Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

• Hello, I have been watching this page for some time and I am confused by some comments to the effect of opposing a given picture because a similar picture exists. I don't see anywhere in the FP criteria where this is supposed to be a consideration. It seems to me this is not and should not be a considertion. Johntex\^talk 03:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not it isn't a criteria and I normally give it a lot less weight when closing a nom especially if it is not due to a a large decrease in quality or size that is noticeable that is lower in the newer nom. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There used to be something to that effect didn't there? They used the flower as an example, in that don't put up flowers unless they are really exceptional, as flowers are naturally beautiful, and there are already lots of featured pictures of them. --liquidGhoul 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought - but maybe that is really getting at a different concept - that pretty subjects should have the bar set a little higher than ugly or more ordinary subjects? Johntex\^talk 04:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that we finally seem to be promoting an image per day or more, and Pic of the day is on the main page and will probably not repeat many images, I think it might be useful to start promoting additional pics of important subjects. In any case, uniqueness of subject isn't strictly a criterion, although I do think it can make sense to oppose on grounds of an existing FP if the new candidate is inferior or adds nothing ~ Veledan • Talk 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pic of the day is on the main page" - I have't seen it except weekends... --Janke | Talk 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The new design for the main page will have a pic of the day ervery day of the week. -Ravedave 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, slight difference between is and will... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spanish shawl has no readable signed date. --Kurando-san 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know why this page is causing so many problems for the bot? I asked AllyUnion on his talk page a few days ago, but then realised he's on a break and asked to be e-mailed if any problems come up. Unfortunately his 'e-mail user' function isn't working and I can't find his address anywhere on his user page. So if anyone knows his e-mail, or anyone can help fix the problem, that would be great. Raven4x4x 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The sig code appeared incomplete, I added a "-" and the double brackets. Let's see if that helps. --Janke | Talk 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just moved 9 FPCs to the older than 14 days section, the oldest being 17 days old. Posted on User talk:AllyUnion.

Someone needs to work through the old FPCs however, as they're building up. Thanks. |→ Spaully°τ 12:11, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

That is unfortunate, as last I heard AllyUnion was on a break and I can't find his e-mail anywhere. I have been archiving the FPCs for a while now, but the university semester has started, so I only really have time on weekends. Raven4x4x 11:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the process of archiving the FPCs and it seems fairly straightforward. I'll give a hand and start closing some, at least the ones with a clear consensus (or possibly all of them). Just to check, you don't need to be an admin to do this right? I didn't see anything that would indicate that you would. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you don't have to be an admin. If I have a moment, I'll help. BrokenSegue 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed 12 noms, and I'll work through the promotions and clear the backlog in the course of this evening. If anyone else has come here to help before I've finished, please drop a note on my talk page and I'll hand some over! ~ Veledan • Talk 18:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to update everyone, as far as I know, the backlog is all clear for now. Veledan handled all but one, so thank him for his hard work. I'll be keeping a closer eye on this in order to keep the backlog from building up and I encourage anyone who has time to do the same. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All done for now, between us. Cheers PS2pcGAMER for nobly handling the fiddly additions bit of some of the promotions I'd performed as well as that of the pic you promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object to removing images that have been verified as either copyrighted or fair use (i.e. non-free images) before the 14-day period since they aren't eligible anyway? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Doing this would really help make sure good pics get focused on. My take: If a pic is in-eligible copyright: 1) remove the template include from the candidates page 2)Update the users page saying "Thank you for nominating [[image page]] however the image does not have a free license. If you can clear up the copyright the image page can be re-added to the featured picture candidates page." 3)Eventually the tag will have to be removed from the nominated image. —This unsigned comment was added by Ravedave (talk • contribs) .
• Go ahead! That would be useful housekeeping, thanks! --Janke | Talk 06:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and removed two of them early. However, I figured I'd leave 4 (the 3 flowers and the Call of Duty) of the more recent images in hoping that their copyright issues can still be resolved. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say all copyright issues should be removed, any that get figured out can be re-added and the clock reset. -Ravedave 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images actually are eligible and quite a few featured pictures are fairuse (mostly U.S. Government photos) but I definitely support ones with unclear or ineligible copyright status early and that should be added in bold to the nom instructions that ineligible images will be removed early. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Under WP:WIAFP it says "Be available under an acceptable free license (i.e. not fair use)." However it says "should" and not "must", but I was always under the impression they weren't allowed. I thought U.S. Government images were usually considered public domain and not fair use? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pegasus you have it a bit confused I'm afraid. Fair use images are NOT acceptable for FP. Fair Use means copyrighted, but we reckon we'll get away with reproducing it (even in commercial derivative works) on grounds of educational relevance in encyclopedia articles. The moment you use the image in another context (e.g. a gallery of Featured Pics) that justification vanishes and we are infringing copyright. More detailed guidelines are at Wikipedia:Fair use. And yes, we can use US government images because they are PD, we don't have to invoke Fair use to justify them (although we could if we had to) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Non free images are not eligible and should be removed immediately. This has always been the case. ed g2s • talk

