Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 2

message: Are pictures on the Commons eligible for nomination here?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 16:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't think it is a problem if the picture comes from the Commons, but it should be used in an article on the English Wiki. If it is a good picture its would be easy to find an article to put it in if necessary. -- Solipsist 17:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems natural that they would be. Agree with Solipsist. — David Remahl 08:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: I'm a little concerned by some of the harsh, negative comments that get posted here from time to time (there's quite a few around at the moment). Unlike Featured Articles, photographs and images are rarely collaborative works and usually can't be edited or updated to address any criticism. 
Its important to be able to explain your reasons for an oppose, but bear in mind that you might be hurting somebody's feelings and quite possibly discouraging them from contributing to Wikipedia. I'm aware of at least one occasion when my own comments (which I didn't think were particularly negative) helped to drive a good contributor away. -- Solipsist 08:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harsh comments 

message: I've noticed that a lot of people oppose pictures that just because they don't like it's resolution. Why upload a 1024 by 2048px picture, when we probably won't even use the full thing in the pedia anyway? Wouldn't a 640x480 work just as well? I think pictures should be voted on by composition, color and merit of subject, unless its size is lower than qhat's typically used in wikipedia. So, can anyone explain the rationale behind this? Mgm|(talk) 12:40, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
:In the future, resolutions of displays are bound to increase. Also, Wikipedia may be printed in the (near) future, and then a 640×480 image is hardly usable at a reasonable size. Please see and discuss my thoughts on the subject at User:Chmod007/Alternate version proposal. — David Remahl 13:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an argument to say that until those things happen, 640x480 is good enough. Smaller featured pictures can always be delisted once printed Wiki's begin to appear. The primary focus should still be on encouraging good pictures for the online Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 15:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree — we should be encouraging the identification of the best possible quality content, not just what works well enough for a thumbnail. — Matt 19:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture size 

message: :Image:Orion.jpg, which is a featured image, is copyrighted by its owner and I don't think it's eligible for release under the GFDL.  I placed the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but as it's featured I thought I had better mention it here as well.  It appears that the NASA public domain thing was misunderstood, as it only applies to images created by NASA, and not all image which appear on NASA websites.  Worldtraveller 17:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A copyright infringement

message: See Talk:Main Page#Picture of the day.3F --mav 03:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's see if we can get the PotD on the Main Page 

message: Please see this link for more information. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot assistant 

message: Can anyone figure out why opening the subpage using the title link for the Incandescent Pahoehoe fountain nomination goes to the subpage , whilst editing the link in place goes to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Incandescent_Pahoehoe_fountain which seems to be where most of the votes are. (Not that it seems to matter much). -- Solipsist 17:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the title link was screwed up.  The nominator made the title link one page but then created the nomination on another, apparently.  I fixed it. --brian0918™ 17:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dooh - I looked at that, but somehow didn't see it. Thanks for the fix. I guess we should delete the orphan version. -- Solipsist 19:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incandescent Pahoehoe fountain - title link mystery

message: Moved from discussion of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tetons and Snake River -- Solipsist 09:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monitor Calibration 

message: Following a discussion on the Village Pump, I was lead to this discussion of some current problems with the MediaWiki Image Server. 
This very probably explains why it is so difficult to promote closed nominations just now. The FP-Visible, FP-Thumbs, and FP-April-Archive pages as well as the FPC page itself are all very image heavy, and I for one experience multiple page load timeouts when trying to preview or save pages during the promotion process. 
I've split FP-thumbs into three separate pages to avoid loading all thumbs at once, and we might have to think about splitting FP-Visible into smaller parts.
Until the servers are reorganised/upgraded it seems to help to only make changes to one of the relevant pages at a time — because each refresh takes several minutes I'm usually tempted to edit all five related pages in parallel on separate browser tabs, but this seems to guarantee overloading the image server. 
Of course this is still pretty painful, but it is as well to be aware of where the problem. -- Solipsist 09:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image server overloading 

message: It has been suggested that User:Kurando-san be used to assist in promoted FPC to FP, and performing all the steps necessary.  Please see User:Kurando-san/FPC for the discussion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot assisted promotion 

message: Can drawn pictures (flags, arms, etc) be nominates for FP status? Zscout370 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Drawn pictures and diagrams - absolutely. You can already find several on Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible. However, we have had a good coat of arms nominated before and at that time the concencus was that it didn't quite make the grade. I doubt a flag would have an easy ride either, but it would depend on the drawing and how well it illustrated the article. - Solipsist 07:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: It seems that a hardware/power failure is affecting the availablity of a significant fraction of images at the moment. Featured Picture Candidates, and Pic of the Day are of course pretty badly affected by this. There's not much we can do, but if the problem persists we might consider extending the normal voting deadline for the current candidates. -- Solipsist 16:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it has all cleared up quite quickly, so no real problem. -- Solipsist 21:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture problems 

message: I'd like to make two suggestions for changing how this page works. 
* Am I the only one who feels that 2 weeks is much, much too long? Most nominations to the featured article candidates are decided in 5 or 6 days, and it takes *much* longer to read and evaluate a 30 kilobyte article than it does to evaluate a picture. 
* I think this page would benefit greatly from have some sort of objective criteria against which nominations can be judged. Just my 2 cents. →Raul654 22:51, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
** I think the 2 week window is a good idea.  If you regularly frequent this page and every time you look at a photo (for that 2 week duration) and say to yourself, "Wow!  What a great picture"... then it deserves to be a featured picture. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improving this page

message: *You can't be serious! You are telling me it was by design that I should be going down the list and then, all of the sudden, there's a bullet with like 200 species names all stacked up. Just because it was on purpose does not make it good form. It's messy, ugly, and above all else, confusing and disruptive. If there's a special case for those species, then say it, but don't just leave them like that. There's no point in having some reason like that, but keeping it to yourself while the readers are puzzled. --Dmcdevit 15:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Acacia species]]

message: I've closed the nomination for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stag on hill early, largely because it has copyvio problems, but also because of concerns over the nomination and voting pattern of several users acting in collusion. 
Just for the record, I don't have any problem with faked photos, composites, or even collages - as long as the end result is an image which helps to illustrate an article well. However they should be acknowledged as such and attribute their sources as appropriate. -- Solipsist 07:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stag on Hill

message: Hello picture people - I'm posting here to let you know about featured pictures at the astronomy portal.  We currently have a featured picture every day, and I've been trawling through :Category:Astronomy images for pics featurable on the portal.  Probably many astro images are not categorised, but a lot of people here must see a lot of astronomy images which could be featured there, so I wanted to say that if anyone has any suggestions they can visit the portal picture page.  Standards will be somewhat lower than here, I don't think we'll be voting on them, I've just been putting up pictures that I personally think are nice and striking so far.
Any help from anyone else much appreciated! Worldtraveller 12:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronomy pictures

message: :Category:Wikipedia featured pictures now has a subcategory: :Category:Featured desktop backgrounds.  — Chameleon 15:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategory