooters- I'm sure NS and Muhammad both know how much I love their work, and how I wish I could produce shots of the same quality), but portraits are not? J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest though that perhaps you reconsider Durova's original comments on the photos, e.g., "Stiff pose; not much personality", "...smile looks insincere" (the Symons and Curtis ones had technical questions which likely would also have seen a macro fail). With portraits of humans, rightly or wrongly we humans will naturally look for and read personality characteristics into it. Too often, in fact I'd say almost always, the formal portraits ('documentary style' if you like) lack personality due to their standardised nature and often artificial poses of the subject. But that's simply not a factor for things like fungi because we don't look for any personality. --jjron (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. We should be illustrating a subject in an encyclopaedic manner. To expect a portrait to express personality is perhaps approaching NPOV. We don't know most of these people personally, so who is to say it's reflecting their real personality anyway? ;-) The argument has been made with a couple of the celebrity portraits that a sterotypically beautiful, airbrushed photos expresses the product they're trying to sell, and not what they'd normally look like on their 'day off', so to speak, and that's a fair point, but I don't think a plain, neutral portrait (whether formal or informal) should be discriminated against either. After all, boring or not, it's illustrating the subject perfectly well if you can see them in a clear way and with good detail. Anything else is a bonus. I know this flies in the face of the traditional critquing of photography where it's often important for a photo to speak to us in some way, but FPC is a bit different. We're not looking for wow primarily. Even if the wow factor does affect our votes subconsciously, we should do our best to dismiss it as the sole reason for our votes. Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sashmo's grinI have to say that the interpretation of the picture has a role not some plain and simple even for FPC. Imagine a portrait of Obama with the grin of the other picture of Louis Armstrong. Every single picture (even the wrong ones) communicate something (that sometimes can not be put into words) and that affects the EV and therefore is part of the interest of FPC. But I guess that you mean that when the artistic compromises the use in Wikipedia then it has to be left aside. franklin 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yes and no. In a sense when we look at a portrait and think 'insincere smile' we're reading something into it that may or may not be true. But we also oppose images for reasons like 'colour balance looks wrong' (we usually don't know for sure) or 'atypical pose of animal' (again usually an assumption). As I said above with portraits of humans, rightly or wrongly, we look for personality characteristics as we do when meeting a real person, and will usually reject those that appear to either lack it or misrepresent it. If you want to counteract that with some hoped for impartiality, then you better get the FPC-voting-bot to do the voting instead or prepare that FPC tick-a-box process that takes all subjectivity out of the process. :-) --jjron (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've only been on two or three serious fungi hunting trips. I did my best at the time to get the shots with the greatest encyclopaedic value. I've since learned a few things (like nicking the skin on top to get the colour underneath and the importance of what is going on under the cap) for the next season. It is still really quite difficult to get everything in one shot for fungi. In particular I don't feel comfortable ripping them out of the ground to get a look at the gills - it ruins it for the other people looking at them. I do disagree with the Cortinarius archeri comment a little however - I had my face in the mud and leeches and really couldn't get a shot of the gills without going for a swim in the river (the top of the background is water). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Back after a few days' break for comments and a correction. One thing to remember about portraits is that beauty is not an objective criterion. Nardwuar The Human Serviette would probably look undistinguished at a coffee shop. What makes his portrait exciting is the lighting and composition and expression. Woody Guthrie looks a little scruffy (five o'clock shadow, unkempt hair) but his candid expression and the sticker on the guitar seem to sum him up perfectly. Of the the three portraits below, Ed Walsh was probably the most handsome in real life (square shoulders, sharp jawline, and what seem to be deep blue eyes) but Walsh's portrait downplays those looks in order to capture the intense stare of a competitor.
Nardwuar The Human Serviette
Woody Guthrie
Ed Walsh
The liberation of Paris, 1944
The Ed Walsh portrait was particularly challenging. It was twenty hours' work and it's one of the restorations I'm most proud of. Not every historic portrait has the potential to go that far, though. Roald Amundsen's eyes weren't going to come out from under a deep shadow. With a lot of work it could get as far as his squint, but beyond that the data just wasn't there. Which segues to a passing comment from Kaldari's post above: I don't actually think that restorations per se are getting judged too harshly. The reviews on restorations are often capricious. For example the liberation of Paris got featured at Commons and the Turkish Wikipedia and probably would have passed here too if I hadn't spoken out. It would be much better to promote an unedited historic image than one that has been edited poorly. Jake Wartenberg has been working on a separate edit of the Champs Elysses; am looking forward to seeing what he does with it. Durova39406:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty long, I've read maybe 80% of it to be clear. I think I mentioned on a recent nomination that I think we tend to be too harsh on portraits. To reiterate my comments higher up on this page I think pictures of less interesting subjects are more likely to fall victim to nitpicking. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to comment that "insincere smile" is not a subjective judgement. A sincere smile shows contraction of both the zygomatic major muscle (which raises the corners of the mouth) and the orbicularis oculi muscle (which raises the cheeks and forms crow's feet around the eyes). An insincere smile only shows contraction of the zygomatic muscle. Although most people can tell the difference instinctually, it is also possible to determine objectively. I suppose whether or not sincere smiles are preferred is still POV though :) Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How do think we're too harsh on portraits, Noodle snacks? Portrait photography is fairly easy to do in assembly line fashion (think of school portraits the world over) but really difficult to accomplish well because most people don't know how to model and what they think they know is wrong (say 'cheese'). A few examples follow. Our most complete examples are political, but let's examine them as photography. Durova39722:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've mostly noted that a large proportion of portrait nominations don't pass without giving any specific thought as to the reasons. I'm of the opinion that a slightly wooden smile (for example) doesn't really impact the EV of an image for our use. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan's official portrait: a good benchmark for feature-worthy formal portraiture of a modern subject.
John McCain
1974, failed FPC
2008, failed FPC
Barack Obama
2008, failed FPC
2006, featured
To my eye it's obvious that the Reagan portrait and the 2006 Obama portrait are the best of the bunch. It's worth noting as we discuss this that the Obama FP is no longer in use at his main biography or at the article about his senate career; it's only used in article space near the bottom of the article about his economic policy. Also, the editors at Mary (mother of Jesus) are currently deprecating the featured picture there.[1] The discussion at article talk is worth a read: quotes include "But, but, but exactly who said "featured" gets priority anywhere except on the front page?" We have at least as much work before us communicating with other editors about using high quality media as discussing among ourselves how to select it. Durova39722:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I completely forgot that I voted in this nomination and have already started closing it. Huge apologies, you'd think I could spot my own username. Wondering if I should undo the edits I've already made, or carry on (as it's a clear promote)? I think I'll carry on and take the shit, but it's an honest mistake. Sorry! Maedin\talk11:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick question (and this is not a joke). As a member of WikiProject Cannabis, which seeks to improve articles that deal with cannabis, I am looking for high-quality images that could be used within lists and articles relating to cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. I am not aware of any current or former featured pictures relating to cannabis. My question is whether there is a source online users may be aware of for good-quality images that could be used for article and even nominated for featured picture status. I know it can be hard for some people to take marijuana seriously, but cannabis is a plant nonetheless, so I am certain some images could join the plants/flowers galleries. Any thoughts, ideas, or images that could be nominated? Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with the featured pictures process. --Another Believer(Talk)23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. I guess I am having trouble understanding the difference between images that appear on Wikipedia itself and those located at Commons. For images that appear on WP currently, I have marked those relating to cannabis with the WikiProject Cannabis template, placing them in Category:Image-Class Cannabis articles. Not sure if the same can be done for images at Commons that do not appear on WP itself. Are any of the images found here suitable for FP status? The first two under "Illustrations" are particularly nice. Thanks again! --Another Believer(Talk)23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You can add WP templates to images hosted on Commons; it'll look something like this: [2]. I think that of the lot at Commons, that first illustration would have the best chance at FP, if cleaned up properly (the existing cleaned up version looses a bit of detail). You can drop any photos you're interested in nominating by WP:PPR and see what others think of them. Thegreenj01:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see some issues on that image. The center of attention is the chromatic display of lights on the water. Everything else is relegated to a second plane. Some space on the bottom could have been used to not leaving out the top of the buildings on the right. There is something that I noticed now that I never thought about it before. How an image can look in an article with respect to other images. The images in the article Docklands, Victoria, all have a much sober appearance. Certainly not a thing that could be analyzed in a FP nomination but probably can influence the use in an article. There is an FP of the same subject in the article replacing it. Is there some record of in what other articles was used? Maybe it can be relocated. IMO in Docklands, Victoria wouldn't be nice but maybe in some other...(!?) franklin 07:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I'm somewhat biased, but I don't really see why it doesn't still belong in that article in the first place. It's frustrating, but there is a constant battle to keep images in an article. I completely understand them being removed when they're superceded for whatever reason, but it's usually the case that they are removed by a single person without any justification in the edit summary, and often in order to make room for their (often vastly inferior) personal photo. I haven't actually checked to see under what circumstances it was removed, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. The article is slightly image-heavy as it is, and the only equivalent photo to the FP panorama is this rather average image from a slightly different angle. I would argue that the panorama is prettier and probably more encyclopaedic by virtue of the wide angle of view. While panoramas are slightly unwieldly in an article, I find them to be far more valuable to EV because you can see everything in relation to each other in the one image. In the other image I linked to above, there's very little context and no understanding of how that scene fits into the Docklands region. Anyway, just my opinion. I'd like to see the image re-inserted into the Docklands article somewhere regardless of whether I was the photographer or not though. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The one that I was mentioning above was thi one, which is a panorama, is featured and has a palette similar to the rest of the images in the article. It is located almost at the end of the article. Let me add also that it wasn't me who removed your image. I am just guessing (or giving what I think is a reason) why they removed it. The article about Melbourne has very colorful images, especially in the leading image (it is a collage or a set). Maybe it would be easier and to restore it there. I was going to do it, but I didn't understand the code used to create that collage in the leading image. franklin 13:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it really belongs in the Melbourne article. The collage in the infobox is fine as it is and is fairly well-established. It would require discussion on the talk page before making a change to that IMO. Really, its only home is the Docklands, Victoria article, and as I said above, I think it still has a valid place there, as it shows a fairly wide view, including the skyline of Melbourne and therefore showing where the docklands are in relation to the city. The other panorama (taken by Jjron incidentally) does also show the skyline, but from the other 'end' of the Docklands. I think that perhaps the two panoramas would complement each other if placed on top of one another, although I admit this is often a little gregarious and showy for an article. Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed...
...[3], a change to the closing procedure from a little more than a month ago. I must have missed when that was announced, so I've been putting new ones on the bottom in all my recent closures. Oops! I'm not going to go back and flip around all the ones I've added, but I'll be sure to put new ones on the top in the future. Here I thought I had the closing procedure all figured out! Maybe we do need a bot... Makeemlighter (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It was discussed above, somewhere. In summary, it was agreed that having the oldest FPs at the top was not ideal, as it was more static and had the effect of showcasing our oldest and often inferior images. I had a quick scan and didn't find the discussion, but I did find NS's comments to say that he had reversed the order of the list fairly recently. So there you go. No major harm done, I suppose. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's where NS swapped them all. I think it came out of the lengthy discussion just above that about delisting, etc. FWIW I was absent when that all happened too, and only happened to see NS's comment just before doing some closures, otherwise I would have done the same thing. :-) --jjron (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A note to say that there is no POTD selected for tomorrow: Template:POTD/2010-01-13. I don't know the system here or whether there is a queue but could someone in the know please create it as soon as possible? Regards, Woody (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place here about the preparation of POTY 2009. Only a very limited number of users are participating and I fear that some of the proposed solutions (one of them being that any picture can be nominated to the contest) will not reflect the general consensus of the community. In my opinion this is a too important event to be left to the initiative and opinions of so few. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Quorum for the Valued Picture candidates (proposal)
I have seen that no much quorum is directed to the valued pictures, so one simple thing I propose is to add some kind of message in the featured picture candidates page to remind editors of that other area, which is really in need of votes sometimes. I already did something, but was removed by the next day of my edit. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated, but that something was a bit visually too intrusive I would say. I raised the issue before, just scroll up the page to see the discussion. Elekhh (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I dindn´t see that conversation, and it seems death, something that occurs with conversations which are no longer at the bottom (a little bothersome). Anyway, I still think something has to be made (since nothing has been done yet); the box that I placed in the top of the WP:FIC was made (with my consideration) to be visually atractive (to get the proper attention), but not too acid or over-coloured, so if it is still to bright for others, we can change the colors again, or do something different, but something. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I do feel that box was a little intrusive and (though, of course, this is just me) ugly. I agree some more attention at VP would be nice, but I don't think big boxes are the way to do it. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
How about it smaller? Even if that box is not liked at all, well that´s ok by me, I´m just concerned about the low quorum at VPC and just want to do something about it. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Featured pictures and use in articles
I will run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it. The condition of FP and the presence in articles is quite a problem. On one hand an important number of nominations are added to articles a few moments before being nominated compromising the resource of checking EV through its use in articles. On the other really good images lose their FP status for not being used in any article or at least require some fight to restore them. Why not simply remove the requirement of the use of the image in articles from the criteria for FP?
Let's see. Why is it that that requirement is necessary? Well, the presence of the image in articles serves as a guide to asses its EV. But there is an alternative to this. Nominations can be announced in the corresponding talk pages of the articles in which the nominator thinks could be used. The votes in the nomination can be divided in two sections, one for assessing the technical value of the image and one for assessing its EV. Habitual editors of those articles can come and vote in that section. A certain minimum number of votes in each section would be the requirement to be promoted.
Doing this, FP becomes sort of a vault from which editors can select or not the pictures for the articles. The two problems in the beginning get solved. Also the collection of FPs will be enriched (I will adventure to say enormously). A problem will be to bring enough votes from the editors of the articles. In a beginning this can be addressed by requiring in the section for EV, in the nomination, a smaller number of supports than the, sometimes high, 5 for the technical aspects. Reviewers can be allowed to vote in both sections if they want since FP reviewers are, in principle, also editors of any article of Wikipedia. An extra point can be given to those images that are already used, appropriately in an article, in the usual sense. franklin 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd support removing it as a requirement but I'd prefer to see the requirement go further and require the image to be used int he article for a period of time, say 2-3 months before being allowed to be nominated. That way it will go through regular consensus, if it still remains in the article 2-3 months after replacement then it would be ok to assume that it has passed the EV/Consensus test of the editors. As it is now we have people throwing on their image into articles minutes before the nomination only to have that image removed later by the editors of that page who don't agree it should be there or replace what they've already picked through consensus. So I'd prefer to just add a clause to the rule requiring the image to be on the page several months to establish consensus/value. After all Valued Pictures has this requirement. — raeky(talk | edits)20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
A few post above I asked about this. I got convinced of some of the drawbacks of asking for the minimum time in an article. One thing is that it will discourage nominators (especially those that produce the pictures). Allowing them to nominate without having to wait help to have a nice flow of nominations and usually of very good pictures. Also doing this doesn't address the problem of the FPs removed from articles. It is a pity to have an image lost it's FP condition simply because the editors of an article decided that the image should not be there (decision that can be well justified or not, or be justified for reasons that are not contemplated in the FP criteria. I recently came to see one: "It doesn't look good in the article with respect to the rest of the images"). Both of the problems are hitting the FP process. It would be good to solve both of them. franklin 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Then reduce the time to say 2-3 weeks, or have a clause stating that if consensus on the talk page is reached for the inclusion of the image in the article then we can ignore the time frame. Really it shouldn't be that much of a burden, the image creator or nominator adds images in advance, puts them on a list on a userspace page and then waits for it to age, come back in a the required amount of time, if it's still there nominate it. If they want the image featured regardless of use they can get it nominated as a FP on Commons where use is not a requirement. But I think for here it should be used and have obtained consensus for it's use on the page (through time). — raeky(talk | edits)21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to go ahead and add if we go with the adding a time frame clause for use then for delisting because it's not use we should show that it was removed through consensus and not just replaced without anyone knowing (as in a Talk page section about the replacement of the FP), otherwise it should be added back to the article and/or a talk page consensus should be reached to not use the FP over what is replacing it should be reached before we delist because it's not used. It's far to easy for some editor to replace an image on a page and noone to notice it for months/years because there is no regular high-traffic editors where as if discussion was opened up on it they would arrive at a different consensus. Many people would object to replacing a good FP image if there was a discussion about it but are more likely to overlook the change in their change log if they're not heavily committed to watching that page. Easy to do, "ohh they replaced an image, looks ok" and go on, without realizing they replaced the FP on the page with a lower quality image. Delisting because the image is not in use should be one of the most difficult delistings we do. Consensus for it not being used should be demonstrated. — raeky(talk | edits)21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a time requirement, personally. Consensus is implicitly gaged by the fact an image remains in place for a while (though I think 3 months is too long). As for keeping images in articles, the idea of the FP star in the caption of an image would note to editors that there is something special about the image. I don't remember that coming up as an argument for that star, which ended up failing at the village pump. Maybe, instead of the star going to WP:FP, it should go to a subpage that says something like "Don't remove this image quite yet! This image is a featured picture and as such probably has high encyclopedic value in its articles. While an FP is like any other image in an article with respect to placement (i.e. if it doesn't work, do remove it), it most likely does have a place. Consider discussing on the talk page and leave a message at WT:FPC." Know what I mean? upstateNYer21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If only we could change the function of the base software, making it have an alert in the edit message that a FP was removed would be ideal to alert regular editors watching something needs looked at closely with the image replacement. Like how we have Blanking and other auto-notes added to the summary for bad behavior. Thats why I'd like to see some guidelines for delisting for non-use. It's far to easy to remove a FP from an article without anyone noticing but if they was aware of the exactly what happened they'd probably not want the FP to be removed. — raeky(talk | edits)21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the condition is removed completely none of that has to be done. Let me also point out that not for removing the condition of being in use in articles the informative roll is being neglected. I have seen encyclopaedias that have collections of pictures at the end of the volumes. Also participation in articles can be given through links in the articles to the FP galleries or directly to the collections of FPs matching the topic. If the editors have reason for not using the FP a link would be for them a much less invasive way of keeping them serving to the article. Because sometimes it is simply true that the picture doesn't look good. After all an article is a publication that, although not usually respected, needs to have some presentation that helps its readability. franklin 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like also to ask for focusing in this section on the idea of the removal, please. The other option was discussed before in other opportunities (a resent one is Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Featured pictures and stability.) I am interested in knowing possible problems of the present idea and opinions about it. The other one can be re-analyzed in a separated post if wanted. Talking about both of them in the same post drains attention from both of them. franklin 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This is my two cents on the matter: I'm not really convinced that an argument over the validity of an image in it's article(s) comes up often enough to justify a mandatory time limit. Yes, conflict over images happens, and the Cologne nomination is a good example, but there would be a significant hit to the FPC process if images had to wait 3 months (agreed with UpstateNYer on that point). I would say that two weeks is probably more than enough for most articles where there is significant traffic. I know we like to legislate on things as much as possible, but I see this as one of those situations where common sense on the part of the nominator is the best approach. And if we get half way through the nomination and the new image is removed from the article, so be it. Votes are cancelled and the nomination is withdrawn. If the image is removed after the nomination closes, then I suppose we'd do what we do for any other image in that situation - run a de-list or try to find a new home for it. So I'd prefer for no change to be made, but if consensus is for a time limit, I would like to see 2 weeks. Any more than that seems a bit OTT. Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