The page, IMHO, is now swamped with crap images because the FP now appears on the front page every day and there are many more cases of "mee too". Many more of the images lately are so bad they have absolutely NO chance of passing and merely constitute a waste of time to everyone involved. Would it not be warranted to place a notice in the posting guidelines to actually LOOK at the previously featured picures to see what the potential poster is 'up against'? I think this would greatly increase the interesting/good to junk ratio of posts here.--Deglr6328 00:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed the same trend. I added a step to the nomination process to reiterate the importance of reading What is a Featured Picture? (my change). Hopefully with more visibility, it will encourage more people to thoroughly read it (although that page is already linked in the header two other places). Adding a link to the previously featured pictures is a good idea too. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, I was thinking the same thing. -Ravedave 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good good. Bolded it. --Deglr6328 00:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good change but I wish I could be confident that more than a tiny minority of our new friends will give it their full attention. I reckon we could do with a fair method of speedying crap nominations enforcing the new rule. I'm not going to pretend I've thought this through fully or even that I necessarily support the idea myself, but my first suggestion would be to include in the instructions a requirement that all nominations either (1) give their justification with specific reference to at least one of the FP critera, or (2) make a declaration in their justification that they think the picture does match the criteria. Then we could speedy irrelevant nominations and leave a polite (templated) note on the nominator's page explaining the nomination was invalid, and that they are welcome to re-nominate the image after comparing their pic to the criteria and updating their justification accordingly ~ Veledan • Talk 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We have Template:PromotedFPC to let the nominator know that his FPC succeeded. However, shouldn't we create something like this for the person who actually uploaded the image, especially in the case where they were the ones who took the picture? Or is there something like this already that I am not aware of? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In most cases that would be redundant since many times the uploader and nominator are one and the same but if you think there's a need then I'd support it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. enochlau (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

When I promote images I always thank the uploader if he/she is different from the nominator, I just don't use a template to do so. I don't feel a template is vital but if someone wants to make one then of course they can. Raven4x4x 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• For a long time I've handled this by subst'ing the promotion template into my user sandbox and rewording it, then dumping the remainder on the uploader/photographer's page. An early example: Dschwen's Golden Gate FP was nominated by Thorpe back in September, but I left this for Dschwen:

A picture taken by you has been promoted The nomination of Image:Golden Gate Bridge by night.jpg made by Thorpe for featured picture status gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

~ Veledan • Talk 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I never thought of doing that. Simple and effective. Thanks --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be even simpler if someone could turn it to another template though, per your original suggestion. The only reason I haven't is that I've never got around to learning how to do templates. I'll learn how and do it in a couple of days if no one else does. I think we can interpret this thread as a consensus to produce the template (which isn't very controversial anyway). I reckon we should have one template for uploader and one for photographer ~ Veledan • Talk 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How's this?

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Hans_Holbein_d._J._065.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! ~~~~

