Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 24

RfC to increase the default thumbnail size of images

It was set at 180px many years ago. There is prima facie evidence of considerable support to increase this, probably to 220px. Please have your say here (initial discussion above on that page). Tony (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

VPC MFD #2

Just to note, VPC has been placed up for deletion again: see here. And please don't bite me for pointing that out here. It's a completely legitimate place to inform users. upstateNYer 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No intention to bite. But I do think that there's been some egregious examples of late, and this after a previous MfD about it. Either we figure out how to fix the system, or we get rid of it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to honor a wikipedian

Recently it has come to light that User:Fg2 has passed away. Some editors have talked about doing something to honor his memory (See here). One idea was to try to get one of the articles he was working on or one of his pictures up to FA or FP status. User:Fg2 contributed lots of pictures, which can be seen here User:Fg2/Photos by Topic. I was hoping some of the FP reviewers could take a look at his pictures and see if any meet FP status and would have a good shot of becoming a FP. Thanks for your help. Remember (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I nominated a couple of his photos that I liked. Note that the link above only contains a small portion of his photo uploads. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he uploaded almost 2,000 photographs to Commons! Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He certainly has some gorgeous work. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help in getting two of his pictures up to FP status. I greatly appreciate it. Remember (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Fort Mason and Downtown San Francisco

Since the Featured picture urgents isn't updating (meaning it's likely noone is looking at it), and given the nom isn't one of mine anyway, may I direct some attention to this? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Would this be featurable if high resolution?

File:AudreyNiffenegger.jpg was provided by the author and the photographer to us. A higher resolution one could be gotten, but we don't want to bother him if it wouldn't be featurable. What do you think? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support regardless of the size (higher than 1000px of course) however I don't think this particular image would pass due to other concerns. ZooFari 01:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Try asking at Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a diplomatic suggestion, but that truth is you'd be better advised to save your time, as there are sufficient issues there that higher resolution would only exaggerate, I'm afraid. --mikaul^talk 07:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree. Seems to be focused on the wall behind. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Borderline case: can edit nominators be closers?

Wondering what people would have felt about me closing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Let L410UVP-E16 Góraszka 2008.JPG after nominating an edit yesterday. Is it allowed? Desired? Unacceptable? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Solved. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For a simple answer, it's generally not considered good practice to close a nom that you've been involved with in any substantial way (nominated, voted, added edit, etc), and especially so if it could in any way be considered a close call. --jjron (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback please

Leave comments

For some reasons this image does not get any reviews. Please? --Muhammad(talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

'Featured sets' and closing

As I have made clear on many occasions I am strongly opposed to so-called Featured Sets and do not believe they should be permitted here in any form. All images should be able to stand on their own if they are to be promoted, or merged into a single image if they truly belong as a 'set'.

I have never seen any rationale for why they are allowed or how they came to be. I suspect they snuck in while I was on a several month wikibreak a couple of years back, and no one has ever pointed me to any better explanation than a few editors casually saying something like 'can we have featured image sets?', 'I don't see why not', 'OK I'll promote these alts as a set'... and there the problem apparently set in, creating an undocumented and unfortunate precedent.

The reason I raise this now is that I notice that a couple of sets have again appeared as noms, with one due to be closed, and I have been doing a reasonable amount of closing recently. This is simply to point out that I will not be closing any sets as promotions.

I am making my position clear as sometimes some editors feel that a particular nominator or particular type of image is being unfairly targeted by closers for some reason. Thus I am being clear that I will not be closing any set nomination as a promotion regardless of nominator, creator, type of image, number of votes, time on page, etc. If other closers want to permit this farcical situation to continue then they can close them. --jjron (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I kind of sympathise with you but you're wrong on the origins of featured sets. The problem is a lack of consistency compounded by the complex tagging and archiving required for all members of a group of images. An incomplete list on the {{Featured set template}} talkpage shows the first featured set to have been the Mandelbrot set (appropriately enough) in 2006, followed by Bezier curves early in 2007 and early flgiht shortly thereafter. In these cases I fully support the "set" approach, with some misgivings: only the Bezier one gets it completely right, with all the right conditions, IMO:

1. the {{Featured set template}} template appearing on the description page of each member image;
2. all member images bearing the FP template
3. the thumbnails of the other members listed under each member preview image on the description page;
4. only one main image selected to appear on the FP category page.

