Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Nomination procedure

Step 5/commons images

Step 5 states:

"On the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: 
 {{FPC}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor 
and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting."

I recently nominated an image for FPC. I was unable to perform this step as I had uploaded the image to the Commons. The en.wikipedia page for this image can't be edited, while the commons page doesn't recognize the template. Is there an alternate procedure for this kind of situation? Should I have nominated the image for FP on Commons instead of here (I opted not to because the image is english language specific)? Thanks. --NoahElhardt 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which image? All commons images have pages here which can be edited. Example Image:Cathedral_of_St_Colman.jpg Was the image locked because it was on the front page? -Ravedave 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is Image:Englishtitles2-1.jpg - I included the link above. If I try to edit the page, it tells me no image with this name exists. Should I ignore that warning and just add the template anyway? --NoahElhardt 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that if it is a commons image like Image:KC135s Afghanistan.jpg, we should create a page in english wikipedia just to hold the {{fpc}} template? --rogerd 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Too complicated

There must be an easier way to nominate a picture. As an example, it is easy to nominate a page for the WPCD by adding a tag on the talk page. Snowman 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The process used is similar to all of the other "featured <thing>" sections of wikipedia. If it is too tough simply request someone else to nominate an image for you and they will do so. -Ravedave 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Snowman is right and one shouldn't have to ask someone else to nominate. The instructions for how to create a subpage are confusing and not straight-forward and the process should be revised. It shouldn't take 20 minutes to figure out the procedure. Jeeb 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been fighting this system for the past hour or so, and I am now exasperated and unsuccessful, despite having some primative familiarity with HTML. The format and interface for this nomination procedure is frightfully nerdy, and definitely anti-democratic. Zenexp 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Step 3 language.

Part of the description of step 3 includes the guidance "However, do not change this portion of text at all: {{subst:PAGENAME}}". May I suggest a revision which I think is easier to read: "However, do not modify or move the {{subst:PAGENAME}} portion of text."

Revert changes made by AzaThot

Maybe I just don't get it, but it seems that the changes made by AzaThot don't work out as well as planned. Therefore I am going to revert AzaThot's changes. -Wutschwlllm 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What did you fail to comprehend, I tried to explain the procedure as good as posible? _→AzaToth 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have experienced some problems with the page I wanted to create. It was saved as a wrong url I think, so after all I had to create the page myself again. Maybe I have made some error I am not aware of. Anyhow, basically your change is a very good idea, but I felt more comfortable with the previous version (maybe because I prefer doing it myself after all). -Wutschwlllm 01:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra brackets

Whoever added the categories to this text:

{{subst:FPCnom
 | <!-- Please fill out this data and then click "Save Page" -->
 | title = title of the picture
 | image = image filename excluding "Image:"
 | caption = the caption of the image
 | articles = articles this image exist in
 | creator = creator if the image
 | reason =  reason for nominating the picture
}}

[[Category:Featured picture nominations]]
[[Category:Featured picture nominations/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}]]

A few things: First, there's an extra set of brackets around {{CURRENTYEAR}}. Please remove them, as it's not displaying correctly. Next, there's a grammar issue with "articles this image exist in" (should be "exists"). Finally, while you're at it you might add a break between the two categories as I have here, but that's just a pet peeve of mine. --Tewy 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are there even categories now? --Tewy 22:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok scratch all that, I figured it out and fixed it myself. --Tewy 05:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominate vector or raster version?

I usually create images in vector (.svg) format, and then convert it to raster, and then upload them both, linking to each other, such as for File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg, File:Steroidogenesis.svg and File:Blood values sorted by mass and molar concentration.png. I think the raster format is absolutely necessary because many common image viewers (such as Windows Paint) doesn't support the svg format when people download it for use outside Wikipedia, and I also preferentially use that format in the Wikipedia articles because it looks exactly as it does in Inkscape, while the svg-versions are rendered somewhat different in Inkscape and MediaWiki. Anyhow, I've never been really certain whether to nominate the .svg or .png version, so I've usually nominated them both. Still, is there a final answer to this question? Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a good answer for you, but I would usually prefer svg if we can get it to render correctly on MediaWiki. I believe Adobe Illustrator, if you have access to it, is better at producing something that renders the same here. Jujutacular ^talk 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm also increasingly preferring svg. The ability to show and convert it to raster has become better, and it could only get better in the future. Raster, on the other hand, can never fully be converted to vector.Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Most people at FPC prefer SVG, but it's not a formal requirement. This nomination only last week ended up with a PNG promoted. I'd probably say go with the SVG but provide a PNG too if it's not too much trouble. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it has become like a routine for me to upload a png version. For larger works, like this trunk anatomy one, I'll probably continue doing so, but otherwise it seems pretty unnecessary to even upload a png version.Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer Picture Review

The page says to post at Peer Picture Review if you're uncertain if your image is ready to be nominated for a featured picture, but on that page, it says that it "is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Should the link to it be removed from here? ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)