You can edit it at Template:UploadedFP (and feel free to do so if anyone has any changes). I just took the original and reworded it slightly. I had some extra time tonight, so I hope you don't mind Veledan. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest "an image created by you..." - not all images are photos, you know! --Janke | Talk 17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice work PS2pcGAMER and cheers for taking care of it! Yep, say image rather than picture. Should we broaden the wording to say an image created or uploaded by you, or shall we make a second template for wikipedian-created images and reword this one (since it's called Template:UploadedFP) to say 'an image uploaded by you? Sorry to just pose questions and not actually do any of the work, but I've bought a lot of RL work home this evening and I shouldn't really be on the wiki at all right now, let alone messing round with templates! :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, that is a good point. I was originally just thinking of the people who took the image and uploaded it and felt that was a really awesome contribution. Uploading an image that is in PD or any other free license that the uploader has come across, while most definitely is appreciated, isn't at the same level. However, making it, as Veledan's suggests would keep it simpler than have 3 separate templates (thanking the nominator, the uploader (for free images) and the person who took the picture). Closing a promoted image has enough steps as it is and having 3 templates instead of 2 is just one more thing to keep track of. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That's an even better point. OK in the interests of simplicity, let's forget the uploader (I agree it isn't usually important and anyone really wanting to do it can just subst and re-word), and just keep your one new template, but with created instead of taken. Do you want to do the honours of adding it to the instructions PS2pcGAMER? ~ Veledan • Talk 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • All done. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the voting for nominations of anything (featured picture, featured article, etc) be anonymous? This way, more people might vote and it prevents people from peer pressure or outside influence, which could create a bias in the voting. For example, a well known wikipedian supported a featured picture, and people see that and think they should support the picture as well. This could lead to several people supporting the picture, even though that picture might have some serious flaws to it or just is not up to par. Please talk about this and decide if changes should be made to the voting system. Thanks. --Ryz05 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that this is a problem, but I don't think this is the way to resolve it. - JPM | 07:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A "well known wikipedian" should have sense enough to vote intelligently, and not support an inferior candidate. If (s)he does, then other well known wikipedians will certainly rebut... I do not see a problem here. Besides, flawed images can, and have, become FPs, it all is a balance between positive and negative aspects. For instance, see how the Pirate image fares right now - it's well below "agreed" minimum size, but it still gets a majority of support, thanks to its other qualities. --Janke | Talk 10:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with your first point Janke. Even the most intelligent, well-meaning, and open minded individuals can sometimes have sincere disagreements. I cite as evidence that you and I usually vote in common but we disagree on this :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can disagree. And both our viewpoints may be sensible and intelligent, no contest there... ;-) But how does that affect the votes of others? Do they blindly follow you, or do they follow me? Maybe they will even think for themselves! I don't see why anonymous voting would change anything to the better. --Janke | Talk 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think unsigned voting would encourage sockpuppetry. Those of us who close nominations could probably spot that and take it into account, but new or occasional voters unfamiliar with the page (and we are getting more with Main Page exposure) might not think of it or be deterred by it, and the distribution of votes/comments already on a page can seriously affect subsequent voting and whether people who agree with the apparent consensus bother to vote. I think you have a point, but anonymous or unsigned voting would create more issues than it would solve ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are there all these proposals for FPC to change the consensus procedures that seem to work fine on the rest of Wikipedia? There is nothing special about pictures that means that the well established procedures are suddenly flawed. –Joke 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea: I think it is much easier to make a highly subjective judgement on an image than on an article. Can an article pass for beeing pretty or cute? Makes sense to me that the the rules on FPC try to counteract. --Dschwen 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

About the peer-pressure/anonymity, IP voting does not necessarily help here. Some people have static IPs (like me) so nothing is really gained. On the other hand some some have changing dial-in-pool IPs. This would open the door for extremely easy sockpuppetry. Especially since the main page exposure will sooner or later draw some of the wrong crowd to this page (oh crap this sound arrogant..). Nah, I'd rather have the social solution op people trying to cope with peer pressure, than the technical solution of anonymous voting with potentially bad side effects. --Dschwen 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Joke. Is there really a need to change the process? I don't think very many (any?) bad images have been promoted that shouldn't have been. I think for the most part, the process is working as far as the result of the image being promoted or not. The problem I see is that there are too many sub-par images being nominated and it is cluttering up the page and adding extra overhead. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment similar to Ryz05's was made on the Main Page redesign poll. The truth is, there is no voting on Wikipedia, only discussion. Adding Support to the front of your comment is just a way of making your position clear. By not permitting anonymous voting we force people to stand by their comments, and hopefully discourage frivolous "votes". Secondly, closing administrators (are supposed to) favor well supported and reasonable comments over the "me too!" chime ins. ~MDD4696 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/POV-ray has crossed the 14-day mark and it's clearly going to be promoted but neither of the potential candidates is ready yet! Janke has asked for the nomination to be held until such time as they are ready - I figured the best way to do this would be to create a new temporary section for it. It'll only get in the way and cause an awkward obstruction/confusion if we try to leave it amongst the active nominations, and it wouldn't be right either to put it in the 'Finished, no more comments' section. I'm not aware of any precedent/guideline for this but I hope my solution is OK with everyone. If not, feedback here please! ~ Veledan • Talk 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution to me. ~MDD4696 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is the right way to handle this situation. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You did it in a novel way, and did it right. --Janke | Talk 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I used a DB dump & sql to list the largest 1000 images on wikipedia > 1000px. I also did the 1000 largest images on commons. I inspected them all and below is the list of the ones I thought were promising, with some sorting by me. So far I am 1/5 with my nominations so I thought I would let others decide. If you like an image nominate it and remove it from the list. If you find one you know will never make it put it in strikthrough. Several of them are good images but need to be placed into articles and/or moved to more prominent positions. I will probably not be nominaitng any more images unless I find another awsome one like the SR-71. -Ravedave 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Before I go though any more of those, I have to share concern about this methodology. FPC should not just be nominated based on prettyness, size, beauty, cuteness or cuddlyness. The should be nominated based on these terms. So I'd rather have people stumbling on amazing pictures while reading articles than working this list. I fear this only floods FPC with pictures that have substantial deficits in the encyclopedic department. --Dschwen 09:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats part of the reason I made this list, I don't have the resources to fix them all. Several of these pictures should probably be the most prominent ones in the article or have an article created for them. I dont plan on making another list after this one, looking at 2000 images will probably net < 5 FPs, not a very worthwhile investment. I might however provide a public list for commons, where encyclopedic value isnt taken into account. -Ravedave 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PalladianBridge.JPG tilted
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Red-crested-pochard.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Traditional_Miao_Boat.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GWR_Firefly.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GT40.jpg not used in any article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KaiGeneral.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Actinomyces_spp_01.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P1010007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Machupicchuandthesacredvalley.jpg new version w/o stitching problems nominated
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gorilla_064.jpg not sharp, grainy
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sierpinski_pyramid.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aus2.jpg discription on the image page needs to be improved
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Honolulu_and_Waikiki_from_Diamond_Head.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Star_Fish_at_Montana_de_Oro.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bryce_Canyon_Hoodoo_Row.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muddy_Pond_Rutland_VT_May_1861_or_1862.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fort_Donelson_Feb15am.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OrchisMilitaris.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_0174.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Purple_tulip.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nova_target_chamber.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:At4_missiles_launch.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Live_Fire_Tank.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:African_Jacana.jpg not sharp, slightly overexposed, cut at bottom
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crab_Nebula_High_Res.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_0252.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spoonbridge_and_Cherry.jpg not sharp, visible jpg artifacts
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Presidential_full.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Snow_crystals_2b.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Castle_Neuschwanstein_5.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Snow_crystals.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Raccoon_climbing_in_tree.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_eclips_1999_5.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lech_am_Arlberg_2006.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Einstein_gyro_gravity_probe_b.jpg

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FireTrees-Fall2005-Georgia.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Garrick_as_RichardIII.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_few_thousand_people_on_bikes.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plane_landing_over_Potomac.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lake2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fast-running-group-of-Lechwe.jpg

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uinta-national-forest-banner02.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PugetSoundPanorama.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Helictite_at_Jenolan_Caves_(3D).JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brooklyn_Bridge.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Panorama_of_Athens.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mistikosdipnos.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MorningGlory-Pink.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Towndocks.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Formula_mazda_new.jpg
• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Tetrahedral_group_cycle_graph.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CRW_0878.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:7_15_BroadPeak.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:K2-big.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grape_hyacinth.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Parque_Lanin.jpg

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cathedral_of_St_Colman.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoellentor.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sing_Sing_(prison)_with_warden.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CycloneIngrid.jpg - too plain
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VariousPills.JPG - too plain
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brass_beauty.jpg3D image - not really suitable for an encyclopaedia.. except perhaps in a 3D imaging article?? :)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Driedpaprikaedit.jpgis an edit of an already failed nomination
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mossbeach-pan.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tevatron.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inside-Chinese-princess-temple.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KumarakomHouseBoat.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Navy-KatrinaNationalGuardTruck.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ninnaji_Garden.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_Short_Hair_001.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maginot_line_1.jpg not well composed
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenseaturtle-2.jpgIs an edit of an already featured pic
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XM8Compact.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:State_Library_Reading_Room_-_Melbourne_Australia.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beach_surf.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stade_de_france.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kazan_kremlin_at_night.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Curcuma_by_titanium22.jpgToo much out of focus
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DZero.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oostvoorne1.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Katimik_Howl.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orange_tulips.JPG

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAP_Grau_Unitas_45-04.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trucker_Car.jpg