But the purpose of this section was to study the option of removing the condition of being in an article altogether. No one is commenting about it. franklin 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with the proposed changes. We went through the time requirement in detail half a year ago at the RfC. Consensus went against it due to the greatly different levels of attention that different articles receive. Also, some FP contributors create new articles on a regular basis in connection with their nominations. The latest one in the incubator is User:Durova/Vojtěch Preissig. It's a very good thing for the encyclopedia to have these synergies and the encyclopedic/article use requirement is one of the principal things that differentiates our local FP program from the Commons FP program. If you feel like featuring images that aren't used anywhere and reducing this program to "cover art", then might as well mark it historical and run the Commons POTD on our main page. Durova40322:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, good point. It was not of my knowledge that commons FP process is The one that is supposed to run that way. I didn't even knew it runs that way. Then I agree with both of this opinions since I also got convinced of the unsuitability of the time requirement. One question to understand better the relation Commons (and its FP process) and enWikipedia(and its FP process). How commons is related to the other Wikipedias and why mimicking the Commons FPC is loosing the essence of enWikipedia FPC? Somehow I don't understand well the interaction of the two Wikipedia projects. If the presence in article is The distinction and the reason to be of the enFPC then it is a point that has to be stressed and defended. franklin 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Above all else Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. They are encyclopedic images which happen to be among the best possible illustrations of a particular subject. An image that does not fulfill both requirements should fail. I do not support any change to the existing process. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec, to franklin.vp) The Commons FP program has a focus on esthetics and higher technical minimums with less focus on specific encyclopedic use. Many of the smaller Wikipedias mirror the Commons POTD on their main page: essentially it serves as cover art. Since we have by far the greatest number of articles at en:wiki it makes sense to maintain a local program where every featured picture illustrates a local article. So our POTD program uses images as introduction to the images' subjects. If we made any change to the article use requirement one thing to counsider would be allowing themed galleries for featured picture sets. Both galleries and FP sets can be controversial, yet it would be wonderful to feature all 36 views of Mount Fuji at Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji. We could get high resolution digitized versions of most of that series. Durova40322:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(to Mastlyharmless):::* Well, that still doesn't answer my question. As I pointed out above, images can serve an article without actually being in the article so long links are provided. As I said, encyclopaedias sometimes put compilations of images at the end of the volumes (this could be for editorial reasons. As well as two resent examples of removal of FPs from articles) and still the images are serving its purpose. It is not the same as simply having the collection there isolated from the rest. franklin 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that there is great value in having images which aren't in the article itself. For that reason there has been a consensus among the FPC project of consistently rejecting images that are in galleries at the bottom of the page as unsuitable in their contribution. What you're proposing goes even further. If something is to be a FP, it should be so valuable that is essentially a lead image for a particular aspect of an encyclopedia article, if not the article as a whole. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And to comment on other encyclopedias - those that have images in frontispieces and endpieces tend to do so for reasons related to printing, expense and other such constraints. It's certainly a less than an ideal practice, and one that has been discouraged here. We do allow for such image galleries with the link to commons, and perhaps there is cause to formalise the way that a gallery of relevant images is used as an adjunct to articles, but I don't think that it would be something that we would include into FPC candidates. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with the requirement that featured pictures be lead images. Many featured pictures would be unsuitable at lead. A biography of an artist, for instance, would normally have the artist's portrait at lead. Would we feature an artwork by that artist only if no portrait is available, or delist bureaucratically when a low resolution artist portrait becomes available? Agreeing that shoveled-in gallery placement shouldn't be sufficient, but a coherent set of images might be a different matter. It would be possible to acquire a high resolution sequence of the complete set of photographs for the execution of Abraham Lincoln's assassins: the same photographer took about a dozen shots of the gallows on the day they died. All of those photographs are encyclopedic and informative, yet the article about the execution may never be long enough to include them all within the article text. Our current criteria discourage completeness in that regard. Durova40307:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Durova on that matter - there is call for being able to put sets of images into articles, although I'm not sure exactly how to do so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make myself all that clear with my earlier comment... I meant to say that ideally the image should lead a section, or a subsection - if it isn't compelling enough in encyclopedic value and quality to do that, then it isn't strong enough in my opinion. As always, there are exceptions, particularly in short articles with a number of images. All I mean to say is that strong placement in encyclopedia articles should remain a priority. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(to Mostlyharmless) The thing is that Wikipedia articles are a publication after all. Although the editorial decisions can get very wild, since anyone can edit, still it is intended that articles have a convenient presentation. The edition of an article is intimately linked to its readability. Economic reason are not the only reasons to place an image far from where it is mentioned. If I remember well, the manual of the LaTeX packages tikz&pgf has a nice discussion on the use and placement of images. The relevance of an image to an article goes beyond its physical position. Even an image in a gallery or set (maybe I am not using the right technical words here) can be very relevant to an article and still be there for other reasons. I was thinking right now that note in articles' talk pages about the nomination of an image is something that still (without considering making changes to the FPC process) can be done. Maybe not even as a rule but as a courtesy. Generally authors are notified about the images being nominated for delisting (I don't remember if they are when nominated). A little template can be created to do that, sublimating that the interest is mainly in getting opinions about the use of the image in the article, but of course accepting general input about the nomination as well. franklin 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Something like this (changes are very welcomed, especially in the part which will give reference to the specific image since the changes should not be done on top of the same template. I am not familiar with this code so I reused code from other places.):
Invitation to vote for a featured picture candidate from this article
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. Your opinion about the use of this image in this article according to placement, relevance to the text, information conveyed is very useful and welcomed. In general, your participation to review the image according to the featured picture criteria is appreciated.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Seriously, what's wrong with the current procedure? Sure we may have a few hiccups every once in a while but IMO the current procedure works well otherwise. Strongly Oppose any changes. --Muhammad(talk)16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Remember the contentious Obama and McCain FPCs during the campaign, which were dominated by non-FPCers whose rationales often looked like veneers for personal politics? Durova40316:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the other opposers of this proposal. I still don't see the problem with the existing procedure. As Muhammad says, we don't need a rule for the exception, especially when it adds unnecessary procedure to an already lengthy and admin-heavy process. And as I said above: "if we get half way through the nomination and the new image is removed from the article, so be it. Votes are cancelled and the nomination is withdrawn. If the image is removed after the nomination closes, then I suppose we'd do what we do for any other image in that situation - run a de-list or try to find a new home for it.". Franklin, I appreciate the thought that has gone into this, but this seems to be a solution looking for a problem to me. Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above. Many of the assumptions seem to be based on the premise that all articles have a regular clutch of editors who are actively watching the talkpages, and will be able to rationally discuss the image use and placement. Sure, some do, but I would guess that a vast majority don't. Many of our FPs populate such articles, so the talkpage message would receive little or no feedback. The one month limit was implemented at VP and I was strongly in favour of that, but I'm not sure it really proved a lot in the end - as I've said before, as long as you can find a low traffic article you can dump almost any image into it and it will last for a month or three months, or far longer. And putting an advertisement such as this just proposed on the article talkpage reeks of Wikipedia:Canvassing, which has typically been (ahem) strongly discouraged at FPC. --jjron (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the one month rule at WP:VP? makes a lot of sense and is something FP could learn from. Maybe a one week rule would be good for the start. It would at least eliminate the most disputed image replacement conflicts, and would provide more time for reflection for the nominator as well - this is not a rally after all. In terms of franklin's proposal above, I find it telling, how consistently it is advocated for maintaining FP as a circle of established contributors, while disadvantaging the access of new ones. This is not a critique on anybody personally, is rather a critical reflection on WP in general. Elekhh (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think one month is a little excessive, although I'd support a requirement of one to two weeks if it were shown to be necessary (I'm still dubious). But Elekhh, I don't think the opposition to Franklin's proposal has anything to do with "maintaining FP as a circle of established contributors, while disadvantaging the access of new ones". The point that many people who make these claims seem to miss is that the FPC process has been very carefully honed over a fairly long period of time. We've had pages and pages of collective brainstorming on how to improve it already. There are many reasons why things are the way they are, and it's much less about 'maintaining the status quo at the expense of newbies' as it is about maintaining a system that works (and it largely does - not perfectly, but it works) without constantly reinventing and convoluting the process. I think most people are in agreement that the process is already complicated enough (particularly for the closers). If there is to be a significant change to how FPC works, it should really be a change that simplifies the process, not adds another layer of complexity and administrative burden. Especially when it really only has any benfit to a small minority of nominations. Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I accept and agree with your point of view regarding simplification. I also agree with Muhammad above that it doesn't appear necessary at the moment as there is enough participation at FPC. However I think the idea has considerable merit in that it tries to establish a better link between the editors of an article and FPs. On the positive side, this could bring informed opinions about the EV of FPCs to the discussions here, as well as make editors more aware of the quality of images in the articles. Elekhh (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with you about bringing informed opinions in. It would be nice to leave a note on the talk page of the articles, but as Jjron says, that looks a bit like canvassing, and will attract voters who may know a little about the subject, but very little about the techincal aspects of an image. Personally, I think it's easier for us to take a stab at EV than it is for the average editor to judge image quality. I suppose that's why it we might seem a bit like unwelcoming to newbies - they often struggle to appreciate the standards that are expected. It's hard to get the right balance of inclusivity towards newbies and exclusivity towards images. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We discussed the time delay idea at RfC more than half a year ago; nothing has fundamentally changed to alter the reasons why it was rejected. Low relevance images do not accrue encyclopedic value over time merely because some of them sit at low traffic articles where nobody removes them. It does a lot more good for the encyclopedia when FP contributors write new articles and expand existing ones to provide context, and when reviewers read and evaluate that context. And it would be nonsensical for the FP process, which has been successful for six years, to emulate another process which promotes fewer than two images a week. Durova40317:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Your post above supported a one to two week delay and suggested "I think the one month rule at WP:VP? makes a lot of sense and is something FP could learn from." That's a spectacularly unsuccessful program and the only sensible reason to emulate it would be if one is politically minded and intends to undermine the featured picture program. Either way I'd disapprove. Durova40303:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Wooow, "politically minded and intends to undermine"... I am very disappointed to hear such severe ABF. I suppose it is my fault that I even mentioned **, I should have known how unmeasured your reaction will be. But to clarify the above: There is a clear distinction between "to learn from" and "emulation" which you appear to have missed. I find it also bizarre to affirm the superiority of a six year old over a one year old project with such vehemence, as well as to define quality in pure quantitative terms. Your critique misinterpreted what I said. Altogether I am very saddened by this warfare-like attitude. I thought Wikipedia was a collaborative project. Sincerely, Elekhh (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't intended as a slur upon your motives. :) Really though, it makes for a very hard argument to propose that anything useful would come of modeling a successful program after an unsuccessful one. Durova40301:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
But there can be useful aspects of an otherwise unsuccessful program. I'm not personally involved in VPC nor do I really see the need or use for it (FPC keeps me busy enough and the admin burden of maintaining two similar parallel projects seems a little wasteful of our finite resources), but that doesn't mean I think it's unsuccesful because its processes are inherently flawed. I'm positive that its biggest failing was simply that, regardless of what the intention of the founders was, it always came across as "FPC Minor league: for images that just aren't quite good enough". :-) If FPC didn't exist, I'm sure that VPC would have done well and taken on the role of FPC. But it's fairly obvious that with a finite number of interested contributors and two similar projects running in parallel, one or both will inherently suffer. That is the flaw of VPC IMO - it was a bit late to the party, was too similar to FPC, and as a result didn't attract enough contributors to hit critical mass. But to say that it couldn't teach us a thing or two is a bit silly. Ideas are what matters after all, and they're independent of success. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A standard for scales
female Lyssomanes viridis (scale = 1 mm)
I have two major problems with our implementation of scales on images:
Every editor implements them differently, giving us a mish-mash of dozens of different styles, fonts, etc.
You can never read the scales at thumbnail size, making them useless within articles (and visually unattractive).
With these problems in mind, I would like to propose the following standard for scales:
A scale will consist of nothing but a solid rectangular bar (preferably black or white) with no flanges or text.
The length of the scale should be specified in both the image caption and on the image description page.
This is the convention used by many modern biology journals, and I think it would make sense for us to adopt it as well. Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I ask for no scales at all, especially those depicting only bars. Editors may not know why they are there or what they mean. Using scales with labeled measurements are also unsuitable, as many people prefer different units of measurement. I think specifying the size of the species in the captions is sufficient where we could provide a wide range of units. --ZooFari01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that's it's a mish-mash, but tend to agree with ZooFari's take. Having thought about it for a long time, I tend to think scrap the scales completely. Too often they appear to be just guesswork anyway, and seem to cause repeated disruption on nominations (some want them, some don't, some want different formats, etc), along with the other issues identified. However I would say a size indication should be included on the image page; not necessarily in the article caption though, as the size should be given in the article itself, and we would presume in most cases for EV uses the FP will be a representative of a typical example rather than an anomaly. --jjron (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur with above arguments. Scale only on the image page text, and potentially in the image caption if the subject could be of a misleading size. (i.e. a bug that looks like it could be of average size, but is actually the size of a pixel, for example). SpencerT♦Nominate!22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. If it were up to me, scales would be banned forever. That said, I seriously doubt we would ever be able to reach consensus on banning them. If we're going to allow scales (which seems to be the case), we should at least offer some guidance on how to make them consistent and usable. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is generally much support for scales, but I don't think banning them outright is a good idea- nor am I massive on this suggestion. It should be done case by case- I'd imagine, in the majority of cases, the scaleless image would be favoured. The possible flaw is that this would lead to neither the scaled or the scaleless image being promoted, as the vote would be split. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For most of my images, reviewers have been preferring scales. And as long as scales are not distracting, I see no reason not to use them. In my images, the scale is usually in simple font, (Ariel or Verdana), the size is large enough to be viewed in thumbnails and it is placed such that it can easily be cloned out if necessary. Remember, EV takes precedence over aesthetics--Muhammad(talk)00:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I feel as if it's typically one person asking for them, with no one else objecting, rather than multiple users really wanting them. I'll still support an image with a scale, but I don't like the scales; personally I think a second version should be uploaded with the scale (and linked to from a gallery on the image page of the FP) so the FP isn't... tainted. upstateNYer01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what UpstateNYer has just said, but Muhammad is also right in that they can add EV. Scales have a few problems, often implying greater precision than is actually present - there is uncertainty in both the magnification level and the distance at which the scale is supposed to be applied. We also really need to avoid guesswork in order to appease voters. When it comes to choosing a method scale bars have a lot of advantages. They are relatively unobtrusive, simple to standardise (see below), language and unit neutral. The WP:MOS#Images also states that textual information should be kept as text. They are what I hope we could standardise on (ideally updating previous images too). I suggest a standard aspect ratio (5:1 say) and standard distance from one of the corners (5% horizontal and 2% vertical for example). I wouldn't standardise the colour or which corner - let that choice depend on the image. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
While the various arguments stated above are agreeable, let's not disregard that scales may not adhere WP:ORIGINAL simply because much of it is guesswork and there is really no reference verifying as to whether the measurements are precisely true. --ZooFari05:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There are merits to most of the arguments presented, but I'd have to say that while it'd be nice to reach a conclusion on guidelines and have the ability to use scales more consistently if desired, I wouldn't want to see it a requirement because of what many have said above: It's original research and guesswork. If you feel comfortable enough to estimate the size accurately enough for a scale, great, but if not, it needn't be opposed for that reason alone. Also agree that if we are to add a scale, it should ideally be in a separate image linked to the original. Remember that these images could potentially be used for many different purposes (not just the encyclopaedia), and a scale would detract from the image. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
In my case, for images which are shot at 1:1, and where I can accurately measure the size, I put up a scale. When I am not sure, I provide a rough estimate of the size in the caption. I agree scales should not be mandatory as it is sometimes impossible to get the exact size and one will have to rely on guesswork. But where possible, (such as in "studio shots" AKA white BG etc) I think a scale should be placed in a non distracting position. --Muhammad(talk)12:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I physically measure most of my macro shot subjects and could add scales to the images precise to a tenth of a millimeter. But I don't because I don't think scales belong in photographs, just as copyright notices don't. That said, I know some people are going to use them. If they are, I think they should be unobtrusive and follow some type of basic convention. At the very least, scales should not include text (including units), as Noodle snacks stated above. The units should be in the description. Otherwise, we are not only "marring" the images, we're also dating them per the font choice. I'm sure at some point in the future, there will be some kind of standard internet technology for overlaying data on top of an image, without actually affecting the image beneath it (i.e. layering). As soon as that technology is adopted by Wikipedia, I'll be happy to add scales to all my images, until then, lets try to do as little damage as possible to the original images. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
It really speaks well for the reviewers at FPC how willing people are to review difficult subjects. Before nominating Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/French mutilé, 1918 I was afraid it might get no reviews at all because the subject matter is so disturbing. Kudos to the people who turned out for that--and who even showed up quickly. It's really appreciated. :) Durova40303:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad to know you reacted well. It was obviously important but gave me shivers to work on: so young, and to spend the rest of his life that way. Durova40304:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestions please
Recently I read an article on how wikipedia was losing editors due to all the bureaucracy that has crept into the project. And only after reading it did I begin to realize how some new FPC contributors may have felt by my comments here. I am not saying there is any conspiracy here, but newbies may feel so and to protect a project as great as FPC from negative comments, I (and I'm sure the other contributors as well) welcome any suggestions anybody may have. Enough blabbering from me, let's hear your suggestions :) --Muhammad(talk)12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you. For my part I am already convinced of the inconvenience of placing a time restriction between adding images to articles and nominating. The one about completely forget about use in articles as part of FPC makes no sense if the use in articles is an axiomatic part of the existence of the FP project as opposed to the one in Commons. The one on announcing nominations, especially of newly added images in articles talk pages... I don't know. On one hand I believe that bringing quorum to the nominations is key to find the right point in an aspect that gets so compromised by having small numbers of reviewers. On the other it is true that it will bring a lot of work, sending people to read the criteria, the technical aspects of photography. I can even imagine that it can bring some instability. Things are better to control when you know who is going to review the nomination. You also start learning what is going to catch the support from each of the reviewers. Things that triggered me starting thinking were: a) the number of nominations that are recent additions to articles (a potential problem) b) EV of the whole enWikipedia being evaluated by a very small number of reviewers. Maybe there is a c) by I don't remember right now. I kept thinking. One thing is that I believe that for having a robust product these kind of weaknesses should be addressed in the foundations. As an example take the pillars of Wikipedia. Even if you remove the rest of the regulations, which are mostly circumstantial you would have as an outcome an encyclopedia. Probably an editorial mess with people using all kinds of fonts and styles, with edit wars everywhere but always something as reliable as is Wikipedia now. I believe the FP project is working