Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 12

message: Should the template for FPC submission have no px parameter to Image:...? Default size for images is 180px wide, and image size can be set in preferences if no px size is set. I think having no param would help people on modems because they can set their thumb size to 120 so the page will load faster. However people shouldn't be evaluating these pics on thumbnails so maybe we should set the px size to 120. What do you guys think? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbnail size 

message: This is on today's featured article: :Image:Habitable_zone-en.svg. Does it have any chance of featured? I don't want to nominate it and have it completely killed. jengod 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At that size, no just because it's waaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too small even for a diagram though a bigger version, say around 1024x1024 or bigger, would probably have a chance since it appears to be a fairly nice diagram excepting the size issue. Cat-five - talk 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any chance?

message: Wishing all participants to FPC HAPPY HOLIDAYS! --Janke | Talk 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, your greeting is northern hemisphere specific. it's summer in australia, not winter :P merry christmas. enochlau (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the clause of clarification is there... Fixed, thanks for catching it. --Janke | Talk 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL, thanks for that, Janke - Merry Christmas from me too! --YFB ¿ 15:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha! Very nice. This should be copied into the Political correctness article. --Tewy 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merry Christmas 

message: OK, then, let me revise my greeting:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, this wish for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter/summer solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of our choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all - and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, sexual preference, religious faith, or choice of computer platform of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with or without alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the
sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. 
--Janke | Talk 07:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, your greeting is northern hemisphere specific. it's summer in australia, not winter :P merry christmas. enochlau (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the clause of clarification is there... Fixed, thanks for catching it. --Janke | Talk 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL, thanks for that, Janke - Merry Christmas from me too! --YFB ¿ 15:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha! Very nice. This should be copied into the Political correctness article. --Tewy 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PC GREETING

message: Hi everyone,
Probably should be posting this on the Village Pump or something like that but I thought I'd stick to familiar territory - anyone know what the new green and red numbers in the watchlist mean? --Fir0002 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a link at the top of your watchlist to Wikipedia:Added or removed characters explaining what they are. Basically, it's the amount of characters added or removed. The page describes how to remove them if you find them annoying (like me). enochlau (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  edit conflict - yeah Enochlau has said what I just wrote - except I commented that while the colors have too many connotations (red=bad) considering the potential quality of edits that shorten article - it may be helpful because large red numbers will tend to indicate blanking vandalism. Debivort 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I seen the link now ( wouldn't ya feel like an idiot...) - thanks! --Fir0002 10:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Watchlists 

message: A quick straw poll to see where people stand on the change in nomination process
====For====
*Good changes, AzaToth. I had been thinking of a similar change myself. It is really much more user friendly. We used to get a few incorrectly formed nominations, but it seems like all is well now. ♠ SG →Talk 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: *Good changes, AzaToth. I had been thinking of a similar change myself. It is really much more user friendly. We used to get a few incorrectly formed nominations, but it seems like all is well now. ♠ SG →Talk 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: --Fir0002 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: Could some admin please have a look at this FPC candidate - it seems like there's some sockpuppeting, and also illegitimate inclusion of the image in PotD and FP. I removed the tags, but the image has been added to many pages... --Janke | Talk 12:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daneil10 has been notified about the problems with what he is doing. He claims to be only 10 so unless he repeats this I don't think it's necessary to impose a temporary block on him. I'll give it a couple of days and unless anything new turns up I'll block the socks (unless another admin does it first) --Fir0002 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw I think User:Joshua dude might be related too and perhaps should be watched --Fir0002 11:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely obvious puppeting there. He's barely even tried to make the puppet accounts look like legitimate voters. Also, when dealing with him, please try to keep his age out of it as much as possible - even if he's 10 (and to be honest, a slightly immature and naive 10), we should try to treat him as much like a sensible adult as possible. A year ago, my age (then 14) was used as evidence against my integrity in a discussion, which I was quite offended at. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalizing, puppeting 