I was clearing out Category:Wikipedia featured picture candidates (removing the ({FPC}} tag from closed nominations) and I came across an image of the peacock tail. I distinctly remembered there be a nomination for it, so I went digging. I found that the nominator blanked the nomination. I reverted it because I wasn't sure what to do. Basically, is it "acceptable" to let the nominator withdraw the nomination? I don't think that blanking it was the right way to close it early, but if there is a consensus here, I wouldn't be opposed to closing nominations withdrawn nominations early. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would withdraw a nomination by removing the nomination's code line from the FPC page and the FPC tag from the image page, but leave the nomination page itself intact - but with a note of the withdrawal - for those who wish to study the the votes. They are available anyway in the page history, so there is no need for blanking. --Janke | Talk 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any guidelines but in the past I've been sympathetic to people trying to withdraw nominations (especially since all the ones I've seen withdrawn have had no chance of passing) and when I have seen nominators blanking their own noms I have withdrawn them by exactly the method Janke describes. On occasions where one or two people have reverted the simple blanking of a nom I have backed up my removal of it with diff-links to several precedents where experienced contributors to this page have removed their own nominations. In short, I'd be in favour of letting people withdraw nominations which have no support. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I have closed it like a normal nomination that was not promoted. As I haven't been around FPC for long, I just didn't want to ignore precedent (if there was one). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You were right to ask, and I'm a little sheepish about the fact I didn't! AFAIK there has not been a policy discussion before, so I suggest we use this thread as a guideline. Unless a consensus of objection emerges, I'd say we're sanctioned to close + remove supportless noms the nominator wants to withdraw :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Support closing like a non-promote. I think being able to withdraw is a good idea. It really sucks when your nom gets its Nth oppose when there are no supports, it would be nice to be able to withdraw. -Ravedave 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

how come people nominate so many non-qualified pictures? there are guidelines. and with common sense we all more or less know what a "striking" picture should look like. I don't understand. :(--K.C. Tang 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that mainly it's just that users are unfamiliar with the FP criteria, and they don't bother to read other nominations or the guidelines. They just see a nice picture and WP:FPC pops into their heads :). ~MDD4696 04:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, pic of he day is now on the main page every day, with a link to FPC... We all know what that has led to. As a user who has found FPC intriguing and educational, I find this "dilution" with not-so-good images a bad thing. For this reason, I'm not going to comment on all images anymore, as I've been doing for some time - what's the use of one oppose among 30 other? I will only comment on images I find interesting or have something special to say about, other than "oppose, not FPC quality". --Janke | Talk 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, sometimes one just doesn't want to comment...it's tiresome to repeat all the time "oppose, not FPC quality"...silly thought: someone should make a robot for eliminating the not-FPC-quality pics.--K.C. Tang 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Different thought: Let's replace the Nominate a new image link on the main page with Other featured pictures or Other featured pictures. The prominent exposure of FPC will continue to lead people here which should have visited the other pages first. --Dschwen 09:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it on Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day now. Participation in the upcoming discussion is highly appreciated :-) --Dschwen 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution is. I'll throw out some more suggestions, mind you they haven't been thought out at all by myself.

1. Speedy remove candidates after X number of days with 100% opposes (minus the nominator, naturally).

   The time period would probably be in the neighborhood of 2 or 3 days. The problem with this idea is that things can change. If a low resolution nomination is posted and it gets all early opposes because of the resolution, it would be removed. However, it is possible that a higher resolution image may be found. A way to still allow the early closures would be allow the nomination to be resubmitted with the higher resolution image, but this would be more complicated as it would create more nominations and be more work.

2. Close nominations earlier after 10 days instead of 14.

   It doesn't happen very often that all 14 days are needed. 10 days would probably be sufficient. If there is still an active debate, the deadline could possibly be extended another 4 days.

3. Approach the nominator after it is clear that the image will most likely fail and ask them to withdraw the nomination early.

   This seems like a simple option that wouldn't be much of a change from our current policies. However, I am not sure how well it would work.

4. As suggested above, remove the "nominate a featured picture" link from the front page and be replaced with Wikipedia:Featured pictures

   I don't see links to nominate a FA or a DYK on the front page, so why should it be different for featured pictures? Since there is a link to WP:FA for the FA, the FP should probably also link to WP:FP. This solution would be relatively easy to implement (after a consensus was gained, although I am not sure what that would take).

