Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 14

message: This isn't strictly relevent to FPC, but as it involves a recent FP and others have previously expressed interest...
User:Noclip recently informed me that Apple has used my Colosseum image in a video demonstration for the "Time Machine" (actual quicktime video here of their new OS). I have not released this image anywhere else other than Wikipedia (istockphoto rejected it for having potentially copyrighted content - the bilboard advertising a gallery, I think). Given that they have not met the terms of the licence (attribution and providing a copy of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 licence), surely I have grounds to take legal action for unauthorised use of the image? Presumably for a not unsubstantial amount considering the significance and potential audience of the video. Any thoughts? Is there anywhere else that may be a more appropriate place to discuss this? Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that is pretty stunning. Congrats, I guess. I guess if I were you I would look into lawyers? Debivort 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder if the Apple culprit is an active FPC participant, or just a lurker ... Debivort 09:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shifty eyes... Jumping  cheese 09:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear that Apple did not meet the terms of license after watching the video. I agree with Debivort. If you really want to peruse the matter further, I would suggest contacting a lawyer to discuss possible remedies. Or you can wait for free legal advice from the lawyers on Wikipedia. ;) Jumping  cheese 09:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its not that I'm desperate to bleed them for whatever I can get, although I do think it is fair that they compensate for any profit they make from the image. What I find curious is that they could have used any high quality but completely free image (of which there are many), but instead they chose mine which had very specific terms of use that they evidently ignored. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crikey. That was a bit silly of them. You might want to email/phone the Foundation about that one and see if they feel like helping you out, since you're sure Apple got the image from Wikipedia/Commons. Definitely some kudos in it for you though, even if you did find out about it through the wrong channels. I certainly think you should expect some recompense... it's not like they can't afford to pay for images to use in their ad campaigns, or as you said, take the time to use an actual free one, rather than ignoring the Commons licence. The irony of it is that I just watched that video in Apple's new Safari-for-Windows... --YFB ¿ 12:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ya, enforce it. For gods sake you are putting grade A material out there for free and you only ask that you get attribution and that derivative works hold the same license. It is the least they can do. I don't think the foundation will help you with this matter though, as it is your copyright. (H) 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BD2412 is an intellectual property lawyer. You may want to consult him for advice. howcheng  {chat} 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I don't know what the legal situation would be as far as re-selling of images, but with a company like Apple who obviously are going to have legal eagles aplenty, it's not in the least bit unreasonable to expect them to make sure they don't violate licensing terms in their ads. Quite obviously they'll be "apologetic" but since they're happily making money off Diliff's work without so much as a credit line, if I was him I'd expect to extract a little more than free pics and a stock apology. What do you mean "free pics" anyway? --YFB ¿ 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I can't believe they would be so brazen as to display an easily recognized photo multiple times in such a high profile presentation.  I don't have much legal advice to give you, but I strongly encourage you to take some action.  This happens all too often without anyone noticing.  Recently I was on vacation 300+ miles away from home and stumbled upon a much more obscure image being used without attribution/authorization by a small alternative weekly publication.  I hope that my bringing attention to it at least discourages them from being cheap/lazy and just stealing pictures from Wikipedia in the future.  Cacophony 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only repeat what's above. Certainly they should know better. Trebor 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, seconded. If you haven't already done so, get legal advice before you contact Apple, to avoid prejudicing your case or whatever the term is. --YFB ¿ 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a three year time limit to pursue legal recourse. I guess you can take a class... ;) Jumping  cheese 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unauthorised use of a recently featured picture 

message: Hi everyone,
I just came across a violation of one of my own FP's - . They even had the nerve to post a copyright notice of their own on it! They don't look particularly big, but I'm pretty annoyed. Any suggestions as to what course of action to take? --Fir0002 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, we might need to make it a class action:            although obviously the nasa ones would be a different case... --Fir0002 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh man ... nasty letter time? Diliff  - how has your Apple pursuit gone? Debivort 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for Diliff to get back in touch with me.  Diliff-- contact me.  Fir0002, you can email me too if you like.   Spikebrennan 17:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I mistaken, or have they all been uploaded by the user sephirotyang? If so, perhaps the issue becomes one of how can a Web 2.0 website prevent its users from uploading images they shouldn't? We see it happen often enough here. Perhaps the first and most sensible course of action is to contact the site, inform them of what has happened, and request them to be removed. They can then also deal with this rogue user, who incidentally may not even realise he's doing anything wrong. (BTW they've watermarked them, but I don't think they've put a copyright on them). --jjron 09:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, as before, contact them, and see what they do. If they co-operate and apologise, fine. If not, its time for the letter. Most people will apologise and either credit you, or take the photo down. Getting credit and attribution would be good advertising for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 12:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering their header image includes a copyvio image from Star Trek, I can't think that they're too particularly concerned about copyrights. howcheng  {chat} 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another count of unauthorised usage... 