There are good reasons for featured sets (I concur with all the enthusiastic supports on the noms of those first three, for example) but it may be too much to expect one format to work for all image sets. Looking through them, I'm really not sure File:Nectarine_Fruit_Development.jpg is an ideal solution. In page layout terms, it's likely you could put a composite image together that would suit one article but not another; there's no flexibility. OTOH it might be a better option for this current nom. Then there's the "ambassador" approach that kind of works for File:Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg which only elects the first image as FP, but groups the rest (as "other versions", not as good as separate thumbs) on its description page. With member images of related but lesser merit, maybe this is ok. What's not right is the Lewis Carrol set, for example. You click on one and, apart from being informed that it's part of a set, there's no way of locating the other members. The FP category page is spammed with the members when one ambassador would do, and choosing the right one for PoD would be much more obvious. It's a mess, and I would suggest we sort it out, certainly before promoting any similar sets. In general, there seem to me to be several approaches here and while I'm not sure one size fits all ('scuse the mixed metaphor) I don't see a way of avoiding featured sets completely. If we must have a Mandelbrot set – and we surely must! – then we must also allow sets for other groups. --mikaul^talk 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Am glad to see this come up again at FPC talk. Would this be a good time to solicit opinions? I have located a complete set of illustrations by Édouard Manet scanned from a first edition French translation of Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven. Technically these are very good: high resolution files from a copy in excellent condition. A set would comprise roughly half a dozen illustrations. Would there be broad objection to nominating them as a set? The encyclopedic value is quite strong and would seem to be enhanced by grouping together. Durova³²⁶ 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on past promotions and with regard to my concerns raised above, I'd say that was the right way to approach it, because there's a strong common theme (the poem) which viewers would want to pursue, and no better way of demonstrating the connection. FWIW I think grouping as sets should be done whether FP or not, certainly prior to nomination. If you want to add to/transpose for discussion/amend the four criteria I listed above, feel free. --mikaul^talk 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No particular objection to the recommendations. Regarding criterion 4 I'm probably the wrong person to ask. Each image in a set may require a great deal of labor. Once one gets a lot of POTDs another is no big deal, but if a volunteer photographer manages to get an FP set of every vascular plant on Antarctica (the contintent supports very few of them) then it'd be spectacular to run them as a series on the site's main page. Durova³²⁶ 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Mikaul, that first instance you can find of sets is still all pretty casual. No formal (or even informal) discussion on the talkpage, no change to the FP criteria, etc. I couldn't remember the specifics, but the generalities of the casualness of the instigation of sets are there, so the premise of my point stands. One of the key problems with sets is highlighted in that 'early flight' set that you mention and support. It has been brought up here before that there are problems - factual problems (EV) - with at least some images in that set; presumably those images would have either failed or been able to be delisted if they were individual FPs, but they survive unscathed, tagged as FPs, due to belonging to that set. For this reason alone sets do a disservice to both the FP process and individual images - images that don't deserve FP status are tagged as such by being shoehorned through as part of a set, and conversely, deserving images that could stand as FPs in their own right are devalued by only being listed as part of a set. Everyone's a loser. I am yet to hear any good reasons for sets. Re Durova, it's fine by me if you want to 'solicit opinions'. It won't change my opinion if they are supported, but at least it may put some sort of order into the process (noting the current mess with implementation that Mick identifies). --jjron (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jjron, your opinion is articulate and with regard to the early flight series I very much agree. Not sure what the right solution is. But if you'd like to nominate items from the early flight series for delisting--particularly the parachute--I'd agree to delist. Durova³²⁶ 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're both referring to this discussion, in which case I'd have to question the challenge; it reminds me of doing aerial stuff, that unusual perspective you often get from shooting in true 3D space. There's no reason to assume one is above the other, unless you can specify whether the drawing has been made from an altitude higher or lower than the balloon. Really tough on to call, not really a clear-cut inaccuracy at all. That said, I agree that these sets have to be 100% accurate and each member image be individually featurable for the set to be promoted.
Here's a thing: If a member of any set did end up being delisted, the whole set should not be broken up. Maybe it would cease to be a featured set; maybe it could still be a featured set but only the "lead" image is an FP; I was trying to stress that there are no "typical" featured sets and each has to be considered on its merits. I agree also about the extra work they create to review, archive, organise, etc but at least that workload is spread over many shoulders. I do think image sets are immensely valuable, exactly why is probably another discussion. What rankles here, dare I say, is that they can be featured. I don't agree that "everyone's a loser" – getting a set featured is a multiple achievement, after all; I like Durovas idea of a set of rare localised plants, for example, but see the lack of front page exposure balanced by the six-in-one (or whatever) promotion. The value of sets is unique in that the members are much more valuable as a set than individual images. That, I guess, should be a key criterion. Ok, enough for now... mikaul^talk 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The best reason for sets is that reviewers want variety. This leads to situations where the much more valuable option of completeness - e.g. all the images for The Hunting of the Snark - would, if nominated separately, probably result in people complaining about all the samey nominations, getting tired out, and losing the ability to objectively evaluate later-nominated works. Indeed, for those of us with large amounts of possible things to work on, but limited time to work on them, being constantly encouraged to mix it up, keep changing artists and styles, provides powerful negative incentives against ever getting all images in a group done.

Disallowing or discouraging sets means that we're saying completeness is not encyclopedic. Now, while there may be limits - I don't expect to ever get all 400 of Doré's illustrations to Don Quixote featured, unless we decide to make Wikisource count for purposes of usage. However, for smaller sets, or broader sets with more uses, we should encourage such work, not discourage it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well then what do we do with something like the early flight series, where we know some of it is factually wrong (the parachute for instance). We've already got a much better featured replacement about the same parachute flight; if the flight series parachute were anything other than part of a set it would have been delisted by now. If you find a solution to that dilemma then you'd be much closer to addressing Jjron's concerns (he has a very good point there). Durova³²⁶ 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure that's such a clear-cut inaccuracy so a delist outcome would be far from certain. Could you point to the better replacement? Presumably not a set..? --mikaul^talk 21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That example is at variance with the reliable sources. And even if it weren't, historical method would prioritize material that was created closer to the actual event over a fanciful illustration created a full century afterward. Durova³²⁶ 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking again I don't regard that parachute image as any less valuable than the rest of the set. If you're convinced there's a lack of EV in the set I'd suggest it was nominated for delisting. --mikaul^talk 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're expecting perfect accuracy from cigarette cards and similar, I don't think you understand what they are. They're freebie giveaway collectable ephemera. It may be right to oppose them, but that logic applies to the set as a whole. It doesn't change the arguments for solid sets, such as Hunting of the Snark, U.S. Constitution, etc, where they're all clearly valuable, and completeness is important to their value: The second page of the Constitution would be much less valuable on its own, for instance. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Campaign button

Have supplied a new edit per requests. Reviews and revised reviews are welcome. Durova³²⁶ 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchable archive

I've changed the talkpage archive box to include a search box. Dunno why we never had this facility here, given how gobby we all are I think it's invaluable... if anyone would like to tweak it or whatever (why is it orange fer chrissakes?) by all means, go ahead. mikaul^talk 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea, I just have a long search some days ago looking for a past discussion about some issues. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/St._Simeon_Stylites

Any other votes on this? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Vauxhall_Gardens

The revised version is uploaded. Please unsuspend. Durova³²⁶ 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I asked all of the people who voted on the nomination to comment on the edit. Once we see what people prefer, I'll close it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. It was more work than anticipated. Durova³²⁶ 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Durova for the work. Again, your restorations are appreciated. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
      • And thanks for your patience. :) Durova³²⁷ 03:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiCup final stretch

Hi all, two of the FPC regulars made it into the final round of the 2009 WikiCup, which is a content contribution competition that ends at the close of this month. One other media editor became a finalist, but he has withdrawn, which leaves...erm...me. So although normally I spread out nominations to make room for everybody, during the next week it'll be a little more intensive. Posting not to seek easy passes, just to request understanding for the temporary increase in volume. Fair, tough, and honest reviews are welcome--please review! Cheers, Durova³²⁷ 03:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thats fine. I think that if I am reading the rules correctly I would have about ~3000 points right now if I'd joined :P. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Teehee...well the signups are open for next year. :) Durova³²⁷ 04:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted FP Closing Procedure Program

Does a program exist, either a bot or a user tool, that can help with the closing procedure. It seems like the 12 steps can be a little intimidating, they are for me, and I would really hate to screw something up on a page I am not used to. _Nezzadar_☎_ 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd be great if someone scripted one. Good idea. Durova³²⁷ 05:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

