Template talk:Featured picture

message: Shouldn't the image on the tag actually be a featured picture? The Mona Lisa image is too small to be featured as of now. BrokenSegue 03:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Mona Lisa image because that painting is widely regarded as a masterpiece—people automatically think of fine artwork when they see it, and so it's a natural choice for Wikipedia's finest images.  By contrast, I don't think any of our featured pictures have quite that level of universal recognition and admiration. --bdesham 04:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: You will notice on images like :Image:Praying_mantis_india_2.jpg that the featured picture template overlaps with the box.  The problem also occurs with Template:Wallpaper, Template:cc-by-sa-2.5 and probably others...  However, Template:GFDL seems to scale properly to fit with the box instead of conflicting with it.  I tried to fix it, however, I failed.  So, if anyone could make it it work properly that would be great.  The best example is here, which is :Image:Wfm stata center.jpg before I added Template:Clear to avoid the problem... only the GFDL notice doesn't conflict... any help in resolving this for (all) template would be great. gren グレン 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts with metadata box 

message: I think the template should link to the archive of the image's FPC discussion, like the FA template does. Borisblue 03:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. Every time I see one of these things, I'd like to be able to see what people said and how consensus emerged. This is very helpful with featured articles, since someone contemplating an FA nomination of their own can get an idea what the standards are. Shouldn't be any different with FPs. Daniel Case 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to archive

message: Should we have a "former" template for pictures, too, as a courtesy to the creators? I ask because there is currently an active period of de-listing FPs. --Janke | Talk 07:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a pretty good idea to me. What about this:
subst of 
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"	
	This used to be a featured picture, however it was found by community consensus to be not up to the current standards anymore.  If you have an image of higher quality, be sure to upload it, using the proper free license tag, then add it to a relevant article and nominate it.
 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschwen (talk • contribs) 
Copied the section to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates please continue discussing there :-) --Dschwen 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former featured picture 

message: - this wasn't used anywhere - except one place where it wazas linked to as if it was the template I redirected it to - so I made it follow the pattern. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected 

message: Perhaps a short documentation page would be useful here; there is no mention, for one thing, of the feature by which one may enter a different name for the nomination's sub-page. Waltham, The Duke of 15:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: change newspaper title to Boston Gazette 
Kmartis (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to be related to this template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Kmartis, 13 September 2010 

message: How about making Categories by month of featured pictures and say the timestamp on the template.  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: Can you add the following code to this template?

This will help organize issues related to delist-and-replace.
Code was tested in the sandbox. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I made an error, can you change

to 

I used the wrong format in the test. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected 

message: Please undo  that was made without consensus that I object to.  There is no reason that identified shouldn't be emphasized whether it is linked to a page or not.
—  (e • t • c) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . (But it my opinion this was a beneficial change, as it looks ridiculous emphasising that word for no particular reason. So I expect that further discussion will support it.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would you put the word "identified" in bold italics if it wasn't linked? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: * I would bold italicize it because it is a key word. —  (e • t • c) 16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say the key words/phrases in that sentence are "featured picture", then "finest images", then "members of the community", then "accompanying article". In my opinion, "identified" comes in at number five, if that. Why do you think it is such an important word - so important that it deserves more emphasis than "featured picture"? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * , it is the result of the implicit number one parameter.  This gives it some weight, "featured picture" is already stood out from the rest of the text since it is a link, same with "members of the community".  I have no issue with adding bold italics to "finest images", even though the phrase isn't apparently important enough to try and keep it on one line, and "accompanying article" should be linked.  —  (e • t • c) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   I don't agree that the template code should have any weight on how the sentence should be bolded; the sentence should be bolded based on the structure of the sentence itself. If you ignore the template code, there isn't anything special about the word "identified" except when it is linked. That's why I changed it to not look special when it isn't linked, but to keep it in bold italics when it links to the nomination page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * Then it shouldn't be bolded at all.  Either it is an important word, or it isn't. —  (e • t • c) 15:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014 

message: Please replace   with 
 Currently  is used to display the actual number of FPs on WP:Featured pictures, and it wouldn't be good, if some of them could be left out of this category (which would make the above number incorrect).
Armbrust The Homunculus 07:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2014 

message: I'd suggest we add the following:

Every other piece of featured content, to my knowledge, has a top star as well as any other indicator. This will make things consistent. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , per WP:BOLD. This change is revertible on request. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add top star 

message: Please replace 
-->|}}


 with 
-->|}}


This will place any files that have not appeared on the MP or have not been scheduled (i.e. do not also transclude ) into :Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the main page.
Using the sandbox, I have tested this at :File:Alan Bean NASA portrait (S69-38859).jpg (not scheduled therefore in the category) and :File:Mae Carol Jemison.jpg (scheduled therefore not in the category). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping some interested parties: . --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no specific objections to this if you would find it useful, although it should be noted that you would still need more information than just this category in order to schedule POTDs, as they don't include information on when the image was featured, which you would need in implementing the FIFO criterion. Currently I use a desktop tool I wrote myself for probing for unused pictures, and sorting them into the correct order... I vaguely intended to make this publicly available at some point, through the cloud or toolserver or something, but I haven't got around to it yet and since I do most of the scheduling myself there hasn't been a pressing need yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That may not be necessary. With this category combined with a userscript similar to User:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite and a H:DEEPCAT search would accomplish the same goal. All done locally en.wiki. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

text:  So I kept asking for help and  was kind enough to modify the syntax for me again. The version below not only adds the FPs to the "not on MP yet" category but also sorts the category by the date the FP was promoted at FPC. I think it now accomplishes what your off-wiki app does and allows us to keep with FIFO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to note that if the code cannot find the date of the nomination it will use the current date. This only affects pre-2007 promotions and malformed nominations, so should not be an issue considering the current POTDs are from around 2015. Danski454 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note for future references that further discussion on how this was develop can be found here. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Done Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorize FPs that have not appeared on MP 

message: Please replace 
-->|}}


 with 
-->|}}



--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Can someone please remove the most recent revision by Ahecht? It's currently causing a template loop error, and needs to be debugged properly. See :Category:Pages with template loops. Aidan9382 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On the assumption that both the initial edit and this request were done in good faith, I have reverted without really looking at the code or trying to fix it. Let me know if you need help with testing. For reference, one of the pages in the error category was :File:Bell Miner 1 - Nepean Weir.jpg, if it helps with testing in the sandbox. There is a warning displayed when you edit :Template:Featured picture/sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Strange, when I did previews with the sandbox version it didn't show loop errors, but I must've missed something. Sorry about that. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 13:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 6 June 2022 - Bad new code 

message: The previous edit request from before can now be brought back, as the core issue behind one of the templates used in it that caused a template loop has now been fixed. The sandbox is the latest version before the revision and can be used to transfer it over. Aidan9382 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, but I have no idea what immediate edit you have tested and is ready to go live.  Please point to a specific permalink on the sandbox that is ready to go live - give a summary here in the request of why the edit is being made - just as if you could edit the template directly and leave an edit summary. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, let me explain. A recent edit was made to this template by a template editor. Said edit caused the template to start spamming Inifinite Template Loop errors. The previous request right above this one is me asking for it to be reverted. After it was reverted, the part that was causing the said issue (One of the templates used within it) has been fixed. Im essentially saying to revert the revert now that the error with it has been fixed. Does that make a bit more sense? Aidan9382 (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Aidan9382 go to Template history - which timestamp do you want restored to the current version? Is it 2022-06-06T01:30:33‎? Is the reason that something somewhere else is keeping these "loops" from occurring?  Ping to  who may want to deal with this. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'd like 01:30, 6 June 2022. The reason was down to one of the templates that was used within it (), which has since been improved and the error has been sorted. Sorry for not clarifying that initially. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  going to let this sit for a day to see if Jonesey95 has any feedback - someone else may process it in the meantime, if not I'll get back to it I'm sure (I try to patrol all the technical-type edit requests a couple of times a day) — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I have restored 's edit. The file I linked to above, and the sandbox (which has not been modified since the changes above) appear to be working fine without template loops. So far, so good, I think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 6 June 2022 - Bring back version