message: this nomination ultimately resulted in the original uploader uploading an alternate version that addressed many of the concerns that had caused voters to oppose.  I would suggest re-opening the nomination with the alternate image (by the time it was uploaded, it was near the bottom of the queue and people may have missed it.)  Spikebrennan 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a nomination be reopened after it was closed? I think a better method would be to nominate the new version and mention the previous nomination. Jumping  cheese 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - renominate if you feel it deserves it and think it really is a significant improvement, with a link to the prior nom. From my experience things really seem to struggle on renominations though. --jjron 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reopening Sarrus linkage

message: We have a whole bunch of nominations that are cluttering the bottom of the WP:FPC page for months without resolution in sight. I think we should change the procedure on how to deal with them. A free license is a criterion that trumps all others, and it's the nominator's obligation to establish that the picture has a free license. If s/he can't do that within the seven day period we should consider the nomination failed with the provision that it can be renominated once the license status is clarified. ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we say that nominations can be suspended, pending clarification of license issues or whatever, for at most 1 week. Debivort 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A week is fine for comments, but not if you need to contact authors etc as well: this can take much more than a week, as we have seen. Not much point in giving it any time-limit if it's going to be unrealistically short and leave no time for a consensus to form once it's resolved. I agree that a reasonable limit should be in place (and that some candidates have been around for an unreasonably long time) but the max period in the suspension zone should be nearer a month than a week. Of course, this sort of thing should really be sorted out before an image is nominated in the first place, so the allowance would only apply to issues raised in the course of the nom which appear to be  easily-resolved. mikaultalk 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the only reason I can see why we might keep them open/suspended/on the FPC page is that it might get the attention other editors who would want to help resolve the licensing issue. Empirically it looks like this rarely ever happens. So it really come down to an interaction between nominator and closer. I can see two cases: 1. The nomination ends with a clear "conditional support" consensus, in which case the closer can simply change the "fail" to a "pass" once an acceptable license is provided; and 2. the nomination was sidetracked by the licensing issue, in which case a renomination might be inevitable anyway. Neither case benefits from an indefinite suspension of the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could also make a sub-page for suspended nominations, and provide only a link to that page from the main page. Would place the burden on nominators to keep things fresh on that page. Debivort 22:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The biggest issue with removing suspended noms is the loss of accumulated comments, notably so with the "conditional support" example, which this would avoid. There should probably still be a time limit, following which the nominee should be notified of the candidate's pending removal, as it's likely to be something of a backwater page. mikaultalk 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK if someone wants to create a separate page it has my support. I would close them as "not promoted – can be reopened if the licensing status changes." ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: All right - what do you all think of Wikipedia:Suspended_featured_picture_candidates? If we like it, all that is required is removing that section from WP:FPC and update the link in :Template:FPCQuickLinks. Debivort 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok wth it, as long as they disappear from the main page. Let's check back in three months if anything happened to those nominations. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the suspended page idea, though slighty worried they may be forgotten about --Childzy ₪ Talk 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suspended page addresses the problem well. The nominator can update the entry to say whether anything is still going forward, and I agree after two or three months of inactivity the nomination can be closed. If a closer doesn't get round to the page for a month or two, it won't really matter. ~ Veledan • T 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing long-term suspended nominations

message: FPC regulars may be interested in this discussion: Talk:Main Page#Photo credit for picture of the day. howcheng  {chat} 07:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTD credits 