MER-C had one, but never gave it out AFAIK. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot code, otherwise I would try. Maybe we could get someone like master coder and soon to be admin user:Tinucherian on this. Or we could find MER-C and get his. Either way, it's sorely needed. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The one at Commons may be adaptable. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 18:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this. It's easy enough to close a nom if you follow the instructions step-by-step. If you're not comfortable doing so, there's no problem: between jjron, Shoemaker's Holiday, and me, we have enough people doing the closing. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

MER-C does have one, but unfortunately it wasn't compatible with my Mac. That's how he closed when he was doing it. To respectfully disagree with Makeemlighter, I think the process is way too intensive and time-consuming. But to agree with him (her? I'm not sure, actually!) the three closers now are doing a pretty fine job. upstateNYer 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The last three pictures I promoted took 6 minutes each. Non-promotes take 1 minute each. That doesn't seem too time-consuming to me...but maybe I just have too much free time! A while back jjron said he was testing something new to promote images, so maybe he has some tool he hasn't been telling us about. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But you see, that's the thing that bothers me. You three do a good job, but you know the system, you won't mess up. The system is intimidating as hell for new uesrs, or even long time users that are just starting to get involved in FP. I like FP, really do, but the 12 steps worry me. I really would like to get more involved in FP, and this can only help WP.   Nezzadar ☎   04:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely correct, and one reason why we don't encourage 'just anybody' to close. I have fixed botched closings in the past, and they can easily take five time longer to fix than if I was just closing them from scratch. We usually like to have people around here for a few months at least before they take on closing as it is an intimidating process (especially if you make a couple of dubious calls :-) ) and you really should know FPC quite well before doing it. Re whether it actually should be so complex, well that's a different argument. FWIW MER-C's tool did not handle the complete closing process and it was susceptible to things going wrong - the main reason he did not allow general release was that if things did go wrong, he wanted to be damn sure that whoever was using it could fix the errors themself. Re the Commons tool, I believe it's been said before that the process there is more straightforward and therefore easier to script. If you find a scripter though, get them to drop me a note. --jjron (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

One big way to help would be to simplify the numer of different setups you have to use: Fiv different ones are required:

Goings-on	[[:File:Filename.jpg|brief description]]
Announcements	[[:File:Filename.jpg|brief description]] (date)
Featured pictures	|[[File:Filename.jpg|150px]]
Featured pictures/Category	|File:Filename.jpg|[[wikilinked]] [[brief description]]
Featured pictures thumbs	|File:Filename.jpg|'''[[wikilinked]] [[brief description]]''', by [[User:Username|Username]]
Image page	{{FP|Nomination}}
Nominator's page	{{PromotedFPC|Filename.jpg}}

Do we really need a different format on literally every page it has to be set up for? Can't we at least lose a couple of these variants? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 11:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FP/Cat & FP Thumbs are reversed and you're about the only one who's ever linked on FP Thumbs (that's a carry over from the dreaded VP Thumbs page, where links are required), so that cuts down a bit on the variety - Announcements, Goings-on and Thumbs are almost the same, though admittedly subtlety different. Most of this stuff can become pretty automatic (and automated), but I too have wondered how this variety ever originated. However work in things like malformed noms (e.g., wrong creator listed and not picked up during nom), promoting an Edit or Alt (where you then have to work through the image links and find all the articles it's in and replace it - sometimes 10 or more), determining and adding in Editors on the FP subpage, and simply working out which FP category it's going to go in (sometimes far from obvious), and those to me are the real time sinks. Lets see someone script all that - I think that's where things are far simpler to automate at Commons, because most of that isn't an issue over there. With some of this stuff I think over time we've probably created a bit of a rod for our own backs - we could try to simplify to cut down some variety, but who is going to now be happy not to name creators/editors on the FP Category page for instance? And some of this stuff may be effectively beyond our control. For example I seem to remember MER-C trying to simply reverse the listing order, I think it was at Announcements, to allow his tool to work accurately, and being pounced on and told he had to list in ascending order of date as per all the other projects, which then opened up a potential glitch with the tool. --jjron (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback?

I'm wondering about Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Jens_Stoltenberg. Normally I take a lack of feedback on an image to mean disapproval or lack of interest in a boring image, so just leave alone, but in this case I just can't see it. I'm not canvassing (or maybe I am!), but I'm curious to hear more opinion. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture display

Wikipedia could use a better way to flag its featured pictures. Currently, readers must click to a file hosting page to see that an image is featured (unless they're specifically browsing the featured image categories). It's something like finding a needle in a haystack to spot a featured picture during casual reading. So how about this solution?

Display a featured content star within the caption; communicates 'this image will look good at full resolution'. Do you agree? Durova³³¹ 04:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Me likey, as it reduces the likelihood of having FPs replaced in articles by lesser-quality images. However, you would probably have to put this at the Village Pump somewhere for full approval. howcheng {chat} 07:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking something similar, kind of matches the FA star at the top of featured articles, but would need wider discussion I expect. The other issue would be I can imagine once it starts showing up in articles, editors will think it's a good idea and tag non-FPs with it (often as an honest mistake). How did you get it to work, and any ideas on preventing this from happening? Additionally, how would it function for taxobox images, which FPs regularly are (may have no caption). Also, just a minor point of order, but re the above discussion on closing, it wouldn't become a thirteenth point for FPC closers to handle would it? --jjron (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and yes Jjron has pegged the issue. How do we ensure that it only gets on the images it needs to be on. My inclination is that it's in the coding that you can click the star and it will take you to a verify page, much like admin userboxes have. Of course the punishment has to be severe-ish.

1. First Warning
2. Stronger Second Warning
3. Third (really angry?) warning from an FP specialist, such as Durova, Jjron, Shoebox, and Makeemlighter, and soon, hopefully, me.
4. Blockage

I can make custom templates. I like templates. I've made pretty templates. Pick me, pick me! He eh.   Nezzadar ☎   17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you from making a template, someone has to start one so we can test and see if we really like it. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Make it clear that on the template's documentation that use of this template for non-featured pictures is naughty. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nezzadar's suggestion. Sounds good to me! upstateNYer 18:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out the level one template I made for removing a star. If you like it, I can make the level 2, 3, 4, and 4im versions. I also can make a template series for inappropriately adding the star to images. Template:Uw-FPremove1 Example below uses the fictional page Nezzadar.   Nezzadar ☎   18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent editto Nezzadar removed the Featured pictures star icon from an image. When making edits, please be careful only to remove exactly what you are seeking to remove. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the star has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and take a look at the Featured pictures page to learn about these images. Thank you.   Nezzadar ☎   18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'll fix the typo soon.

Thanks. Wanted to float this with the FP regulars before taking it anywhere else. Seems like the use of this star could be coded: i.e. it would only appear in conjunction with images that have the FP template on the hosting page. Rather than warn or block people, just have a bot check and replace with the proper template. Any thoughts about that before this goes to the Pump? Durova³³¹ 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A bot that would remove it if someone adds it for an image that isn't FP would be best solution. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Will ask a coder if he's willing to assist. Might be a little while to make contact and get an answer. Durova³³¹ 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's ask User:Tinucherian to do it. He has an open unused bot account, coding experience, and is a well supported admin candidate (i.e. trustworthy). He also sits on the bot approval committee, so he can streamline it through.   Nezzadar ☎   20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second though. Not only will the bot have to remove incorrectly placed stars, but the bot will have to replace incorrectly removed stars as well, and both of these actions do warrant warnings. Removing/adding content after being warned not to is vandalism.   Nezzadar ☎   20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it might be better to prioritize adding the template when new featured pictures get promoted. It would probably be rare to see someone repeatedly put a featured tag where it doesn't belong, so the bot owner could monitor that on an ad hoc basis and add a warning feature if activity level merits it. Sounds fair? Durova³³¹ 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, as long as the bot doesn't go crazy and become unaccountable to the community, I really don't care whether or not it ever tells people what it's doing. And yes, we should put priority on getting stars in the right places. On a related note, I will volunteer to put stars on all the old FPs if/when this gets approved. because I love the pain...  Nezzadar ☎   21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Gimmetrow maintains the FA and FL page display stars. Pinged at user talk to request input. Durova³³¹ 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can't say I really see the point of having a star. I wouldn't oppose it either. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The point is to make it easier for readers to see which thumbnails are worth the effort of clicking through and looking at more closely. Durova³³¹ 00:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's an idea. Lets propose a separate colored star, say prismatic, and put it up at the top of the page with the other icons. That way people could tell that the article had FPs.   Nezzadar ☎   01:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Example 0

This ain't hard. Ya just have to add {{FP-star}} to the caption to get something like the image on the right. I expect I'll write and propose a bot to do this en masse. — Jake Wartenberg 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the idea of having a star in the caption (or perhaps some other place near the featured file) is a great idea. Having a bot to automate the process is also a great idea. I would suggest to not focus on trying to make specific rules for what to do if people put a star on a file improperly and the warning levels and various other bits of rule creep. If that sort of thing becomes a problem, and the community agrees with the use of stars in this manner, then there shouldn't need to be a whole set of rules and guidelines and templates, etc. Get the idea itself functioning first, then the rest of it will evolve as things do on a wiki... don't make more rules and policies than are actually needed. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Example 1

Example 2 is a blah blah blah

[FP] Example 3 is a blah blah blah

The position of the star elongates the caption, and looks wierd. How about floating it to the top right or left corners (Example 1)? –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oy no. The image you chose has white space in the corner. Most FPs won't. The star over the picture will lower its aesthetic value and possibly obstruct details, especially on thumb sized images.   Nezzadar ☎   04:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to do it a little more subtly, like tinting the enlarge button gold? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 07:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova's comment above. I think it needs to be coded so that it appears with the image via the template on the image page. Just adding it to captions I know can be done, but I don't think it's very workable (even if automated). The idea of floating it over the image would solve the issue I raised with images without captions (e.g., taxoboxes). --jjron (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To float it over images used in places like taxoboxes would probably be some pretty low-level coding, not likely? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Most infobox templates have a caption field, even if it isn't always used. The taxoboxes in particular use "| image_caption = ...". Noodle snacks (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

True, most do, but not all. If it has to go in the caption we can keep living without it on captionless images I guess, but I would like to think it can be linked through the FP Template on the image page - if not I fear it may be more trouble than it's worth. --jjron (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, the best solution I see would be a combination of shoebox's word tinting and a special star at the top.   Nezzadar ☎   14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) My original idea was tint the star a bright gold, as the current one would be surely lost in the background. I prefer Shoemaker's suggestion though (tint the star when hovering). Maybe even a tooltip would be possible? –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, I haven't yet seen any code for the star to "hover"; the image here actually has the star in it. So the FP files is not the one you see in the article, a copy with a star in it is. I don't like that idea one bit. Is there real code to get the star to actually hover as a separate entity so when you click on the image, it brings you to the FP image page, not some copy? upstateNYer 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Don't know whether the hovering is possible, don't know whether it can be automated to appear with the image via the FP Template on the image page. There's no way we're going to edit all the FPs to embed the 'hovering' star. We know it can go into a caption but I think that's problem prone if done manually. As I said above, I think it needs to be automated as part of the FP template (like the one that appears on the image page top right corner) if we're going to do it, but that may not be technically possible. --jjron (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well CSS would let you hover an image, someone with expernce doing that stuff in CSS should be able to get that code for us, and then it would just be a template. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While this is probably possible I don't think it is the best option. It would require a template be used to display all these images, which would have a negative effect on the usability of the code, and the star actually covers the image, partially obscuring it. Recommend we go with "Example 0". — Jake Wartenberg 02:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment on this, the "hover" idea is good, but suffers from two problems - it is difficult to do on wiki, as the two methods to code it are tricky to implement here (JavaScript of use of CSS hover attributes), even though it's easy to do off-wiki; and further to the above, you'll also need to modify major infoboxes as well as use templates for the images. One thought, though, is not to add the star next to the "resize" icon, but to replace the resize icon with the star. I've always thought that the icon was useless, anyway, as you click on the image to resize, not the icon. :) (UI gurus might disagree, though, and this would cause a lot of resistence). Example 0 is still the easiest to implement, whatever happens. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a cold fish, but I think Example 0 and Example 1 are both bad ideas. Having a star in the caption is confusing (Unless I knew beforehand, I would have no idea why there would be a star in a caption, and my first inclination would be to remove it). Having a star hovering over the image is even worse. Not only is it unclear what it means (although less confusing that Example 0), it is actually obscuring part of the image, thus detracting from the aesthetics and educational value of the image. A star hovering over a map would be especially confusing as it would appear to be a city marker. Does anyone have any other ideas? Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the hovering star, I had assumed that it would be a very bad idea to have the star displayed over the picture. That's easy to do, and can be done without any specially access to the Wiki software, but inherently bad. My assumption had been that the start would only appear on a mouse rollover, so I looked at the code for that - which is possible, and easy off-wiki, but not on-wiki without developer support to get the required code in place. Thus I'd assume it would be unlikely to occur. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I put up two other options, the first of which has been proposed here already. In the final version, the orange text would look more bronze and would link to the FP page. For example 3, the [FP] could be placed at the end instead.   Nezzadar ☎   21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the star in the caption. All FAs have a star in the top-right corner, and we trust people to know what that means (or figure it out). Just have the star link to WP:FP. The other edits still don't solve the problem of taxo-box images, though I don't really see a solution to that. Regardless, I'm still in favor of the star in the caption. upstateNYer 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Delist closing procedure

Hi. I made an addition to the delist closing procedure. The instructions now say to add the nomination entry to the recently closed nominations section of WP:FPC. This is something (I think) we've been doing anyway, so I figured no one would have any objections. It adds maybe 30 seconds to the time to close a delist nom, which are infrequent anyway, so there shouldn't be any problems with added workload. Feel free to revert me if you disagree! Makeemlighter (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have been intending to put that in myself, but been too lazy :-). So it's good, doesn't even take 30secs. BTW, I believe our standard is to leave recently closed noms for three days (that's certainly what I do), yet it says two days all over the place. Should we change that? --jjron (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember we agreed on two, but have no problem with three. upstateNYer 12:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was agreed on, or that in fact anything was, but I think you put in the wording originally? I was kind of under the impression when we proposed the 7 days + 24/48 hour closing option, that most people felt 24hrs was too short and wanted the 48hrs - perhaps that's where you got the idea of 2 days? I don't remember the 'recently closed' time itself being discussed in any detail. I've always left it three days unless it's really busy as two days can kind of feel like it's rushing them off. Anyway it's not a big issue, but the wording may as well agree with our practice. --jjron (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic restorations

An IP editor recently raised questions of a general nature regarding digital image restoration. Would be glad to discuss that here. Durova³³² 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussions on the talk page

The project page is very cluttered at the moment. While it makes sense to have some discussion with the candidates in question, for extended discussion the practice has been to move discussion to the talk page. I'm kinda guilty here, as I thought that my comments on translation would launch such a discussion but equivocated over whether to make them with the nomination or on the talk page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as all the arguments need to be in the same place for the transclusion and later reference of a discussion.   Nezzadar ☎   16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes an FP an FP?

There has been discussion about which criteria should hold the most weight in FP nominations. From what I gather there are a few camps. One wants technical skill, another wants high encyclopedic value, and a third wants high aesthetic value. Most people lean towards one of the three camps while taking the other two into consideration.

Which of these should hold the most sway? Which one does now? Do we need to go delist some things? Thoughts please.

• I personally lean towards the EV and the aesthetics, as I know little about technical aspects of photography. In fact, if it looks really nice, it should be an FP even if it has almost no EV. The opposite is true already. Plenty of ugly images get FP for their high EV.   Nezzadar ☎   21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • EV is important for obvious reasons. Good technicals are good because they improve the EV (eg more detail, or white balance that doesn't mislead). High aesthetic value does help pictures pass and really comes under "Is among Wikipedia's best work". It is about the equivalent of an article being a good read. Just being pretty won't pass if it has no enc though. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Can only agree with the above. All three aspects are important. EV is the primary measure - nobody would or could argue with that on this platform. Actually EV is important for any image on Wikipedia. But for a FP, both other considerations (technical & aesthetic) are important. Note that the FPC only says that a featured picture is NOT ALWAYS (my highlight) required to be aesthetically pleasing, i.e. in exceptional circumstances can be unpleasing, such as when it depicts inherently unpleasing topics (surgery, etc.). This leads to the conclusion that, otherwise it has to be aesthetically pleasing, because if it wouldn't, it also could not be among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. Consequently my understanding is that a FP needs to meet all three criteria, so even if it has excellent EV and technical quality, but does not meet an aesthetic standard (unless there are exceptional circumstances), than it cannot be a FP, but remain a simple picture. Elekhh (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I am seeing the definition of EV as being weak as well. How is the image Peruvian Andes, a current FP nom set for promotion, high EV? It seems like the other image on the expansion (the map) says a lot more about the expansion, and I am not convinced that the artist himself is a particularly important artist, or that this is a good representation of his work. It seems to me like an image of a man on a horse, it could be any time, anywhere. EV is too flexable here.   Nezzadar ☎   21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Which was largely the point of my comment here that brought you to start this topic. Indeed EV should NOT be weak. IMO FPC voting has in recent times been erring in favour of technicals above all else (EV & aesthetics), but all should be important and considered. Having said which, EV is clearly defined differently by different people - like beauty, it seems EV can be in the eye of the beholder. This is where it's up to someone to oppose based on EV or aesthetics then up to others to decide on a consensus. I suspect the main reason that people have been erring towards technicals above all else is simply that it's easier to do so (consider how easy it to oppose an image that doesn't meet the size requirements for example, the only really easily quantifiable criterion) and it has now become fairly standard practise to simply focus on technicals, along with the point that voters have commonly been harangued for opposing on other grounds. --jjron (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoration question

Been on the fence about a restoration, seeking input about whether this is appropriate or goes too far. The following is a before and after on a work by Hiroshige. It's from his sketchbook rather than a finished work. So on the one hand, is the white space from a sketchbook doodle unimportant and the image should be cropped for thumbnail display? Or is this messing with a major artist? Haven't used this in article space; seeking feedback. Durova³³³ 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 