message: Hello, :Image:Ph_map_manila_large.png is a featured picture I created and was transferred to the Wikimedia Commons. I've created an SVG version: :Image:Ph_map_manila.svg and also uploaded it to the Commons. Is the featured picture status transferable? Can I tag the SVG version as a featured picture also? I plan to phase out the PNG version with the SVG version just like we've done with flags of sovereign nations. --seav 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see an issue with it if you phase out the old version.  You can probably get one of the bot operators to help with that since find/replace from one image to another is an extremely simple operation though this is all assuming that other than format the two images are exactly the same and there is nothing else to complicate things. Cat-five - talk 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB can also be useful in this case. howcheng  {chat} 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seem to be a lot of differences between the PNG and SVG versions - moved labels, no key, different shape of dock area, different area covered.  These are very likely improvements (though I am curious about the missing key), but a re-nomination to replace might be desirable - I'm not sure this can be considered a simple like-for-like replacement, and the suggestions given during the FPC process often improve maps.  TSP 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was pretty sure the missing key would be the sticking point so I reintroduced it. The different shapes of areas in the map reflect more accurate data. --seav 09:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file format for an existing featured picture 

message: I was wondering what everyone thought of creating a subpage to FPC first of all laying out the different formats, maybe a few objective pros and cons (though most info should be on that format's main article) and suggested formats depending on the type of image whether it be a diagram, a standard photo... etc.  It would make a good resource for those who are new to FPC and/or confused about our unofficial standards in regards to image formats. This is just a base idea and I have no idea where to begin thus I have no sample or anything else to show at the moment for it. Cat-five - talk 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't know there ware already right ups for that... maybe those should if nothing else be made more prominent so people read them. Cat-five - talk 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Conversion FAQ/Request subpage 

message: I know that everyone (myself included) is against laying out too many guidelines on how to vote since that would interfere with a person's right/prvilege to vote their mind but on viewing several recent nominations and perusing the archives of nominations since I've been gone it seems that many people not only have differing views on how historical images should be treated as far as standard guidelines on quality and size go, as historical images many times have a lower maximum quality and size for various reasons, but also what even qualifies as a historical iamge.  I think setting a hard breakoff point would be an awful idea and a bad way to go about it but we should see if there's a better way to figure out even broadly qualifies as historical as well as some broad guidelines on expectations and possible guideline alterations for them. Cat-five - talk 11:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defined guidelines for historical photos 

message: I'd just like to remind everyone that editing a compressed JPEG and re-saving as a JPEG yields a more lossy result than the original. As such, I would like to suggest that use of edits be significantly curbed in all cases except those in which the edit would significantly increase the objective quality of the image. For example, the edit to the Edison photograph unquestionably improved the image because it was a restoration, and is therefore acceptable. On the other hand, aesthetic edits like this one created to suit the editor's tastes do so not only at the expense of dissolving consensus based upon highly subjective personal preferences but also re-compress the image, resulting in data loss and more visible compression (or larger file size). Noclip 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to look at this recompression test first: :Image:Original crop.jpg Saved for Web 80 quality 5 times, Saved for Web 80 quality Saved for Web 60 quality 5 times, Saved for Web 60 quality. Of course there will be a loss, but generally it's not very visible, if you look at the file size differences we're talking bytes --Fir0002 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image edits are getting out of hand 

message: Some valid points have been raised about the capability (or lack there of) of FPC to motivate contributors from less illustrated corners of the world. Spectacular or rare pictures are easily shot down on technical grounds, leaving a less equipped contributor from with the potential to reach places never covered before for wikipedia with out a chance of getting some acknowledgement.
We could tag FPC nominations and consequently the FPs. Tag them with an FP-type which classifies the class of merit it competes in. This would be like 
* originality/rarity
* technical merit
* scientific merit
* aethetics(?)
The tags can be optional and even omitted if you think a picture scores in all areas. --Dschwen 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty interesting, but I wonder how it will be implemented? I mean there will be clear cut cases but I'm not sure if it will be that easy to isolate the merit. Some images could be aesthetic and scientific, but not original - bit of a problem. I guess they can have multiple tags - anyway I would support something like this by and large --Fir0002 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think of making a case when you nominate, and generating some signal templates. I.e. the picture was assembled from 10 macro shots to increase DOF and add  to the nomination page and picture, or rare picture of secluded amazon tribe village plus . Something along those lines. When voting people can make their points whether a particular merit is justified or not, ideally leading to a discussion with regular support, oppose votes in clear cut cases and disagree on technical, disagree on rarity etc. leading to a tag shuffeling before the vote is closed. The voters should keep in mind that additional burden on the closers should be avoided. --Dschwen 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think originality fits in well, and perhaps enc and hist tags should be available too. I think it's a good idea. Good thinking. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for FP merit-discipline-tagging

message: I closed this delisting as kept earlier today, but User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of the image hasn't been fully resolved. Could anyone here who knows about copyright please help in resolving this issue? Raven4x4x 12:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expertise needed on [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/American Buffalo Gold Coin]] 

message: The election of the best Commons Featured Picture of 2006 - Picture of the Year 2006 -  is to take place soon in Commons.
We need your opinion and help to organize the event. There are still some things to do: deciding the dates, tuning up the rules, preparing the project page, making announcements, etc.
To participate, please check Commons_talk:Picture of the Year/2006. -- Alvesgaspar 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Year 2006 election 

message: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Aerospike engine could use some more votes. It has been listed for almost three weeks now and no consensus has emerged yet. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerospike engine

message: Over on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page we've been trying to think of something we could do on April 1st's front page featured picture.  Obviously we want something that's either funny or unexpected - but still worthy of the title "Front page featured picture".
I know we'd welcome any suggestions you folks might be able to come up with.
My current best suggestion is to pick one of the Greg William's Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia cartoons. Does that sound like something you guys could go with?
SteveBaker 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fools picture. 

message: On three recent nominations I've noticed comments from various people that must be described as less than civil. Calling pictures 'crap' or 'ridiculous',making sarcastic references to April Fools Day, this is definately not what we need here. This is a gentle reminder to all who comment here to keep civility in mind. Raven4x4x 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphatically seconded. Whether you're an 'old hand' or an FPC virgin you have the same right to expect to be treated with civility and tact. On one hand we've had complaints here of an in-crowd and on the other we've had long-standing contributors feeling 'chased off' by snarky comments. In both cases, the rule is the same: don't bite the newbies, or anyone else. --YFB ¿ 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, comment on the image. Not the nominator. ~ Arjun 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More like, do not misinterpret the nominator's choice. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, assume good faith and stay objective, but don't beat around the bush either.  --Dschwen(A) 10:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's keep things friendly here 

message: Following this discussion, I've blundered wildly into the unknown and opened Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates for nominations, starting with that one. If it's a disaster we can always close it again, but I'd appreciate everyone's input to see if we can get the ball rolling. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With separate criteria? Trebor 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How could there be activity if FSC wasn't even open? Is it any surprise that only a handfull of non graphic media was ever nominated on Freatured Picture Candidates? I don't think so. The argument goes the other way: Promote FSC and it will (might) attract further nominations. Feature sounds prominently (i.e. on the MainPage) and you will atract even more submissions. Let's keep FPC about pictures. I don't think the bickering, nitpicking and rivetcounting capacities can sustain further media types anyways ;-). --Dschwen(A) 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the flag has been raised, lets wait and see if anyone salutes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a Featured Media Candidates system distinct from Featured Pictures, but I don't think the former should include the latter. For one thing, Featured Media (audio, video, perhaps animations) are likely to be less accessible to many users than pictures. If I'm using a library computer, for example, then I can't listen to audio and there's a good chance I won't have the required codecs for video, or permissions to install them. Featured pictures have become established on the front page and I think they work well - they catch the eye of the casual viewer in a way that a link to a sound or video file (which may or may not work on first click, depending on the user's PC) wouldn't be able to. I agree with Dschwen that we can never expect large volumes of media nominations if we don't provide a (widely promoted) process to handle them. I took the initiative with Featured Sounds because that was what was being discussed at the time, but I wouldn't be opposed to expanding its remit to include videos etc. and changing its name accordingly. --YFB ¿ 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Keep the projects seperate, especially featured pictures. If there's a calling for sound and video files, then those can be a seperate project, or projects of their own. There's no need to reestablish featured pictures just to throw a few sound and video nominations into the mix. A featured media page would only serve as a folder, if you will, to the files of featured pictures, featured sounds, etc., and Featured content already does that. --Tewy 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think visual media and audio media can only be judged by wildly different sets of criteria.  The skill sets involved in media creation and function in an article are just totally unrelated.  That's why I think a separate FS system is needed: to develop the divergent standards for audio, and to really let us build the still I think very unrealized potential that audio can have in our encyclopedia.--Pharos 04:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely put, Tewy/Pharos. I agree with both of those statements. --YFB ¿ 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FSC]] 