fine but also believe it can be better. How? I don't know. I don't have more ideas so far. franklin 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your sensible thoughts Muhammad. It is in a way natural for any project that with time, as more energy is invested in it, people tend to become somewhat conservative, to preserve the embedded value. However, this can lead to the reflex of quickly dismissing new proposals and, at its extreme, to intolerance towards any alternative thoughts. But there should be a place for innovation (i.e. qualitative progress) as well. Diliff touched on this topic few paragraphs above. To add my story to it, I only discovered ***** (Durova pls don't follow that link), after I felt that FP wasn't receptive to constructive critique (RE technical bias, few months ago). Which is fine, as there are still many other places where one can contribute to Wikipedia. My suggestion to Franklin is, try out your proposal RE announcing nominations on the *** platform, which is a more open forum, with a stronger focus on educational value of images, more in need of improvement and more in need of attracting participation. Elekhh (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a subject where I post with caution. In order to build this project I have been training new people in digital restoration. One of them nominated his first project today. Tutoring is hard work and relatively few of the people who learn this return to nominate more than a handful of images. One of the proposals I am building is to scale up this work by partnering with art schools. The aim is to incorporate restoration into advanced image editing classes with the best student work to be selected for exhibition at museums. We have the museum contacts to make that happen. Now--with little visible rationale--some of our editors want to undo one of the underpinnings that proposal depends upon. It would be onerous upon any editor to impose an arbitrary delay before nomination, but more so within the context of an academic term. The time delay idea isn't new; it was discussed and rejected at last year's RfC. No new reason argues for it, and this reason adds to the drawbacks (which I should have raised earlier, but was simply too taken aback). Durova40303:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
But let's not forget the reason why a time delay is suggested - it is only to ensure that the image actually has a stable place in an article. Without an article to live in, the image has no EV and thus fails what is probably the most important of the criteria (#5). So while I think the existing FPC process already caters for most eventualities in terms of addition/removal of images from articles and as a result the time delay's drawbacks outweigh the benefits, I can still see the argument has some merit. In any case, I would guess in the case of restorations (correct me if I'm wrong) that the existing unrestored image may well be already in use in an article, often for quite some time. The restoration process would merely raise the existing image to FP quality, and there probably wouldn't be any issue with a time delay for this reason. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's bear in mind the rebuttal that carried the discussion: different articles receive such different levels of traffic that time is a very poor metric of encyclopedic value. This was handled last June. Let's move on, please. Durova40316:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have a header for every nomination that appears when editing (as is done on many user talk pages)? I'm sure a lot of people skip through the text at the top of the candidates page and just "get to the pictures", and I thought it could be welcoming and helpful to have an inescapable edit notice when they actually come to comment on a nomination. I'm not really sure what it would say, but I figured it could be something like:
"Welcome to Featured Picture Candidates, thank you for commenting on a nomination.
Confused by some of the terminology? See here for a list of jargon explained.
Unfamiliar with the criteria? This page will tell you what you need to know.
Have a more general question regarding nominations, restoration, or photography? FPC regulars hang out at the talk page and are happy to help."
Maybe not so over-the-top nicey-nicey, but hopefully you get the idea. And of course it'd be prettier and probably match the colours already used for the FPC page. Hopefully, something like this could at least go some way towards making us seem more inclusive (apparently we don't always come across that way^^), by showing that we're willing and wanting to share our "knowledge". Anyone else think that the idea deserves further thought? Maedin\talk13:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it was just lost in the crowd, but I think this is a pretty good suggestion, if it can be implemented. Can we get a few comments, either for or against? Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Appropriate FP section?
I'm very good at being confused by simple things, so it helps to explain why I spent about 5 minutes trying to decide which heading/category of the FP library the picture SMS Moltke should be filed in. I thought that, as all of her action was in the first World War, she should go in History/World War I. Then I thought that perhaps Engineering and technology/Others was more appropriate. In the end, I went for a simple Other. I'm not convinced that I made the best choice. Where would you put it? I'm happy to undo my edits and put it somewhere else . . . the question is where? Thanks! Maedin\talk13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not 'Other'. Though I wouldn't say 'definitely WWI' given that the ship was built in 1910 and the picture dates from 1912, but that is an option. I would probably go for one of the Technologies - see if there's any similar images, but possibly Machinery or Weaponry; people seem to have used both in the past, so looks like you're not the first to be confused. (Reminds me that I have been intending to create a 'Vehicles' category for about a year.) However re this point, I must agree that probably the most mentally straining part of the closing process is making this decision on categorisation. Sure it's a doddle sometimes (a bird or a bug rarely require much thought), but other times it's damn tricky. Sometimes I think the nominator should suggest the appropriate category in the nom. --jjron (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that, sorry that I hadn't yet got around to moving mine from "other". It's good to have them all in one place. I'm not convinced that weaponry is the perfect home for them, but it will do, :) As we have a category for aeronautics and aviation, what of a topic for ocean/river/sea/lake related navigation and vessels? That would take care of quite a few more pictures that are currently hanging around in less than ideal categories. Not sure what to call it though. Maedin\talk20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have really thought there would be enough to justify a full category itself on this (and have wondered a number of times how aeronautics got one to itself early on). I have been intending to create a Vehicles category (as a subcat of Engineering) mainly aimed at cars, trucks, etc, where they could potentially go. But perhaps there would be enough of them to justify some type of 'aquatic vessels' subcat though? --jjron (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I realise this one was super close in terms of raw count, and certainly mean no disrespect to Makeemlighter, but I disagree with the conclusion. I think that 5 support and 2.5 oppose should provisionally default to promote. Also, on close inspection of the picture, I don't see any compression artefacts, and Damerung didn't return to clarify if George's comments influenced his vote or not. I think this is a case for discretion allowing for a promote—any thoughts? Maedin\talk21:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It seemed as though the primary reason for opposition was the supposed JPEG artifacts, and I don't see anything significant. I see this as a situation where I'd lean towards a promotion given the opposing reasons are a little weak (IMO). Ðiliff«»(Talk)23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it should go back to Older nominations requiring additional input from users, as the decision is "on the edge". By the way, is there a rule of 2/3 majority=consensus, or a weak oppose= 0.5 oppose? I would have thought that weak or strong does not affect the count, given that it wouldn't be fair to say that strong support=1.5 support. Elekhh (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we ever confirmed if weak votes count as half, but in the end, it's almost irrelevant since we did confirm that decisions are not based on the count. So even if the weak votes were counted as full votes, the closer could consider them weak in argument. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Artifacts or not, there's still the coloration issue. This nomination ends up at 0 using +1/-2, so seems like a pretty clear "no consensus" result to me. As always, images can be re-nominated in the future. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is a colouration issue either. I assume by that you refer to the comment by Bad Germ about it being 'noticably cool and undersaturated'? IMO this is unfounded. Yes, there is a lot of blue/cool hues in the image, but what do you expect when the entire frame is filled with sky, grey-blue steel and water? That doesn't make the colour balance incorrect, just naturally cool in colour. The whites look white to me, and the town in the background looks naturally coloured. Yes, if you use maths to determine consensus, you end up with a total of zero, but it is well established that we don't use that formula as a rule, only a guide, and individual arguments (and their relative strengths) should be taken into account. For that reason, I would lean towards a promotion as the arguments for opposition were weak (again, IMO as per above). Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know. Well, I suppose I was busy, or didn't have strong enough feelings on it to vote, but I was mainly pointing out the flaws in the reasoning of the opposers though, not saying I would have supported if I had voted. Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here. In essence I would say that a closing decision that went either way would have been acceptable, and I respect Makeemlighter's call. IMO the only way to promote would be as Diliff says to discount some/all of the opposes, as on a vote count I would say it's a non-promote. I guess there will always be questions and disagreements on some closings for as long we can agree that the process is open to the fallibility of both voters and closers... I would tend to suggest a renom is more sensible here rather than trying to overturn the decision, as clearly quite a strong case for doing so can be made. --jjron (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I will leave George a message and let him know that it was a close call, and that in a few weeks he may wish to re-nominate for a better result. Maedin\talk20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As it's come up, we really need to decide if weak oppose and weak support are dilutes or not. I thought I read some comments several months ago that indicated they are, and I've been counting with that in mind. It's going to be a little difficult to get consistency in closures if we all have different ideas about what's going on, :) I kick myself for the review that failed. Maedin\talk20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The review didn't fail, it was more a case that too many cooks spoil the broth. ;-) It's difficult to reach consensus on difficult issues at the best of times. Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Re 'dilutes' there's no consensus agreement. For example when MER-C was closing almost everything for about two years he basically completely ignored any 'dilution' factor. And in fact when you look at reasons behind votes, quite often 'full' votes will give more reasons for diluting than do many of the 'weak' votes. I try to take it on a case by case basis, and most noms don't usually have that many weak qualifiers. The main difficulty I find is how to count them when a nom is struggling to get to the five vote minimum. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've always called for better justification in voting though. If the bar was raised for both supporting and opposing, we'd have less issues with dismissing poor justifications, and better feedback for the nominators. I know I've been lazy and done it on occasion, but 'per nom' seems a bit cheap to me. Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
For editors who restore historic media this is wonderful: a major US cultural institution is opening its doors to us. They're taking requests for high resolution digital files for Wikimedian use. I'll be submitting a short list of initial requests shortly. Can't name the institution onsite yet due to ongoing negotiations in other areas (such as a volume donation of media to Commons). Please contact me via email if interested in this opportunity. Durova40918:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't commit to a time frame. The fact that they're inviting this type of request is a very good sign. Editors who do restorations and would like to be part of the first batch, please follow up by email. Durova40902:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Use scales or not to use...