Or some combination of the above. I only became active on WP:FPC a month ago. Back then, ~40 nominations was the norm. Now it is 60+. I realize the growth is mostly due to the link on the front page. I wouldn't mind the growth, but the quality of nominations seems to be diminishing. I don't have any hard numbers, but it seems like the percentage of images promoted has dropped significantly since I have been here and I don't think it is because standards have gone up by a large amount. In any event, I feel something needs to be done soon before the situation worsens. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering how much of a problem it is. Admittedly, I don't contribute here often, although I have been lurking here for several months and contributing from time to time. But isn't it easy just to skip over the ones that already have half a dozen Oppose votes, and no Supports? So I feel that simple changes like not linking from the front page are a good idea, but I don't myself see a need to change the rules yet. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it isn't a major issue as of yet. The number of poor quality nominations has been on the rise but it hasn't become overwhelming. I guess there are two issues. First, I think the length of this page is starting to become too long. Having 60+ active nominations on a single page especially when a nomination gets 10 opposed votes in the first day and then sits there two weeks waiting to be closed is starting to become a nuisance. The second issue is that it takes time to close each nomination. Granted, it only takes a few minutes for a failed nomination to be closed (compared to much longer for a promoted picture), it adds up. I guess I feel that some of these nominations are taking time, energy and more importantly, the focus that could be spent on discussing and improving the good nominations (see the ship diagram and the pirate graphic on Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/April-2006 to see what I mean). As I said, I'm not sure if my suggestions are good or not, but I figured I have been meaning to discuss this for a few days now. However, I think we need to be very careful with instruction creep here on FPC as there are quite a few steps in there already. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the nomination period shortened. As you said, little is done in those last few days, and this would help keep the page a little bit shorter. ~MDD4696 14:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support 2, 4, and maybe 1 with a bit of modfication. I'd want to see discretion advised so we could avoid the pitfalls. Nominations with 100% Oppose after 3 days may be removed. You simply wouldn't speedy a nom where we might get a larger version, and anyone could be allowed to resurrect (i.e. revert) a speedied nomination for any (given) reason without having to renominate - they would just add a comment to the debate saying why. I don't think many people will insist on keeping their picture up if it was taking a pounding, and if there are any that want to, that's fine ~ Veledan • Talk 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite, there's no need to have fixed numbers. Simply Nominations which receive no support may be removed early would do. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The above suggestions seem good, but i'd like to throw in another: have a two-teir system. First articles are added to "Requests for featured picture candidates" (i.e. featured picture candidate candidates) and once approved as meeting basic criteria are then moved to the FPC list. However, the rule Nominations which receive no support may be removed early (as mentioned above) would be simpler. —Pengo 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This was recently suggested on commons:FPC as well. And I like it more and more. We wouldn't even have to draft up lengthy rulesets. Just mention WP:SNOW and find a consensus here on the discussion page on how to apply it. --Dschwen 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would go with the early removal suggestion and probably ed_g2s' loose wording for it. We really shouldn't remove the nominate link from the POTD templates, since encouraging people to find and contribute good pictures is the whole point of FPC. So we should also be careful not to offend when people nominate 'no hoper' candidates. We could also make the MainPage nominate link go to an intermediate page with clearer nomination instructions for new users with a link leading on to here. -- Solipsist 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, non of the other sections of the MainPage have a direct 'get involved' link, so perhaps the nominate new link should go from the MainPage. -- Solipsist 06:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, that's the point. The normination process is now a bit "too accessible".--K.C. Tang 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't much like the two-tier idea, because I think we should keep the process as simple as possible. I'm also not sure how early removal helps. I don't see the problem as the number of items on the page (because it's easy to skip over them), but the number of items nominated. It takes just as long to close a nomination early as to close it after 14 days. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of closing a nomination early is to reduce the number of active FPCs. The amount of time it takes to close a nomination isn't the issue here... the page is just getting full and it's becoming more difficult to scan past all the junk nominations. I really like [[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]'s suggestion above, about adding a broad "candidates may be removed early" clause; this would alleviate the buildup of bad images. ~MDD4696 22:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I like option 3 - to have an early removal clause, which could either be based on a number of days or a certain number of opposes without and supports. Creating a two tier system I think would only increase the work involved in the process and make it less accessible to users.

As for the criteria for early removal, I would suggest both a minimum number of days and votes, to ensure the pictures get adequate showing.