message: Some people may remember that before my year-long wikibreak I created a macro that performed FP closures. Not an automatic bot, it was interactive and presented the user with a dozen menu-driven choices for which section of WP:FP etc to place the image in, whether it was created or just uploaded by the nominator, and let the closer enter one or more user IDs who could receive collateral credit messages on their talk page (for example, if they had edited the promoted version). It then did all the promotion work automatically, creating the image insertions and captions, updating the FP counts and notice pages, and leaving appropriate template messages on the talk pages of those involved. It would invisibly obtain a 'lock' on the FP candidate page (by adding a comment) as soon as the closer specified which nomination they wanted to work on so that even if two people were using it to close noms simultaneously, there could be no conflicts.
The format of the FP pages has changed since then, so it would need updating.. Anyone want me to do that? I remember at the time I used to perform 10-15 closures per day but the volume is lower now. Also, it would require the user to install Python if they were using Windows as I found that the pywikipediabot framework wouldn't compile using py2exe for Windows and I've no desire to reinvent that particular wheel.
Is it worth updating it? Procedures have probably changed and I don't know how long it takes to perform an FP promotion now. When I created the bot, it used to take 15 minutes for an experienced closer to perform a promotion manually, and about 3 minutes to complete a non-promoted closure. That was a long time when there 15 or so to do per day, and backlogs were common, which they aren't now. How long does it take now? And would the current closers want to use it? If so speak up, otherwise I'll let it rest in peace :-) ~ Veledan • T 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've closed only a few noms, and it was unpleasantly cumbersome. So, if you feel up for it, I think many of us would appreciate your bot's assistance quite a lot, in fact there was an earlier discussion on this very page about making a new bot!Debivort 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll look through the diffs of recent closers to see how much updating would be needed ~ Veledan • T 10:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should make things a bit easier. MER-C 11:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone think it's worth resurrecting the bot? 

message: In the interest of attracting FPC nominations that depict a wide variety of subjects (including those that don't get nominated often enough), and also in the interest of having fun, I hereby establish the FPC Scavenger Hunt.
Until someone has a better idea, here's how it works:
:(1) A person (for now, let's call this person the "Hunt Master") declares an image subject matter.  I would say that the subject matter should be very broad: for example, "Barry Bonds" or "Honeybee" are too narrow a subject matter; "Baseball" or "Insects" would be a bit better; "Sports or Games" or "Animals" would be best of all.
:(2) Anyone who cares to participate in the FPC Scavenger Hunt nominates one or more images for FPC status that have some rational relation to the current image subject matter.  One person might nominate a scan of a historic baseball card; another a photograph of a historic deck of cards; another a self-made panorama of a notable stadium in Australia; another a scan of a Renaissance-era painting depicting tennis.  Each such nomination should note, somewhere in the nomination, that it is a scavenger hunt entry.
:(3) The nominator of the first nominated scavenger hunt entry that is duly promoted, and that relates to the then-current subject matter, is the winner of that round.  The winner then enjoys the adulation of a grateful FPC community, and becomes the Hunt Master (replacing his/her predecessor) and gets to pick the next subject matter.  The Hunt Master is not eligible to succeed himself/herself.
:(4) If a suitable time period passes without any topical FPC nomination being promoted, or if the then-current Hunt Master fails to declare a new subject matter, then the first person who declares himself/herself the Hunt Master by making a post to that effect in Talk:FPC achieves that status.
The first person who posts a response to this and who expresses interest in being the Master (and who thereby declares the first subject matter) has the honor of being the first Master.  Any suggestions for a first topic?  (Some illustrative examples: Sports and games; postage stamps; crime; painted portraits; religious art; antiquities).
(4) The 
(3)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikebrennan (talk • contribs) 04:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
: Haha great idea! My suggestion for a first topic is: MAGIC. Debivort 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the Hunt.  "MAGIC" it is, then, Master Debivort.  (I had nominated this image back in July, but the image wasn't regarded as a sufficiently high-quality image.  I'll see what else can be found-- maybe a circus or promotional poster, maybe an animation of a trick, maybe an engraving from a medieval mystical text...) Spikebrennan 10:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea! Only caveat, we should probably try to avoid a rash of paintings being nominated... since the Yorck project gave Commons 10K high-res classical images it would be easy to find pics there to match many categories. My first instinct was to nominate two of my favourite paintings ever, Circe Invidiosa and Magic Circle by Waterhouse. But I'll resist, although that said I'll try to create and upload new versions anyway as I see now the ones already on Commons are extremely poor—you can't see the spirits in the smoke at all in the Magic Circle—and I have very good quality full size reproductions to hand, just no scanner big enough. ~ Veledan • T 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a big original, you can get good repro from a half-decent digital camera and a couple of lights. Let me know if you're keen enough and need any advice setting it up. mikaultalk 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I instead nominated my favourite Aerogel picture - science is magic in itself, sometimes =) Adam Cuerden talk 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just For Fun: FPC Scavenger Hunt

message: Well if you looked up in the previous section you'll see that again I've found people claiming that my images are theirs. This is extremely discouraging ... and well shocking for altruistic photographers. I think this is as good a time as any to see what interest there is from FPC regulars to introduce a stricter NC license for photos uploaded to wikipedia. After we get a little interest here we can take it over to the powers that be. --Fir0002 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd happily support additional license options. I might still license under GFDL, but as far as I am concerned, the more options the better. Debivort 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NC is not going to happen. It has been discussed numerous times (on the mailinglists at least). check this out :-). --Dschwen 22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If somebody wants to steal somebody picture, the change in licence will not prevent them from doing this. Please notice publishing other people pictures under your name is not supported by Wikipedia licence, but I believe there always would be somebody, who will do it no matter what licence the image has.--Mbz1 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can dual license under GFDL and cc-by-(sa)-nc. The GFDL requires a copy of the license to be published with the photo (see the image Dschwen links to). Commons licensing policy allows this arrangement as "[y]ou can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use.". That's probably as close as you can get to true non-com. MER-C 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, you'll still have this problem. MER-C 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is also the problem that not all commons admins understand that policy.  On more than one occasion images dual licensed GFDL/CC-BY-NC have been deleted as non-commercial by admins who didn't understand their own policies.  76.225.157.167 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I feel quite strongly that Wikipedia should give contributors the option to only allow usage for non com (educational etc) purposes - it is after all an encyclopedia and not a stock site (as I've said elsewhere). No one would care if Wikimedia used them - that's a pretty lame excuse to retain commercial licenses if you ask me. I think the best way will be to contact a few contributors who I think the same on this issue and then take it somewhere - but where? --Fir0002 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree, I even got in trouble on commons because I specified my attribution had to be 50% of the picture. Anyway, GFDL is pretty good as an NC license, Fir. I mean, if someone wants to print an educational book then they stick the three page license in the begining and thats fine but for advertising, the license is huge. It would be tough for and advertising firm to hide the entire license on valuable magazine space. I doubt that the wikimedia foundation would suddenly split from their policy of total GFDL compatablity. As to what those people on flickr are doing... they are simpily whores. I find it hard to shake a feeling of hate for people who steel donations. That said, I'm not sure how much a NC license would discourage them. Hell, they break GFDL why no CC -by- NC. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia NC License 

message: Attention everyone!!
Well I've got some rather disturbing news - acting on finding the abuse of my hoverflies image I searched from my crepuscular ray sunset image (which if you remember got misused not long ago) and sure enough I got  on the first page of the search. Turns out this guy has been mass uploading  WP:FP's. I would like to urge everyone to try a few searches on flickr to check for image abuse and report it . I'd appreciate info from anyone regarding abuse of my images too. I'm off to do some more searches... --Fir0002 06:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you contact flickr users? I'd start with assuming good faith, at least he doesn't claim he shot the pics (credits to WPI, whatever that means). My guess is this guy is just not clear about the licensing terms. Well there is a german saying: If you can read you have a clear advantage... ;-) --Dschwen 07:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with a flickr account can send messages using the link below the user's profile. He does seem to attempt to credit Wikipedia, unlike many others, so I'm certainly willing to believe he'll respond to a simple message. I could send him one, but I'm not confident in my ability to strike the right balance between polite and firm. I'm sure many of you out there can do a better job than I would. Raven4x4x 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This type of thing happens constantly on the Internet, it's mostly harmless but has the potential to be a serious violation of author rights, especially when users here so, altruistically, as Fir put it, donate their images under the guise that they will only be reused a certain way. Let's face it, if you license an image under GFDL it is highly unlikely that it will be reused commercially because of the license requirements, but outright theft is always going to be a problem. In the case of a Flickr user, I doubt they aim to make any profit off it (though possible I suppose), our major concerns should be focused on when high profile images are used by companies and other commercial or governmental enterprises to make a profit or further an agenda without proper attribution and/or licensing. This, in my opinion, is a much bigger concern when compared to the illegal use of an image by some random copyright violator on Flickr who is probably just showing his images to some friends and lying about where he has been and what he has seen. My two cents. IvoShandor 08:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even major companies do use these images without concern for licencing requirements. My images have been used by event organisers here in London, Apple Inc, the University of London, and numerous other smaller companies, and thats just in the last 6 months. Obviously if I had only uploaded them to stock photography libraries then they would be far better protected, but thats not the point, I suppose. Perhaps I need to be extremely clear in the image description just what the terms of the licence are. When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, my commercial interests were limited, but as I have started to make some money on the side, I have become slightly more millitant about my photos being used for profit without my permission. Of course I will still gladly contribute them for non-profit but this is seemingly at odds with Wiki policy... Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously-- they're violating your license by using your image without crediting you.  (I am changing law firms at the moment but I will send you updated contact information after I move so that if you want me to take action on your behalf, I can do so.)  Spikebrennan 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diliff: That's the big issue, I agree. No amount of licensing will deter or even stop outright theft (I think someone brought this up). If someone is willing to violate copyright (commercial or not) there is little that can be done to stop them if you don't know about it. IvoShandor 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably also help if WP and Commons were clearer about what image use policy was, maybe in the licensing template because I think a lot of people see "free" and assume there is no copyright.IvoShandor 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The same image, this time on youtube:  Mgiganteus1 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG TheHill88 stole your pic!! She's probably the most famous Aussie on Youtube. At least you'd have the advantage of living in the same country as her so you can track her down. And she's kinda hot too. :-) Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diliff, did you let your younger brother hack your account... This is the most exited I've heard you. you were down right subdued when Apple stole your Colosseum "pic" : ). And I thought you were too classy for Youtube, I dont feel so guilty for surfing it anymore. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: DMCA is a law of the United States, so it doesn't really apply to an Australian (like Fir0002) complaining about the conduct of another Australian.  But I would assume that Australian copyright law is in broad terms similar to U.S. law.  My general suggestion when you're dealing with an infringer who is an individual (as opposed to, say, a corporation) is to send the infringer an email that explains who you are, explains that you are the photographer and that you uploaded the photo under a license that requires that use of the photo be attributed, and requests them to comply or remove the photo.  This is not legal advice.  Spikebrennan 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr Image Abuse 