Absolutely do not crop this. I am studing the history and politics of East Asia, and can vouch for the importance of white space in Japanese artwork. Minimalist artistic design is a common and respected technique that brings out the subject and places importance on it by removing all other elements. This is lost with that crop. You may wish to crop off a little bit of the top to remove the folded paper, but that is all.   Nezzadar ☎   22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you took off a little from all the sides, so that the table behind the paper is not seen, it would do the trick while maintaining the shape of the composition.   Nezzadar ☎   22:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this depends. If the images is intended to represent the drawing, a crop would be better. However, it should be uncropped when it is being represented as a historic document, as the full page it was drawn on has good amount of EV. ZooFari 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is actually the other way around. The crop does alter the composition of the drawing. Exactly as a drawing (work of art), it has to be presented within its original frame. If croped, than it has to be re-labeled as fragment, and becomes a historic record. The question here is whether the sketchbook page represents the frame. And I don't see why a remarkable artist wouldn't have considered that. Also as argued above, the empty spaces are important part of the artwork in japanese art. Another way to proof this would be to look to the other pages of the same notebook: are they cluttered with multiple independent sketches on the same page? and is this page the last sketch in the book, while there are still empty pages left? Elekhh (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree crop alters composition. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should crop it to the page, but no more. The empty area around the page doesn't add anything, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than nearly doubling the file size, I don't think the extra white space adds anything to the image. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I will bring this to a professor of mine who specializes in Japanese art. This will get the answer.   Nezzadar ☎   14:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it; there is no "answer", only opinion. All due respect etc but the issue here isn't second-guessing the intention of a long-dead artist, its about the value of the image here on WP. The question raised explores the value of preserving original context of historical works, precisely because we need all the clues we can get when evaluating and appreciating them.
We can forego that context if we're only looking at how mice were characterised in this era (so you might crop tight as above) or simply examining style and technique (in which case you'd crop tighter still and describe it as "detail of..." ) or maybe (for argument's sake) this would be good at the mouse article – you might want to crop it, up the contrast, clean the colours up and maybe white-out the background. Particularly (but not only) when we're talking about the artist's WP article, we should preserve as much context as possible. A shame, in that sense, that more of the sketch book isn't available, never mind less.
The same considerations are required for any old image, photograph, map, illustration, etc. The context of their creation is gone and fading fast. How we interpret these works might be dictated by expedience and I'm aware that scanning means we can always make copies for more specialised/derivative uses, but for featuring the image we want the fullest, unaltered context possible. Personally, for this reason, I'd always prefer to see this sort of document with the archivist's background, wherever that doesn't seriously detract from the usefulness and aesthetic of it, because it shows the fullest extent of the work. With this "master" copy duly honoured, we can make as many crops, edits and corrections as we like, making sure they're suitably marked as such in the filename or description. --mikaul^talk 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisting nom to be closed...

Need some input here, keep or delist. Thanks, ZooFari 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RESOLVED ZooFari has delisted this after a flood of consensus for the delist. Thanks everyone.   Nezzadar ☎   22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured Sets mess

With no offence meant to Staxringold who was simply trying to close it (so please don't try to divert the discussion), the closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"The Raven", Édouard Manet's illustrations has again raised the mess that sets are. See his talkpage where I started discussing it with him, but it needs wider input. In short, those people that think sets are valid need to sort this mess out. A couple of recent discussions to use as a starting point linked here. --jjron (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Featured picture sets. I have started a discussion thread for this.   Nezzadar ☎   06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova

This discussion does not belong here, and nothing good will come of further discussion on this page. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Durova attacked me over this comment in a lengthy Skype chaat (available by e-mail to all interested). And yet, she has the gall to describe my actions thusly on Wiki:

[2]

Durova is actively seeking to suppress discussion of her work, concurrent with her work going through a substantial drop in quality. Further, in the Skype conversation, she threatens me with actively stopping help she was organizing to allow me to get a scanner so I can resume my FPC work, and to prevent me from getting any access to material provided by museums to Wikipedia (as well as starting off by calling the above comment "trolling", and stating "fuck you, troll" about half a dozen times while I try to calm her down.) I have kept quiet for quite some time about the things I have gone through because of her, but with an active attempt to subvert the FPC process by silencing discussion, a substantial drop in quality, and the other actions of recent weeks, I think it's time I take this public. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd with below) Shoemaker, please let it go. You need a break. Durova³⁴⁰ 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Zoofari (who removed this before SH reverted that edit) that this doesn't belong on the FPC talk page. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • With respect, where else does problematic behaviour related to suppressing dissent in FPCs belong? If I put it at ANI, I'm worried it it might put the entire FPC process into disrepute, Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't work together, okay. I'm not interested in who's to blame. Really. Either of you may have been uncivil towards each other (and I can see evidence of that from either side), but this threatens to drive away either of two of our most valued participants (200+ FPs each).

I suggest that you both avoid contact, as much as possible, and remain civil where contact is absolutely necessary. I know that "civility" is often a glib answer, but I can't see any other solution. I have no powers to do so, of course, so this is only a suggestion, but would like to ask both of you to state that you will work respectfully with each other in the future. This shouldn't be hard, as you both work respectfully with a great number of contributors. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether you believe this belongs here or not (which I'm sure it's not, read the large header at the top of this page), there's nothing we can do about it. I know that pointing out people is hard to resist, but you should know the mature way to handle this. Take Mostlyharmless's advice. I'm pretty sure that's common sense to you. ZooFari 23:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing here which violates policy, or requires administrative intervention. Your relationship outside of Wikipedia is your own business- here, at worst, your relationship should be one of collegiate respect. I have a great amount of respect for both of you (at the very least, as talented colleagues) and I don't think feuding is going to be beneficial for either of you, to the FPC process, or to Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but noone here thinks that threatening and attacking people for having asked a polite question about a possible problem with an FPC is likely to result in problems with FPCs not getting brought up in future?

Everyone here is fine with someone using off-wiki attacks in an attempt to force people to remove comments from FPCs that the person dislike, even if they were polite and valid? And this incident isn't even the first. That Vauxhall nom? I had issues with Durova's edit, but when I asked her, she complained so much that I dropped the issue. I checked it a couple days ago: I had been compleytely right: The black point was around 80, 90 out of 255, a bizarre choice that made the entire image look greyed out. And she hadn't bothered to fix the borders I asked her to look at.

Is she really so far above the law that she can actively subvert the process and suppress discussion of the problems, and you'll just smile and nod?

This isn't about our relationship. This is about Durova actively working to pervert the free discussion necessary to the featured picture process. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem, but it is a problem between the two of you, and the response (thus far) is that others do not want to be dragged into it. Because it relates to off-Wikipedia behaviour, it falls out of what we can judge, because we have no way of being able to see the full story and thus the context. Whatever information is provided will not convince, because it will be selective, and you're unlikely to find a forum with which to deal with this. SH, in my experience your manner is often brisk and sometimes confrontational and Durova is occasionally the same - you speak both your minds. That isn't perverting the process, it's having an opinion and sticking to it. You do the same yourself very frequently, and though I often disagree, I respect your right to do so. I see this as an attempt to escalate an off-Wikipedia personal issue that relates to incivility into something more. It will be a pity if Durova cannot arrange a scanner for you, because you are an important contributor to Wikipedia. But she is under no obligation to do so, and now that there is some kind of issue between the two of you, even less so. The correct response (because this is being brought onto Wikipedia) is to leave it at the door, and re-engage WP:CIVIL. To the extent that this is not possible, try and avoid working with each other for a while. Shoemaker's Holiday, I do want to see you here, and respect that you have had problems between yourselves. But I see nothing to be gained by anyone, including yourself, by escalating this dispute you are having. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless is correct that the two users need to work out their issues themselves, in particular off Wiki issues, otherwise it is likely to escalate to something that neither of them probably want. Nonetheless SMH does raise a valid point for discussion (that I have peripherally mentioned myself before) in that over the course of the last year or two users have increasingly been driven away from making honest judgements and this has damaged the FPC process - however the blame for this certainly does not lie at the feet of just one person. --jjron (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreeing with the consensus to take this off FPC talk (and wishing it had never landed here in the first place). Regarding the rest of course I disagree with the majority of the premises as they were presented, but it wouldn't be good for anybody to debate the matter. May we archive or collapse this discussion please? Durova³⁴² 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Value judgements

Pertinent to a couple of ongoing nominations, it is worth pointing out that WP:Notcensored applies to featured pictures. It is not our function to select featured pictures based upon value judgments such as war is bad or the handicapped should be treated respectfully. Distasteful attitudes do exist in the world and part of our encyclopedic mission is to document them.