This nomination has rekindled the scale vs no scale discussion and I think we should come to a conclusion. Currently, 3 supp for scale and 3 supp for no scale. Those who have voted please clarify your votes. Thanks --Muhammad(talk)09:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it needs a conclusion - I thought we were pretty close to having one in this discussion up the page a bit. FWIW, my take in closing ATM would be to discount Oppose votes that are based solely on either the absence or presence of the scale. Per the discussion above, I would be inclined to promote the scaleless version. --jjron (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
But likewise, it's difficult to justify an oppose vote based solely on the presence or absence of scales, especially since there is no consensus on the use of them in images. Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. I'm not trying to stifle discussion on it, but given that there is currently no consensus on how they are to be used, or whether they are even appropriate within the image at all, isn't it a good idea to avoid using it as the sole basis for opposing an image? We're supposed to evaluate the images on agreed criteria. I'm not suggesting that there is no room for opinion, but until we do reach consensus on how scales should be used (if at all), I feel that we should have a reason for opposing that does reference the criteria in some way. Ðiliff«»(Talk)23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What Diliff said seems pretty reasonable. If the image is otherwise considered by these editors as FPC standard, and the only thing missing is a scale - which there isn't consensus for as a criteria, then those !votes should perhaps be considered weak opposes in my opinion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I can only recap what the criteria state, which is A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. In other words, the inclusion of a scale trumps aesthetic considerations. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be working on the incorrect assumption that the inclusion of a scale always adds encyclopaedic value. There are many cases where a scale is dubious guesswork, and as such would actually reduce encyclopaedic value. The addition of a scale implies that it is accurate, whereas an estimation of the size in the image description is capable of conveying the accuracy (or lack thereof) far better in those cases. Ðiliff«»(Talk)07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You may just have to come to terms with the idea that other people don't always agree with you on what is and isn't encyclopaedic. I've given a very clear exposition with direct reference to the criteria, and I don't think anyone has ever supported inclusion of a scale that was shown to be inaccurate, so I've no idea what you're getting at with that comment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There have been a number of instances where people have supported inclusion of a scale (and indeed opposed on the basis that there wasn't one) without confirming if it was actually possible to add an accurate scale. I don't think we're actually in disagreement about what is and isn't encyclopaedic at all, so I have no idea what you're getting at either. We were discussing a subtly different issue: whether it is fair to oppose on the basis that a scale is not present. Ðiliff«»(Talk)18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, I've never opposed a candidate image on account of the absence of a scale. Where I think one is warranted, I normally just "comment" rather than voting. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
For the time being, a vote based solely on the inclusion or exclusion of a scale should surely not be counted - at all. Scales are not mentioned explicitly in the criteria and while you can lump it conveniently in "EV", if the image doesn't already have enough EV, then the vote shouldn't change anyway. upstateNYer01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Nicely summarised. Even if one does subscribe to the idea that it is better to have a scale than not, the image itself should carry enough EV regardless of 'value-add' scales. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the featured version of an image should contain no scale. However, a version with a scale would be more than helpful if it were included in the |other_versions= section on the image page summary. I think a simple monochromatic bar with no serifs should suffice, alongside a value and unit. It's in our best interest to include solely metric units (and yes, this is coming from an American). That said, we should probably say that we prefer a scale in the non-FP version to add to overall EV, however note there is a crapload of FPs that don't have scales but should. upstateNYer01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not that surprised that you support the metric system for academic/scientific purposes. Any American with half a brain would do the same. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In most contexts us Yanks do use the metric system for academic/scientific purposes. Significant exceptions exist, though. <sarcasm>One comforting thought that you may take to bed is the knowledge that US nuclear submarines are engineered and maintained in foot-pounds and assorted other archaic units.</sarcasm> Durova40921:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Sweet dreams with sugar plums and military intelligence dancing in your head.
I started to close it last week amongst the batch I did, but then realised you would probably want it closed as a 'set', and as I've made clear before, I don't condone and therefore do not close sets, so I left it. I considered just promoting one of them, and will do so if you are happy with that. --jjron (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely the solution is to find an aesthetic way of combining the images into a single file. The image page could then link to the original files, preserving them for other uses. That's what I did for one of my FPs and it seemed to work okay. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Thanks very much, Maedin. And regarding the suggestion to combine the two noms into a single image composite, here's wishing that had been raised during the 3+ weeks the nomination was live. While Jjron's objections to featured picture sets have merit (they've been discussed before), I hope we can keep the baby while tossing the bathwater. Following are examples of the pros and cons:
Positive: corresponding World War I Canadian posters in French and English. Individually the images' ev is limited to victory bonds; as a pair they make an excellent illustration to supplement the text at Canadian_identity#20th_century.
Negative: factual inaccuracy. Both of the following images illustrate the first successful use of a frameless parachute in 1797. The first of the two images below was promoted as part of an 1890s set about the history of balloon aviation and was promoted in 2007. The second is an early nineteenth century schematic that was promoted individually in 2009. The problem is the 1890s illustration contradicts reliable text sources. Andre Garnerin had risen by balloon, then descended by severing a rope that connected his basket to the balloon (which then rose safely away while he descended). The 1890s illustration shows the balloon deflating and falling faster than Garnerin's parachute, but it remains an FP possibly because it is part of a set.