message: - seems to have one of Aka's lightning shots as well; probably worth going through his collection  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fir0002 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same image, this time on youtube:  Mgiganteus1 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG TheHill88 stole your pic!! She's probably the most famous Aussie on Youtube. At least you'd have the advantage of living in the same country as her so you can track her down. And she's kinda hot too. :-) Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diliff, did you let your younger brother hack your account... This is the most exited I've heard you. you were down right subdued when Apple stole your Colosseum "pic" : ). And I thought you were too classy for Youtube, I dont feel so guilty for surfing it anymore. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: DMCA is a law of the United States, so it doesn't really apply to an Australian (like Fir0002) complaining about the conduct of another Australian.  But I would assume that Australian copyright law is in broad terms similar to U.S. law.  My general suggestion when you're dealing with an infringer who is an individual (as opposed to, say, a corporation) is to send the infringer an email that explains who you are, explains that you are the photographer and that you uploaded the photo under a license that requires that use of the photo be attributed, and requests them to comply or remove the photo.  This is not legal advice.  Spikebrennan 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse List (please add)

message: The nom of the engraving of the Kingston Fire is no longer in the queue, even though that nom doesn't seem to have been adminned.  Should it be brought back in, or adminned as is?  Spikebrennan 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed it. MER-C 03:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nom removed even though it wasn't adminned

message: Hello everyone, what are your thoughts on a 'WikiProject Featured pictures'? I have designed a project page for fun, see here. It sounds like a good idea to me; it could be similar in some respects to WikiProject Good articles where we have a greater coordination of featured picture candidates and so forth. If feedback is positive, I might just move it to mainspace (I don't think there would be any need to make a proposal) and we'll take it from there. Thoughts? -- Chris B • talk • contribs 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a really good idea to me. In fact, I think it is part of a larger and pressing need to better guide and organize the pictures on wikipedia. In so many articles people have uploaded and put into articles pictures that may be of their pet hamster or rabbit. There are many people that attempt to keep these pictures in the articles for an ego trip or a tribute to "fluffy" or whatever. This may fall under wiki project photography (which seems to be inactive) but we should really make an effort to stardardize the pictures of given subjects... Flowers would be an example. Having a "photo info box" so to speak, would be awesome . Maybe with an overall shot, a shot of the flower, of the stalk, of the leaves, all in a standard format. I'd personally like to see animal shots of that animal in the wild and relegate cage shots to related sections of the articles. Actually, I have sort of an ambition to create photo field guides for flowers, insects, fish, whatever... where people could browse through a catagory like snakes based on color, marking patters, etc. I think this would benefit the encyclopedia for a lot of people. I may be alone in wanting to see improvement for the general level of pictures and if so let me know : ). Id like to hear others ideas... -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that I'll have some slaves to carry out the closing procedure for me?  On a more serious note, will this project line up the main page POTDs? And will we have a scout group sifting through here and commons for feature worthy pictures? MER-C 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured sounds needs some attention, too. I suppose the proposed project could help with that as well. MER-C 09:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project's scope is up to the community really. The obvious one is maintaining Featured picture candidates, although closing noms and sorting PODs would be perfect too. I don't think many people are aware that anyone can close a nom; I only learnt that   recently! Featured sounds maintenance and coordination is also an idea worth considering. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Infusing project photography with more life seems like a better idea than to start a new project.  Above on this page you can read people upset with the technical specifications and critical feedback for featured pictures, and I think that's because FP is about the best we've got as a supportive community for photographers.  Guess what: FP is not a supportive community for photographers, and I can't image a wikiproject FP being supportive, either.  Nothing that's trying to identify the very best of anything is every going to be supportive.  What photographers need is advice in a context other than "does it meet x criteria" and instead in a context of "what would work best for the article?" and "what equipment do you have?" Enuja  (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this new WikiProject is entirely unnecessary.  I would much rather see more energy invested in the existing WikiProject Photography.  It is disappointing to see a proposed WP with a much more polished page than an existing one with a much larger scope.  Rather than a project focusing on giving out awards for pictures, why not focus on improving ALL photos on Wikipedia?  Cacophony 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made a small start on the page, by way of offsetting a complete lack of effort in the coming weeks, as I'll be on a long-ish wikibreak. Happy birthday, Fcb :o) mikaultalk 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to hear people's views. I think I agree with reinstating WikiProject Photography, and possibly even widening its scope. I hadn't realised the project was in such poor shape. Maintaining all of Wikipedia's images as opposed to just FPs is the more logical of idea. I'll gladly help revolutionize the project's pages too. (and happy birthday Fcb981!) -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Chris.B/WikiProject Featured Pictures|WikiProject Featured pictures]] 

message: I had a little free time, with the borked Twinkle putting an end to my usual vandalism patrol, so I decided to check out how many nominations never made it to the front page. So what I did was compared Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ with everything in the archives and this was what I got:
349 unlisted(?) noms
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abbey of Senanque (delist nomination)
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Air Force One over Mount Rushmore (delist)
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/AlexanderBraun
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Almendres Cromlech
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Burying Beetle delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American White Ibis delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Another Chick
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Antarctic Iceberg
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arghe Bam
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arirang
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ascend
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atlantis Shuttle in Transit
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Augusto Pinochet after Junta
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Avalon, California
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Baby goats
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Balboa Pier
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BalboaPier
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bar in Zanzibar
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beach with gentle surf
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Berkeley Campanile
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bhaktapur
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blank map of India
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue screen of death
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Boeing777 Crossing Road
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bonfire
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bridge
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buddhabrot delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buddhabrot-Delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BurjDubai
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Calvin Johnson (football player)
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canada Place
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Candle burning
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cannonville aerial view
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Card trick
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caribbean flamingo
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carterandsadat
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cartoon horse
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Casting tins oldiers
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cathedral of Magdeburg
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Catherine de Medici
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cement truck listed
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Champs elysees delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Che Guevara Statue
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chief police officer in Hamburg, Germany
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cicada illinois summer of 2007
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CIMG0182 edited.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cimiez Monastery
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coal Tower, Erie Railroad
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common clownfish
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cornell University
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crater Lake, Oregon
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular ray sunset
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/D-Day at Omaha Beach
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DNA Overview
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dolmen Roch-Feutet
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Douglas DC-8-71 Freighter
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dragonfly Eye Delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DrugCart
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DSCF1472.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ducks in Sinaloa, Mexico
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eagle Owl
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Earth visible from moon
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/EIAJ Connector
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel Tower at Sunrise
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elk Fire
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/emperor gum moth
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Emperor Penguins
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Endangered Pimelea spicata/1024px
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Epicyclic gear ratios
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Epicyclic gear ratios delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eskimodog
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/European Parliament delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fall Trees
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fawn in Forest delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Federal Lands in Southern Nevada (Delist Nomination)
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fennec
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fiji
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flaming cocktails/medium
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flower Beatle
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flower Chafer
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forest Fire
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fort Jefferson delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fort Snelling Round Tower
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GAU-8 Avenger
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/genitalia
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Geyser exploding
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glass-Ball.jpg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gold Coast
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden Medows
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden Statue
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GoldenGateBridge
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden Statue
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Canyon Smoke
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Granny Smith Apples
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Great Gallery
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greek Cat
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Habanero delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Han Civilisation Delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hansom Cab delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hellcat crash landing
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HermitCrab
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hezegovina
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hibiscus stigma anther
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High-cemetry-circle delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Honolulu
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horse Shoe Canyon pictograph
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HorseAndPlough delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horseshoe crab
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hot Air Balloons
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human Hand
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hyperion
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:8 - AmStar 7.JPG listed
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Antarctica satellite globe.jpg delist
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:DSC00996.JPG
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Emperor penguins.jpg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fogbow Glory Spectre Bridge.JPG
*
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ireland-High-Cross.jpg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:IronInRocksMakeRiverRed.jpg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Junkers J1.JPG listed
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kiritimati-EO.jpg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lake Fryxell delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:London Eye panorama.jpg delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mmspaceshipearth.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station.jpg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Parliament3-big.jpg delist
*
*
*
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sheep Rock and Rainbow
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Space Shuttle Columbia launching delist
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:STmaximin-Solitude.jpg delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tajfromriver1860bourne2.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:The hills.JPG
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Twilight wilderness big.jpeg delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley NP.JPG delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Zermatt and Matterhorn.jpg delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IMG 2533
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/In the Hollow of a Wave off the Coast at Kanagawa
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/India-locator-map-blank
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian Parliament House
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indonesian bull
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ivymike
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jabob's Ladder Panorama
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jersey Wooly Rabbit
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/JetSetWilly
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Juche Tower
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/keskin
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kimi Räikkönen
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kings Creek (Lassen Volcanic National Park)
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kiritimati-EO.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Korea gyeongbokgung delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Laba tube delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Large Helical Device
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lauberhorn
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lava Cascade
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/LCD Delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lemurs
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln statue
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Liverpool Metropolitan roof and stained glass window
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/LondonEyeInNight
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/mad scientist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male genital infection of HSV-2
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrot set
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marchetti.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/marine vietnam
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/McCoy Stadium
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Melbourne panaroma
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milford Sound
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milky Way
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milky Way galaxy
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milopengtibet2 delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/monopoly
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Moorea baie cook
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Rushmore
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mr. Eko
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mt hotham summer scenery tilt
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mt. Rainier
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mt. Whitney sunnit Panorama 9-11-06
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mtcook
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mummy
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon's Invasion of Russia
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Gallery, London
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/newlibaryatlincolnuniversity
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nice at Night delist
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre dame basillica delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NYC Skyline
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NYPDpatrol
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Onsen
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Opening of the first parliament
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Osiris planet
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pangong Lake
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panorama mountain village summit
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Paris from Notre Dame
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pearl Harbor
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Persepolis
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Persepolis,Iran
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PetronasTowers
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Phenotyic variation
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pitstone-windmill delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk1
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Prayer Flag delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyramid of 35 Spheres
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Radcliffe Camera 2003 delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rainforest walk delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red fox with prey delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Sky at Night
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Redbud blooms
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Reliant Superdome
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/RibBoat
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/River Visual approach
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/RMS Titanic's Grand Staircase
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rogue River Oregon USA delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rongbuk Monastery
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saasaan
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sainte Jeanne d'Arc Church
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Cauldron Park
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco Baker Beach
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sand sculpture02
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Santa Monica sunset.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scotland Yard delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/seoul
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shkodra castle
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shuffle delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SilverFalls SouthFall
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SILVERSTARSUMMIT.JPG
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sky High in Alp D'Huez
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sliven
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snowberry Moth
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soda Bubbles Macro Delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Shuttle Atlantis in Transit
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Shuttle Columbia launching delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Suit
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SpaceColony
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spheres
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spot fetcher
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stars4Peace
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Strata Center delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Street Art
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Strix-varia
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset Images by Samoano
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset Mirage
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sydney Lightning Strike
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tairona Pendant
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tamar and Brunel Bridges delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tawaret
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Test
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The First Step
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Happy Land - Illustrated London News, March 22, 1873
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TheFrog
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Thunder Cloud
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tiger
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/tiger
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tiger shark teeth
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/towerofhanoi
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tree of Life
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tulum
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tweed valley
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/UK Roundabout delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Union Station at Dusk
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/University of California
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upgrading the International Space Station
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vancouver Skybridge
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Veduta
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Very Large Array
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/viking
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Voyager 1
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wakizashi Delist
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Warped galaxy
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/West Coast New Zealand
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White-threoadted kingfisher
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oakland at night
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oaklandatnight02192006.JPG
*
*
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/wolfspider
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World Trade Center after 9/11
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yoda duelling
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates\Geitoneura klugii
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates\Tarantula
So what needs to be done? 
*Bad titles (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates\Tarantula) should be corrected
*Delisting noms moved so that they have the prefix delist (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/example)
*Make sure anything already closed is listed in the archives.
*List anything that hasn't been closed, after completing the nomination (if incomplete).
I'd say this would be a worthy task for a FPC bot. MER-C 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I could do some of this manually. Why don't we strike the lines when we finish? NauticaShades 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to keep us busy for a little while 