Featuring a picture does not necessarily mean an endorsement of the content contained within it. We can expect that it be captioned neutrally, and we can demand high technical standards, but expurgation is not a featured picture criterion. Difficult subjects can be encyclopedic. Durova³⁴⁰ 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Since both of these judgements were made by me, it would have been nice for you to tell me about this Durova. I respect you as a contributor, but as you redily admitted on my talk page, you are not the nicest person. That's okay, neither am I. I believe that Wikipedia's policy on censorship should not be used to supress all discussion on appropriateness. The image of the disabled people clearly was in a poor context and came across as bad taste. Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Mabye. Does it belong on the disabiliy page with no context or explanation? No. If you put the racist campaign poster on a page such as "elections" without connecting it to race issues, negitive ads, or some other thing it is applicible to, it would be removed by just about any passing editor as having no EV added and being in bad taste. This isn't censorship.   Nezzadar ☎   05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Really? Okay then...

Nezzadar, this reminder applies to people other than yourself who have made comments about the appropriateness of other images. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I still think that I should have been told of this, and my point is still valid.   Nezzadar ☎   14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to call out any specific individual by name; it'd take a lot of reading to see who had posted those lines. FPC has a very good history of reviewing and promoting difficult subjects. And after all, we do get new participants to the process on a steady basis so it's intended as a general reminder. No intention to tread on any particular individual's toes and apologies for any hurt feelings. Durova³⁴² 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(semi-jokingly) I'm a very sensitive person... In all seriousness, sorry if this troubled you.   Nezzadar ☎   15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've had other difficult subjects featured also, such as photos from when the Nazi concentration camps were liberated. It takes a bit of courage to nominate difficult material. There's always a chance of someone attributing the image's bias to the nominator. Durova³⁴² 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting way of putting it. Can an image have bias? --mikaul^talk 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two campaign posters were produced to advance specific political ideas that carry no mainstream credence in the twenty-first century. Durova³⁴² 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok sure, propaganda posters etc clearly have bias, but we're talking about images in general here, like the one in the nomination that started it off, or the Nazi concentration camp ones you raised as an example. --mikaul^talk 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a hot button judgmental tone that occurs in some settings, which fortunately has seldom occurred at FPC. Durova³⁴² 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The point I was alluding to is that photographic images are usually neutral, unbiased, literal accounts until we put them to use. Bias only comes up in interpretation. People's reaction to photos says so much more about those people than the images do of themselves... --mikaul^talk 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Bear in mind though that the reaction can be very strong, and that people may shy away because of it. Due to a Wikipedia featured picture gallery I had copied to Facebook, Facebook threatened to terminate my account last year. Someone supposed I was a racist. It was a very long and difficult process to get that straightened out and the account restored to good standing. The fact that I had also restored portraits of Harriet Tubman and Malcolm X hardly made any difference. Durova³⁴² 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Lynching, 1925
• Nazi party campaign poster, 1932
  Nazi party campaign poster, 1932
• 
  Racist campaign poster, 1867

(outdent) I agree with Nezzadar's point that context is paramount in these situations. A picture that has legitimate historical context in one article can be totally inappropriate and offensive when used to illustrate other articles. Exercising editorial judgment in those situations is not "censorship". Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and featured pictures are only featured pictures insofar as they are used to illustrate particular words and ideas in particular articles. They do not stand alone - perhaps we need to make that clearer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What the FPC talk page is for

This is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archive 24 Wikipedia page.
If you wish to suggest an image that might be appropriate as a Featured Picture Candidate, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review.

We need to start realizing that the FPC talk page is for discussion about the nominations page only. We've had to handle plenty of crap in the past and it hurts the FPC process more than the situation regarding it. For those who have been involved in it (it's not just the two FPCers in the above section), you know this doesn't belong here, and you know the variety of ways of dealing with them. This page is not for you to point out people and we should treat each other with respect. I think this should become a new rule for the talk page to avoid this in the future. Any comments? For the sake of FPC. ZooFari 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here, ZooFari.   Nezzadar ☎   16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archive 24 Wikipedia page.
If you wish to suggest an image that might be appropriate as a Featured Picture Candidate, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. If the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about an FP candidate, please make it at Featured Pictures talk.

Your new template is useless, because you didn't understand what ZooFari was referring to. Two days ago, 2 FPC contributors were quarreling about something one of them said/did in FPC (see history of the page if you don't understand what I mean). This sort of things should be in a personal talk page, or ANI, or many others pages dedicated to conflict resolution...and the FPC talk page isn't one of them. However, this wasn't the first time this page was misused by one editor to get at another one. That's the kind of things Zoofari (and others such as me) don't want to see in this talk page. Ksempac (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, I point out attempts to manipulate voting through off-site harassment, and everyone collectively stuck their fingers in their ears and chanted "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!", and said they were unwilling to even look at the evidence, specifically saying that there was no evidence that could be presented that would convinc them before even looking at it. I can't post the evidence, because Durova has a corrupt oversighter in her pocket willing to remove it in violation of WP:OVERSIGHT, ad her constantly-stated refrain that Skype should be treated as public, since there's no guarantee anything you say won't cease to be private. [Per discussion. WP:OVERSIGHT is out of date.] Engaging in historical revisionism, much?

Oh and she chose an excellent time to do this: Two days after health problems meant I was unable to go to university this year, and I was having a complete breakdown over this - which she was fully aware of. And so, she decides now's the time to finish the campaign of harassment she's carried on for two years, and which I've kept quiet about because I didn't want to hurt our common cause. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 09:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the oversight was discussed by members of ArbCom and was deemed appropriate. Private correspondence posted without permission of all parties to that correspondence may be removed, and is also a potential copyright violation should said correspondence be initially held outside of wikipedia or any other forum which has, as part of its ToS, a requirement to have all posts released under the GFDL or CC-BY, etc. I understand you are both frustrated and unaware of the technicalities, but your categorization of some members of the OS team as "corrupt" when it is you who are lacking the knowledge and precedent of how oversight is applied, the input that goes in to various decisions, and the historical ArbCom findings that may be appropriate, is inappropriate. While no one expects you to apologize to the 20 or so oversighters who spend their time protecting wikipedia and wikipedians from harm (cyber, emotional, or sometimes physical) and the project itself from potential legalities, you should perhaps take this opportunity to take a step back and consider how your involvement in this issue has gone beyond the logical into the emotional and that it is affecting your ability to edit the project in accordance with its core policies and guidelines which include a respect for ALL of your fellow contributors. -- Avi (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker, my comment wasn't a judgment about who is wrong or who is right on a specific case. It wasn't even directed at someone nor referring to a specific conflict. I was only explaining to Nezzadar what ZooFari was referring to. We have had several conflicts break out here and many people are tired of this kind of things, and the last one (which incidentally involved you) prompted ZooFari's comment. My comment was only an explanation of theses facts to Nezzadar because he didn't seem to know them. I understand that input from FPC contributors may be needed to resolve some conflicts. In such a case, a simple notification here (such as the VPC AfD notice we had recently) should be enough, with the main discussion occurring elsewhere, on a page more suited to conflict resolution. Ksempac (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd with above) Shoemaker's Holiday was informed of the real circumstances several days ago and given full permission to discuss his doubts with any Oversighter. In order to minimize conflict I will avoid comment or review upon his featured picture candidates until things settle down, and request that he extend the equivalent courtesy. Let's return this talk page to its primary purpose. Durova³⁴⁸ 13:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're outing me, Durova? Charming. And yet, I'm sure that despite WT:OVERSIGHT not allowing my oversight, but forcing your comment to be oversighted, noone will care., because Durova is so well-respected here that she can literally do no wrong. I e-mailed the Oversighter in question about it. They never replied. And yet, I'm supposed to use my psychic powers to just know it's alright, despite no response when I challenged it? Yeah, brilliant work, guys. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted per discussion. WP:OVERSIGHT out of date, and while not permitted under rules stated, is within standard acceptable behaviour.] Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker, you should step back from this until things have calmed down a bit. If you continue to make personal attacks, like above, you risk being blocked over this conflict and I don't think anyone wants that to happen. Nathan ^T 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care, since I refuse to do another thing for Wikipedia, given your defense of someone who acted so abysmally badly. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, I haven't defended anyone for anything - merely cautioned you against continuing behavior that might get you blocked (i.e. calling someone a "scumbag" etc.) Nathan ^T 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoe, we are not trying to pull out Durova out of conflict because you think she is respected. You took the wrong venue by posting unnecessary commentary that has nothing to do with FPC. If you don't want to take administrator attention to this, stop spamming this talk page about it. ZooFari 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quorum Question

Question: Assuming that all of the votes are support or strong support, how many votes, not counting the nominator, should I set as the quorum minimum for promoting FPs?

Question: Same situation as above, but with only Neutral, Weak Support, and Support?

Question: Same situation as the second question, but with striked out opposes?

This will be useful to me as I grow into the FP process. Thanks,   Nezzadar ☎   03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We had a request for comment about that a few months back. Anyone have the link? Durova³⁴² 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's four full supports, including the nominator, I believe. Neutral do not sway the balance, and nor do striked out opposes. Is that not the way it works? J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In general it's four supports (or rather 3 + nominator/s), but we're interpreting consensus, not just counting votes. Struck votes, regardless of what they are, are not counted, but the opinion may still be considered if left unstruck. Most cases are pretty clear cut, but a small percentage require interpretation. Please watch and learn Nezzadar. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How many weak supports does a full support equal? (I am assuming support and strong support are full supports but not weak.)   Nezzadar ☎   16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is normally assumed that weak supports and opposes count as half votes if you are using a points system to determine consensus, however as mentioned above, we're interpreting consensus, not just counting votes (counting was rejected during a big soul-search that we all participated in earlier in the year). Counting can be used to assist in making sense of a complex nomination, but should not be used alone to determine the result. Votes based on a flawed premise (for example the recent nom which was considered offensive to some people) can and should be ignored disregarded by the closer. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to note I agree with the above. It's fairly impressive we all have the same conception of how it works- projects often descend into argument when presented with questions like this... J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[undent] Thanks everyone. Yes, I hear you all with the watch and learn thing, and don't worry, seeing as I have voted on every current candidate, I won't be closing for a while, but thanks for the community teaching, it makes it much less stressful to join in. You people are great people. Except for Durova, who specifically told me that she was evil. And me. I'm not a good person, but only on the internet.   Nezzadar ☎   17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited alternates available for review

Per requests, reedits are available at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Henry_Breault and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Get fat. Reviews welcomed. Durova³⁴⁷ 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Adams

Someone added this pic (from flickr) to Arthur Adams (singer), and I think it's a cracking image - but I'm not sure if it could become a FPC. Any advice welcome - crop the top off, change the colour balance?  Chzz  ►  00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Chzz- Picture peer review would probably be the most useful thing. That's watched by a lot of FPC regulars and others happy to modify images/offer advice. J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Roberts, formerly Lord Kitchener

An unusual development occurred yesterday. Roger Davies discovered that the Library of Congress had misidentified a recently-promoted featured picture subject. File:Lord_Kitchener_duty5.jpg is actually Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (see my user talk for citations). I've informed the Library of Congress. This would be a simple clerical matter except that the filename ought to be changed procedurally. If no one objects to transferring the featured star onto an identical version of a renamed file (to get Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener out of the filename) then I'll go ahead with that shortly. Durova³⁴⁸ 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that, but it is somewhat worrying that this was promoted to FP when it was in the wrong article... J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is a reliable source, and once in a blue moon reliable sources are wrong. Durova³⁴⁸ 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenyan Cox...

...needs closing. Who's up for it? ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Everything does. I've been busy lately :( Sorry. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I took care of most of them. I'll get the rest later. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure requests

Hi, the WikiCup is due to end in a few hours. Points submitted after midnight UTC won't be accepted, so requesting closure for the following nominations:

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battle of Churubusco
• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1937 American League All-Stars (shared credit with Staxringold)
• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Henry Breault
• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Get fat

Thanks, Durova³⁴⁹ 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of these, only the first two look like they are going to net you points. I would close, but I can't. COI...  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)