This seems a good idea PS2pcGAMER, and would reduce the number of rubbish nominations cluttering the page. |→ Spaully°τ 23:51, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

If you analize what's on the FPC page all of the decisions are made by day 7. The nom length should be 7 days. No two tiers etc, just reduce the length to 7 days and the page will un-clog. -Ravedave 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we are agreed on the point of removing nominations early if they have no clear support. My personal guideline would be about 5-6 straight opposes over 1-2 days, at which point I would mark them as Not promoted, no support or similar. I will add it to the policy at a relevant point. ed g2s • talk 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A flexible length will just creates issues & arguments. I think a length of 7 is a much better solution. I also belive that there should a poll taken and consensus reached before a new policy is created. -Ravedave 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached in discussion, we don't need to vote on everything. The proposal is to remove only if there is no support. Only cases over which there can be no argument should be removed, i.e. ones with no support. ed g2s • talk 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the instruction on the FPC page numbered, so they are easier to follow and I spaced out the sections so it is easier to read [1]. I also edited What is a featured picture to emphasise that the pictures must be high quality [2] and I added some examples of bad images. Anyone care to improve even more? -Ravedave 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit uneasy about picking on certain pictures as examples of common errors, unless you have the consent of the photographer. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but on the other hand you should know what you get yourself into when submitting to FPC. And there is no need to feel personally attacked. The example captions are objective, correct and professional. Call me socially handicapped, but I feel it is rather counterproductive to tip toe around possibly hurt feelings and not speak out the issues we have with the pictures. --Dschwen 10:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did add a note on the page about images being "otherwise good" despite specific faults. This should alleviate a bit... --Janke | Talk 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, you put it nicely! --Dschwen 13:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is editable by anyone, if they don't like thier pic there they can remove it. On the otherhand if anyone has any photos they created personally that demonstrate near FP quality with some flaws, they should replace the ones there. I added this HTML comment to the page: <!--If you are a creator of one of these works and are offended by its use here, feel free to remove the picture, but please find a replacement. -->-Ravedave 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC),

That's also good. My, are we a smart bunch... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We should see if there is a consenus on changing FPC procedure, rather than just doing it. I suggest this poll stays open for 14 days and then the results are put into action.

Just some food for thought which applies to this poll: Instruction creep, WP:NOT and (for the sake of completeness) WP:SNOW. Bottom line, do not make the ruleset more and more complicated to the point where it gets frustrating and newbies won't read it anymore. Rules are a nice thing because you can point people at them when they make mistakes, but do not underestimate common sense. The three links above give some hints on how to create rulesets, KISS, don't cover all bases, leave some room for arbitrary decisions. I have faith in the community that this will not necessarily lead to bad decisions. --Dschwen 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would shorten the length of the FPC closing to 7 days.

• Support - This would reduce the current page from 60 to 30 entries. None of those enties had meaningfull additions after 7 days. -Ravedave 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Janke | Talk 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I was worried for a while about images that take some time to reach a final edited version, but in the worst case they could be renominated. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Stephen, and that would be the exception rather than the rule. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support |→ Spaully°τ 19:05, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
• Support works better as 7 days, it should be noted though that User:AllyUnion has to be modified before this is put into effect so that she can modify her bot's behaviors. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. As far as I know, the bot hasn't been working for the past couple of weeks anyway. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. This might affect images that go through several editing phases, but if that's the case, there's no reason why we can't bump it up to the top again if necessary on a case by case basis. enochlau (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have been bold and changed the limit from 14 days to 7 days as per a true consensus and unanimity on this poll. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think that was hasty. The poll was barely open for 10 hours. Not everyone who has an interest in this topic visits this page every day. ~ Veledan • Talk 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. I was very surprised when it closed so early. But I think it would have passed anyway, so WP:SNOW may now apply. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I don't think the decision should have come out differently, I was just briefly annoyed to see the vote closed when I came back after taking a couple of days to think over these propositions ~ Veledan • Talk 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would allow removing images that had X opposes and no supports (minus the nominator).

• Oppose - This just seems to arbitrary to me, ganging up could happen. -Ravedave 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Who would be the gang? However, I would support it if it would be doneby the nominator. --Janke | Talk 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I would love to be able to get disasters like those pills removed speedily, but it does seem hard to come up with a suitable criterion. I think the other changes may make enough difference for now, and voters can just skip over obviously-failing nominations. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - oppose if the time is shortened, as it would then be unneccessary; if people decide shortening should not be done, I will support this. |→ Spaully°τ 19:05, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
• Comments:

This is not what was proposed. The proposal was for common sense to be used on images which have no support. If anyone objected to an image being removed, then it would be restored. ed g2s • talk 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees on what "common sense" is. If you would like, make a new proposal to be voted on. -Ravedave

I think WP:SNOW offers some good reading concerning this proposal. --Dschwen 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Even in clarified form. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Or you could've let the dicussion continued until a compromise was reached, instead of jumping into a vote. ed g2s • talk

WP:NOT a democracy it's run by Consensus and I was just voicing my opinion that this shouldn't be done and thus contributing to an eventual consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was addressing Ravedave, not you (see indentation). ed g2s • talk 22:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Crappy images do no harm sitting there, especially if we are going to reduce the time to 7 days. If anything, they are useful in reinforcing to any casual passers-by what doesn't get counted as a featured pic. There is less of the insult/hurt thing than with say, RfA's. enochlau (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose although I would have supported the discretionary version (which seemed to have wider support than this version I thought) ~ Veledan • Talk 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already policy, and was clarified about a year ago (/Archive2). ed g2s • talk 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would allow the nominator or creator of an image to remove the nomination at any time for any reason, even if the picture would have been promoted.

• Support - Ravedave 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - in fact, I dit it above, before you had added this section... ;-) However, I'm a little unsure about that "any reason" - if supported, anyone else could re-nominate it - we're GFDL here, you know... --Janke | Talk 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support nominator removing it, oppose creator. Because someone else could nominate it if they wanted, but we'd be giving the creator a veto. (And what if there are several creators?) Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support - the nominator should not be able to withdraw a nomination that will pass, unless it is their own work. It would be pointless and would extend the process as someone would just re-nominate it. |→ Spaully°τ 19:05, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

• Support but I agree with Janke. Nobody owns the nomination really. If there is good reason, I wouldn't oppose an early removal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support nominator, Oppose creator per reasoning that it would give the creator a veto. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support nominator, oppose creator, as per above. enochlau (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, what happened to the version of this rule arrived at in the discussion above? That the nominator could remove a supportless image at any time? I don't see the need or the legitimacy of removing nominations that have gained support ~ Veledan • Talk 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved a bunch of noms to the need to be closed out section becuase of our recent rule change to 7 days. I left Machu Picchu because there is still an active discussion, but that still leaves 29 noms that need to be closed out. If a few people could try and close any that they have time for (preferably starting with the oldest, at the bottom), it'd be a great help. Thanks in advance. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I count 7/8 successful nominations in there, do you think they should be promotes as soon as possible or spread them over a few days? |→ Spaully°τ 00:36, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

I would just start at the bottom of the list and do them in order. As long as we don't get them all taken care of today or tomorrow, I figure the promoted nominations will spread themselves out. I don't see a problem with 3 promoted nominations a day for 3 straight days. However, if someone gets ambitious and decides to close all of them soon, I guess it would be fine to promoted them all on the same day. I'm not sure if we should hold up the closings just to spread out the nominations. Someone else can feel free to voice their opinion though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to why having 7 promoted on the same day would make any difference. Do they all show up somewhere in a list (besides the weekly list in Wikipedia:signpost)? I plan on attempting to close some tonight.-Ravedave 02:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If I get the time I'll try to close a couple and we should be able to get them all done in the next few days. I'd also suggest applying the 7 day switch retroactively and moving Machu Picchu down as soon as convienient which should be after we get rid of some of the older noms, until then it doesn't hurt to leave it open though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the rule change should have been retroactive; it seems to me that it would've been more appropriate for images nominated under the old system to be given their full term. Then again, I'm guessing that none of the nominators would object, so it's probably a moot point... ~MDD4696 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought about not making the rule retroactive, but quite a few nominations haven't been commented on in days. For the few that have recent comments, I feel that a consensus has already been made, so I figured it wouldn't do any harm. I probably should have just moved the few noms that are backlogged (under the 14 day rule) and waited for them to be closed before moving the remaining over. It probably won't matter though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work everyone, we cleared though most of that backlog. Unfortunately, while we were working on that backlog, a bunch of other noms reached their closing time. So, I have just added 13 more nominations to the backlog to take care of. Thanks everyone who helped, but if you are free, we still need a little more of your time to get caught up. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we clear now? I think we are :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Good work guys! -Ravedave 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am really impressed that a few people were able to close quite a few nominations so quickly. Good work. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that when moved from the voting section to the closed and pending action section that they be de-transcluded since other than determining consensus and adding the closed template there is no need to have the nom open, at most you'll need to have the image page open. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By "de-transcluded" you mean make them a link like so: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Steve Robinson EVA Rather than {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Steve Robinson EVA}}, right? If so then I would support. That would vastly shrink the page length at this point while the backlog is cleared out. -Ravedave 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's my suggestion but only for the over 7 day limit section. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea that was a lot tidier and it was just as easy to close the noms ~ Veledan • Talk 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)