message: The arrangements for the Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are almost complete, and voting will take place between 1st and 28th Feb. The competition will be widely advertised throughout the Wiki community, the aim being to draw more users in to the Commons project and to encourage the posting of more top-quality images.  A single Picture of the Year will be chosen from all the images promoted to Featured Picture status during 2006.
I hope English Wikipedia users will support this initiative by granting permission for the following templates to be added to the top of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page, during February. The template will change slightly on 14th to announce the final (but still keeping the depth at 3 lines), as shown below:
Alvesgaspar 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Commons:Picture of the Year 2006]] - permission asked 

message: Hi, FPC regulars.  I suggested an adjustment of the FP criteria several months ago, and Eloquence added it in July of last year without controversy.  The new criterion is just that "The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page."  Something just one short paragraph long, that the creators of images should find easy to hack together.  Apparently, this requirement is not being followed, so I'd like to humbly ask FPC regulars (I hardly ever edit this page) to please raise the issue at nomination time.  This should be an easy thing for any nominator to meet.  Thanks very much.--Pharos 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point; I don't think it'll be too controversial. At present I get the impression that Howcheng gets lumped with the job of sorting out a caption a lot of the time. I'll take it into account in future. --YFB ¿ 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A late reply to this thread, but I'm not really looking for a whole POTD caption. Mostly, I'd like information about the image itself. If it's not long enough to fit a POTD blurb, I'll get more from the article the image represents. howcheng  {chat} 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The motivation behind the change in criteria was just that the POTD blurb is often largely lifted straight from the article, making the Featured Picture box a clone of the Featured Article box, when it's supposed to represent something very different.  I'm not blaming you for this, Howcheng (you certainly can't be expected to do everything), but I think it should be incumbent upon the nominators (who presumably are familiar with each image and topic) to write a decent extended caption at the time of nomination.--Pharos 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's especially true for wildlife shots -- oftentimes there's not much you can say about the photos themselves beyond, "A female such-and-such bird." I think I started emphasizing the photos themselves more sometime in mid-July 2006. It hasn't been a problem except for a few which needed further input from the nominator/photographer. howcheng  {chat} 06:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcing Criterion #8 

message: Hello. Can picture licensed under  be nominated? Thanks. - Darwinek 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have replaced :Image:Sahara satellite.jpg with the very similar but higher resolution :Image:Sahara satellite hires.jpg at WP:FP. As far as I know, the images are based on the same data but there are some minor differences. The hires version is not perfect but it still offers much more detail than the other one. Let me know if you disagree with the replacement. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FP replacement notification

message: Phase 1 of the POTY 2006 election is coming to its end.
If you didn’t participate yet or want to change your vote, you can still do it until 2400 Feb, 14 (today) at: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006.
Phase 2, to elect the winner and 2 runners-up, will start February 17 at: Picture_of_the_Year/2006/final.
Alvesgaspar 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTY 2006 - End of Phase 1 

message: Hi All, I'd like to offer a gentle reminder that we should not forget to comment on nominations that have slid lower on the main FPC page. Often, important edits come up after the initial burst of comments, but then there is no further discussion before the nomination reaches the judgement phase. If we kept our eyes on all the nominations a bit more uniformly, it might also reduce the number of noms that need further discussion to clarify which edit will be promoted. PS - please take a look at the Starry Night nomination (about half way down the page now) - I think it's a good nomination that deserves promotion either in its original form or as an edit. Debivort 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nominations getting stale 

message: Could we add a skip to candidates link at the top of the page like is sometimes implemented on talk pages to jump to the TOC? Basar 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I was bold and put one in. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Basar 07:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  :o) tiZom(2¢) 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Meniscus 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip to candidates link 

message: Commons Picture of the Year 2006: Results	Commons Picture of the Year 2006: Results
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition: results announced 

message: Someone is voting with the signature Nelro, but it does not link to a user page and there is no page at User:Nelro.
Will their votes be counted and how should they be advised? Pstuart84 Talk 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked about the anonymous comments at User talk:Nelro. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Nelro 

message: Hello All - here is a discussion topic: Should non-redundancy with previously existing FPs be a criterion? I feel that many people treat this as a non-explicit criterion, often in inconsistent ways. 
* For example, I would bet that the turgor pressure nomination was basically ignored because of the  blood cell osmosis nomination. And yet, the redundancy was never used as the justification.
* Yet in the case of  the new lemon, the redundancy was explicitly given as a reason to oppose (among others such as page stability).
Is it time to get consistent and resolve this? Debivort 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FP Criterion 

message: It seems to me that there are a number of articles that should be passed, but that no one wants to do it because it is a lot of work. Would it be possible for us to cut down the work needed to pass an article or perhaps to automate it with a bot. I did it once, and I found that most of the tasks were simple enough to be automated. Basar 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be nice if someone stepped up to do it but from my observations and my reading on how it is done (For various reasons I don't go within 100 blue links of it) it is a tedious and many times (depending on the number of pending listings) long job that is thankless for the most part and many times will elicit angry messages on your talk page from someone who disagrees with your decision. Cat-five - talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Veledan created a mostly automated program awhile back.  IIRC, you basically decided if the image should be promoted or not and a few other options and then the bot handled the rest of the steps automatically.  More discussion here.  I have no idea what happened beyond that or if it all the bugs were squashed as I took quite a break from WP shortly after the bot's creation.  I think I was got some kind of error message that Veledan wasn't able to solve.  Someone might want to drop Veledan an e-mail.  I also might have the code around someplace if we aren't able to get into contact with him.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the backlog is about halfway cleared now. I'll look at the rest tomorrow if I find time. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree. I had the bad experience of promoting 7 FPs in one go. It took me two hours. It's just too tedious. MER-C 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting FPs 

message: I removed the backlog tag because: There really isn't a backlog long or otherwise. The large sets of .svg s are basicly closed and so there is no reason for such a tag. -Fcb981 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was added before the SVG part, so it has nothing to do with it. --Arad 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Backlog tag or not, we need closers. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing backlog tag 

message: Please comment on the older nominations, especially the ones in Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Older_nominations_requiring_additional_input_from_voters. Thanks, --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment on older noms 

message: In case anything goes haywire, here's a heads up.  I am testing User:Veledan's promotion bot that he put together almost a year ago.  I am using my User:PS2pcGAMERtest account.  If anything goes bad, I'll quickly revert myself.  For anyone who doesn't recognize my name, I was quite active on FPC about a year ago. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion bot testing 

message: Copied from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sausage biscuit. --Tewy 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose E4T4A2 I realize the fact that this thing looks extremely unappetizing actually enhances the enc of the picture, but still, yuck. ~ trialsanderrors 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So about this new template...a little too black and white, don't you think? It reminds me of a straw poll. --Tewy 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the opposite, it helps focus on the key dimensions of picture quality, at least for me. And it also allows that pictures don't have to be perfect in all dimensions if they have other qualities that make up for it. Considering gradations in quality and multiple dimensions is the opposite of b&w, no? ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, although it initially struck me as taking a sentence and condensing it a few numbers, much like a straw poll condenses lengthy reasons into a single vote. I suppose it's fine if you supplement with good reasons. --Tewy 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea how the closing works here, but I hope it's by arguments and not by numbers or bolded opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The closing is supposed to be based on consensus. And with that in mind, I actually begin to wonder if pointing out the specific qualities of the image is really necessary. Wouldn't a number system actually divide the votes into those who think the encyclopedic value is very high and those who think it is somewhat high (and simultaneously for the technical and artistic values), as opposed to an overall agreement that the encyclopedic value is high? As far as I can see, the number system merely quantifies the voter's opinion, but doesn't actually provide any more information than is already described in words. --Tewy 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus means different things in different areas of WP. Not sure what the rest means, but I think it helps quickly conveying a comprehensive opinion so the written argument can focus on a specific aspect, e.g. something that hasn't been brought up yet. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of voting, I view consensus as the general trend the discussion leans, which usually occurs when a moderately sized majority agrees on a point. But if the two sides are equally clashing, consensus has not been reached. My thoughts were that the number system would make opinions so specific that no one would be able to agree on anything. --Tewy 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Other opinions? --Tewy 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new voting template