On the subject of combining them into a single file, I'd be opposed to this. In either case they are individual images, and should be seen as such. Combining them limits their usefulness in a number of ways. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, I should have looked more closely at the articles this is used in. The images don't seem to be intended to be used separately, as they were put in articles together, so making them one image seems like the most logical idea. However, they are used inline, vertically in two articles, as opposed to using the horizontal setting of {{Multiple image}}, which would be better when it comes to bunching and saving space in articles, in general (currently the two images take up an enormous amount of space). Putting them in one image together, horizontally, is probably the best idea. You can still use either of them separately if necessary, and it is probably a good idea to indicate on the separate image pages that the combined version (should it be made and promoted) is a FP. That said, the images have been removed from World War I#Aftermath, yet another example for why a time requirement would be extremely useful. upstateNYer23:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Combining two images into a single file would have a limited applicability for two image sets. There are overtones about that which don't sit well: it seems to sacrifice historic integrity to satisfy a procedural objection among a portion of reviewers. It would also make our galleries look inconsistent: the Currier & Ives prints of the 1864 US presidential election appear in separate articles and are separate FPs even though they also work well as a pair. I'm not going to merge and split featured pictures as articles get merged and created. The twofer solution is middling at best: leaves me chuckling over the prospect of doing the complete Gustave Doré illustrations to Dante's inferno, which crashes the server when a developer exception tries to upload as one file and the thumbnail default displays each part of the composite at 20 pixels wide. Let's head back to the drawing board and be sensible. Durova41117:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A radical proposal
What about a whole new featured content type? The "featured set"? Kind of like a featured topic, but media would not need to be already featured in the same way- we could have sets of pictures, sets of sounds (say, every track from an album) or even mixes of pictures and sounds (of the like Durova lists on her userpage)? We could shift the current featured sets over there, then have separate nominations in a new place? This would also prevent the rather annoying "oppose, I don't like picture sets" type comments. One or a few of the images/sounds from the set could also be nominated at FPC/FSC, but, clearly, it's not usually gonna be appropriate for all of them. To take the album example, instrumental/introductory tracks on a rock album probably wouldn't have a place at FSC, but certainly would in a set, and to take a very real example, this probably shouldn't be a featured picture in its own right, but it certainly has a place as part of the set. Its current classification as an FP is even somewhat misleading. The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'll go ahead and propose it on the village pump and create the appropriate pages if people like the idea, but a new featured content type is hardly gonna be easy to set up. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no concept of time. Sunday at the latest, I would imagine... I will post a new section on this page when the proposal is made. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it, this would be great for pictures but less so for sounds. How about writing up the proposal for pictures only? Durova41217:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I just think we may as well kill two birds with one stone- a set of sound recordings is possible, as is a set combining pictures and sound (such as a sheet of musical notation, combined with a recording of said music, for instance). Why do you feel it's not a great idea for sounds? J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I'm wondering that myself. If we had a collection of North American bird calls or scales played on various brass instruments, that would be very applicable to this proposal. upstateNYer06:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That could step on their toes. And if they're not happy about that--either because their needs are different or they're just put off by it--the proposal would sink. One thing that came to mind is this: does FS need this the way FP does? multi-listen templates don't take up much space in an article; featured sounds are usually the only audio in an article. So they don't face the gallery dilemma that FPs have faced. It's really appropriate to get their input. Durova41217:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've skipped closing the Keep Calm and Carry On nomination. I have very little experience with graphics such as these; Durova, ZooFari, 79.67.154.166, and Franklin all raised concerns and J Milburn suggested the nomination be put on hold while corrections were made. The edit looks identical (to my eyes at least) and I can't tell if it sufficiently addressed the questions. Also, over at the graphic lab, it looks like we have promise of a better version, provided by Mononomic. Perhaps someone with a bolder brain than mine will be willing to close this or delay this, or perhaps those involved in the nomination would be willing to make further comment. Maedin\talk18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The original nomination needed about 0.1 degree counterclockwise rotation. The alternate rotated the crown but not the text, which remained slanted. I'd support if the text were rotated too. Durova41218:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The text is a bunch of independent letters. Some were up some were down. The first time I aligned them according to their center but it seems to be they have different sizes. Now the Edit1 have them aligned with respect to the top. Someone said the vector graphic was produced from the a raster image. Who knows now if the original has also those problems. I read that the original text was hand made, maybe the text was that way. If that is the case what is the best, to fix it or to make it like the original? I don't know. franklin 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
An original raster is here. It appears that we are aiming for the famous phrase, rather than it's historic value? If this would be the case, I would ask for a complete redo with more aesthetics and a clean crown. Otherwise I would prefer the original poster (if it was of high resolution) rather than an inaccurate vector. --ZooFari20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess it would be fine to use one of the font types that are close to the letters used in the original to get letter of equal sizes. franklin 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Intrigued by a friendly challenge?
Currently the featured picture program has 2,195 featured pictures and the featured article program which has 2,784 featured articles. One year ago today there were 1,584 FPs[4] and 2,419 FAs.[5] Do you think we'll overtake FAs someday? If so, how long? Cheers, Durova41220:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. Or, at least, I disagree with what I think is your intended meaning, that FP-quality images are easier to produce. Everyone can write and do research on the interwebz. It takes application, but the basic skills are usually already present; plus, it's collaborative—where your failing is, another one will pick up. On the other hand, we have at least 4 regular photographers here who have near professional skill, using professional equipment, and we still shoot their nominations down. The rest of us barely have a hope, nonetheless the money, patience, software, or knowledge to get similar results. Not to mention the restoration of images; I've tried it and simply don't have the patience (though, Durova, I still fully intend to get that Spitfire image done soon!). I think we have some very good contributors here who have made it look easy, that's all, without fully appreciating the money and time that goes into their results. Maedin\talk21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There is the point that the best image producers can make FP-quality images faster than the best writers can write FAs. Further, there is the point that images can come from a variety of sources around the web- Flickr, US government sites and the like- and are far easier to borrow from other projects. I was able to sift through other Wikipedias' FPs to find some fungal images to nominate, while I would not be able to do such a thing with featured articles, unless I was a talented linguist. We also get donated high quality images in a way we do not get donated high quality articles. There's also the point that nominating and reviewing pictures takes less effort than the average FA review. I would be inclined to say that FPs are easier to accumulate than FAs, even if we do have more people aiming at FAs (after all, I would be inclined to say more people are attracted to this site to work on articles than they are to share their images). J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Actually an editor's first FP is generally harder to do than a first FA. The difference is that FP skills are more reusable. FA writers usually start afresh with each new content drive and the more prolific writers spend substantial amounts of money on reference materials. So unless they work within a narrow niche such as meteorology or roads it just isn't feasible to write more than a couple dozen FAs. Ten is a lot. Once an editor understands the FPC standards and acquires the necessary equipment (GIMP is free if cost is a factor), the tenth FP is substantially easier than the first. We have several editors who have contributed more than fifty FPs. Durova41221:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c with Durova) All very valid points; which I think can lead us to conclude that both FAs and FPs have advantages and disadvantages; aspects which are simpler, and facets which are more difficult. Personally, I would say that the stock of FP-quality Flickr material (appropriately licensed) is quite small, and that my ability to find the money to buy professional equipment non-existent, whereas I could knock out an FA if I were so inclined. For other people, I guess it's the other way around. But—yeah, that's fair, though I don't think it can be said that one is easier than the other. Maedin\talk21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a thought: the Turkish Wikipedia has built up one of the largest featured picture programs mainly by translating and importing existing FPs from other WMF sites. There's enough difference between the FP programs at Commons, en:wiki, de:wiki, es:wiki, etc. that the Turkish Wikipedia could amass three or four thousand featured pictures. Our standards are different (and probably somewhat stricter), but it wouldn't be surprising if several hundred worthy images are already uploaded and waiting in sister sites' galleries. Durova41221:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As I say, I've managed to find FP material by trawling other sites. Maedin- maybe, but Flickr was just one generic example. High quality images are uploaded every day to, for instance, Mushroom Observer. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Mushroom Observer is a good source. I suspect that http://www.mindat.org could be also if anyone was willing to look. By linear extrapolation I'd put my bets on about September 2011 as the intersect date. The uncertainty is quite large however, and it has been quieter than last year in the last two months. It would make sense to imitate the Turkish Wikipedia's FP program - it would help place good images in articles here if nothing else. You don't need any special equipment to write featured articles, just time (and perhaps a decent library nearby). The same is true for finding Featurable content on flickr or restoring images. For photography an entry level SLR (I'm still using one) and a kit lens (I've got plenty of FPs with an 18-55mm IS) are more than adequate with a bit of experience/practise. The most difficult FPs are wild birds, I might spend 4-5 hours and get nothing fairly regularly (a 600mm f4 lens would be handy here). My current panorama nomination took four or so days walk to get there :P Noodle snacks (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside, would it be feasible to bring audio recording equipment during bird sessions? If you don't manage an FP you might get an FS or two. Durova41222:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Bird calls are extremely useful for identification - you usually "see" much more with your ears than your eyes when bird watching. I've done a bit of recording historically (but don't have much equipment myself). The equipment would not be difficult to carry, but for good results a long shotgun microphone would be needed to reduce background noise. Unfortunately most microphones are very expensive for what they are. Birds in Backyards, an Australian Museum website has many bird calls online (example). All of them seem to come from Fred van Gressel (see [6]). Since he has donated the recordings to the museumI may try and find a contact name and email him. It would be an invaluable addition to many articles. There is also a large CSIRO Archive, which seems to be in the process of digitisation. I know that the CSIRO have expressed interest in releasing CC-BY-SA content (particularly for the plant photograph archives), so that could be promising in the future. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Both quite exciting prospects. An archive of bird calls would take a lot of work to upload and add to the articles, but I suspect it would be worth it. J Milburn (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I found Fred van Gessel's email address and sent him a message. Bird calls in particular would add huge value to articles (textual call descriptions are usually pretty poor). Noodle snacks (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks writing featured articles is easier than making featured pictures is crazy. I spent a year working on an article, and it still failed at FAC. I spent 6 months learning how to use a macro lens, and made 5 featured pictures. I would say the difficultly of making a featured picture is closer to that of writing a good article (which I've managed 3 of), or a featured list. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I have to agree too. Having just got my first FA through (after failing at another), FPs are definitely easier, especially if you travel on a somewhat regular basis. The main challenge for photography is the pricing. On the other hand, I didn't spend a dollar writing my FA, thanks to the US government and Google Books, which is the best thing to happen to the internet since, well, probably Wikipedia. upstateNYer03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Part of it is whether one has the right aptitude. Both of you are quite talented. Over the years I've seen people who've taken classes, joined photography clubs, and spent thousands of dollars without ever getting results as good as yours. It can be painful to look at that type of portfolio: they know about the rule of thirds and try to use it but the insight isn't there. Ever thought There was a shot here, but it was two paces to the left and he should have dropped down to his knee. Those are people who really care and really try. And without intending any disrespect toward Wikipedia's hardworking article writers, most of the people who ask me for restoration help simply don't understand that a 45 KB image isn't going to become a featured picture. They have trouble understanding the easily quantifiable stuff and don't recognize a tilted horizon. You're blessed with talent. Durova41204:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I largely agree with Durova too. I think it might be fair to say that on average, more work goes into a FA, although there are plenty of images where composing and clicking the shutter is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the amount of time and effort that goes into it. I've visited the same subjects a number of times on different days/time of day/time of year before I've found the lighting conditions that do them justice. And quite clearly, the pool of talent that we have that is capable of creating FPs is smaller than that of FAs, as demonstrated by the fact that there are probably only about ten regular (or previously regular) photographers that make up the bulk of the contributor-created FPs that we have. I have no idea what the actual statistics are, but it would be interesting to find out. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's also objectively cheaper to create a FA than a high quality photograph from scratch. If I was to purchase a suitable SLR and computer with image processing power (simply not a possibility on my 4yr old laptop), I'd be out of pocket by about $2000 AUD. I don't have that option just yet (soon, hopefully!) This isn't an impediment for everyone, but it is easy enough to overlook. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've processed photos on a netbook (effectively at least 4 years old speed wise) quite comfortably, large panoramas are different though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Panorama processing is largely dependent on the hard drive and RAM rather than processor speed, and that's fairly easy to upgrade without having to completely replace the laptop. Anyway, it's not about possible or impossible, it's more about how patient you are! And even 6-8 year old digital DSLRs are capable of FP quality images, although I wouldn't necessarily want to buy one on eBay as the shutter could be close to end of life. Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not quite the same requirement as having an expensive camera though. You could probably find a lot of subject matter in a decently sized public library. Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right about that. With original photography there really is no substitute for a decent camera. It's a smaller percentage of FA writers who spend equivalent sums. Durova41220:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You guys apparently haven't nominated any FAs lately. Just using whatever books you find at the library won't cut it. You have to use every book and journal article ever written about your topic (regardless of whether you have a JSTOR account or not). Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha! They are getting pretty tough, I agree there. The price of writing an FA (especially one on history or old literature) can be very cheap actually, thanks to Google Books and archive.org which host thousands of out-of-copyright books. I spent $0 on my FA, thanks to the NPS website and Google Books. I'm currently writing a book on my town's history, to be published in a few months, and much to my astonishment, even the old histories on my county have been scanned in and are online. Saves a lot of money, trips to the library, and best yet, I can search the books. Ahhh, the 21st century. I always joke that it would have been absolutely terrible to have been born before 1980 (no offense of course - I just couldn't have handled it!). upstateNYer22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
But very well probably could, especially if it were very old literature (i.e. Shakespeare or even Greek). However, I never said it was a universal generality; I'm just saying that you needn't spend hundreds of dollars to write an FA on historical subjects thanks to Google Books and archive.org. It's not meant to start an argument, it's simply an observation. A $0 FA is something we should strive for, however it's obvious that it's not possible to do so with all FAs. But economical FAs make you feel that much more accomplished in writing one. upstateNYer18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Its true, but scanned books do have the advantage that they are easily verifiable. The doctoral candidate probably has access to a good university library and access to journal articles, both of which are very helpful (and free). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Once you get a workflow up and running, you can crank out good quality pics at a reasonable rate. As for FAC, it's a silly place to be avoided. FAs aren't cheap -- the time spent fussing about with the MOS is much better utilised towards killing maintenance backlogs and expanding stubs. (Sturgeon's Law applies to Wikipedia articles -- stubs and articles needing cleanup make up the overwhelming majority.) MER-C08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've always held the opinion that lots of DYKs are more useful than a handfull of FAs. Also more interesting to write imo. I'd rather see more good articles than more featured ones. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Image page link not working
Hi, would someone know how to fix the link to the nomination page, here. I left it unlinked because I couldn't get it to work, and didn't want to mess with the template (I'd just break it!). Thank you, :) Maedin\talk19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well, in the FP template we add, the identified should link to the nomination. Like this one: File:Ardea picata.jpg. But the " " in the nomination title is confusing the template, so the link won't work. It's not hugely important, but I'm particular (read: anal), so I thought I'd ask if it can be fixed, :-) Maedin\talk19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to close some nominations, and it occurred to me I don't actually know the procedure. Do we have a list of steps somehere? I couldn't see it. If not, could someone perhaps write one? J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You get used to it and it's a bit quicker, but it's still a monotonously slow process.
I would have thought we could get a bot to do most of it. The only parts that really require a human are tagging as promoted and placing it in the correct FP section. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What happened to MER-C's bot? It was unfortunate that he was pushed out as closer-extraordinaire, but he had a bot that seemed to have potential. If I remember correctly though, he didn't feel comfortable giving it to anyone else until they had proven themselves worthy of it. Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a bot, it was a mini program. It made it quicker, but still required more human input (if I remember correctly) than a full-on bot would. Though maybe MER-C or Jjron would like to comment, since they used it. upstateNYer14:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a bot is an appropriate option; closing requires input and thought on captions, editors, creators, co-nominators, etc. A script/mini-program would be far better. In reply to J Milburn specifically, I can think of several instances during closures where I've employed discretion. I would loathe trusting some aspects of closing to a heavy-handed bot. Commons closures currently ignore notifying creators altogether, as far as I know because it's too complicated for a bot to know. The most it can do is credit the uploader, not the creator, even if the uploader was a bot. The Commons FP pages have become a mess, with non-sensical titles and credits mis-applied, simply because a bot takes away the human from the job. Maedin\talk17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The "most recent featured pictures" type lists (at least three separate steps) and the discussion archiving (two separate steps) could easily be done by a bot. Cutting five steps would be helpful, to say the least... J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, of course, I don't deny that at all. But having it take care of a few steps is far removed from a bot "doing the closures". Above, it sounded like the minimum of manual input and the maximum of bot efficiency, instead of the other way around. Apologies if I misunderstood. Maedin\talk20:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about it thoroughly :) Got a good few things to be doing over the next few days, but I'll try and find a few minutes to consider what could be done by a bot and request it as appropriate :) J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've spent the last few months trying to hold together WT:WPSPAM, WP:CCI and WP:SCV; to be the only one at SCV and having to revert the same scraper site spam awaiting blacklisting (before, after) is very demotivating. I am considering getting back to closing FPCs, as long as we aren't bickering or handing out FPs to all and sundry but right now I have other things to do on WP. I don't know if my closing tool still works, given the even more than usual ad-hoc nature of scapping here on WP. (And besides, "The Second Reality Project Reloaded" is far more appealing.) MER-C08:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the charity; we're still bickering and still "handing out FPs". We already have willing closers, too; we'd just like a tool to make the closing task less manually tedious (for everyone). But I think that with a little bit of thought, J Milburn or myself can put together a reasonable request for a script over at WP:BOTREQ. A sustainable option for all to share is far better than relying on a single closer with a clever program. Maedin\talk15:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
And this was not? And as the "review" flop in June showed (because none of us can agree on anything), there was never any consensus on whether the supermajority is 67% or a little less. Maedin\talk16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We should have learned by now that the only way to make people agree is with clear-cut criteria. My interpretation is that a 2/3 majority is necessary and sufficient for a promotion. Then the first case is a 'ye's and the second a 'no'. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I find it well closed too. franklin 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Disregard my comment here I wasn't clear of the promotion criteria went I wrote this, so I actually don't know if what I said is right or wrong. franklin 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Try to get consensus on our rules. There are no hard and fast rules now because closers have discretion and determine consensus, not just count. Even though it was more of a failure in terms of numbers, I considered the cruiser a case more for promotion because the opposes were weak (perhaps even inaccurate) and there was less input overall. As a straight up zero and with opposes that have merit, there's no right or wrong for the Audi. Although the review achieved little, you can see that we more or less agreed on closer discretion, but were split ~60/40 on 66.666% or 67%. Maybe you'll have better luck. Maedin\talk14:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course the nominator should count towards the consensus: It's the only way to have sane results in situations where there are Alts, since the nominator may end up supporting some, but not supporting and even opposing others. If we don't count the nominator, those situations become *ridiculous*. As for 2/3rds vs just over 2/3rds - Hey, don't look at me. I'm the one who was pushing for writing some basic closer guidelines, and everyone just threw up their hands and said "THE CLOSER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WAAAANT! WE CAN'T GIVE THEM ANY ADVICE OR GUIDELINES WHATSOEVER! [Not actually an exaggeration]" That was, oh, 6 months ago? Feeling a change of heart now? =P Shoemaker's Holidaytalk17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Generic formal military portrait. Stiff pose; not much personality.
Cut off at the top of the head.
Distracting blue lights framing face.
Generic formal political portrait. Contrasty with the face a bit overexposed; smile looks insincere.
Artistic shot and a pretty fungi
Another pretty fungi, angle chosen for beauty rather than encyclopedic value
Documentary shot of a comparatively boring fungi
Simple but high quality shot of a common and fairly ugly mushroom
Nardwuar The Human Serviette
Woody Guthrie
Ed Walsh
The liberation of Paris, 1944
1974, failed FPC
2008, failed FPC
2008, failed FPC
2006, featured
Maedin\talk 11:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. --ZooFari 01:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[2]](http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=File:Star-sizes.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