message: I made the this template to notifiy commons-only users when their pictures have been promoted on Wikipedia. A good idea? NauticaShades 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: probably should say has been promoted on the English Wikipedia or something so they know without having to check the links but other than that I like it. Cat-five - talk 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons FP Promotion

message: First of all I want to say thanks to MER-C for the great work he's doing closing the FPCs. A couple of questions that I thought worth bringing to general discussion though, the first one here.
While most candidates are either closed as Promoted or Not Promoted, the odd candidate is getting closed as No consensus. Refer to "Kasa de la Muntanya", Barcelona and Diet Coke and Mentos Geyser as two recent examples. 
Now let me first say I didn't vote on either of these, so have no vested interest either way. Going on the votes I feel that the Diet Coke one should have been promoted, the other one probably not. But that's not really the issue. 
My question is this. To me No consensus is a no-man's-land closure. I personally feel the image should be either promoted or not; if it's really unclear then perhaps it could go back up for renomination to hopefully get a clear call. How do others feel about this? Any opinions any which way? --jjron 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some noms that are too close to call (I'd say the range is about 60%-70% in favour for this to happen). As such, its a note to the nominator to try again later, as in a few months time. MER-C 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't realise you left a note to renominate later. I wonder, does this ever happen? And if perhaps we would get a more immediate response by renominating immediately with a note that no consensus was reached in last week's nom and a link to the no consensus nom? People could of course then vote again on the renom even if they voted the first time - some may even reconsider and change their vote. Of course you could end up a week later with the same result, but lengthy discussions over some issues that deter some voters would probably be cut on the renom, and some people that didn't vote the first time would probably come in to try to settle things. I just feel a bit cheated by the 'no consensus' candidates, as effectively it's really a 'not promoted' anyway. --jjron 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPC 'No Consensus' 

message: What do you guys think about having an equivalent of the  template for FPC nominations to put in the caption area? NauticaShades 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not in my opinion.  is already a hideous template and one too many. A theoretical  for FP candidates would simply disrupt readers from the topic in hand. Plus, it would be another self-reference. I've probably been a bit blunt there, but that's just my opinion; others may disagree. :) -- Chris B • talk • contribs 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware of the self-reference issue, which was why I was creating a discussion about it. NauticaShades 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Chris B - I think traffic to the FPC page is high enough. Debivort 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ifdc}} 

message: I wrote a little section on FPC at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Have I missed anything? MER-C 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments to avoid in FPC discussions 

message: This page needs a section for nominations that are designed to replace an ageing FP with one of superior quality. At the moment, we're (a) diverting people's energy by having separate motions for approving the new and demoting the old, and the current mechanism also leads (b) some discussions to stall on the basis of concerns along the lines of "but then if that other one doesn't get promoted/demoted, what are (*in the world*) we going to do?"
That's not helpful. So, yeah, we need that new section to be there. Straight substitution. One. For the other.
Separa 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution nominations 

message: So does anyone know why today's mainpage FP Gibraltar Barbary Macaque shows no File links to its FPC nom or the archives? It evidently was nominated here, but until I went hunting for the nom (which I can't remember ever seeing) I was thinking it was a fake. --jjron 07:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Looks fine to me. MER-C 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the the word identified in ...members of the community have identified it... it takes you to the nom, just like all other FPs. -- Chris B • talk 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking in the file links at the bottom, but they're there now. Hmmm, strange. Don't know what was going on yesterday. BTW thanks for the info re 'identified', I'd never realised that took you to the nom (that could have saved me some time :-)). --jjron 09:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Mainpage FP 

message: Can someone point out where it says a user must be registered for their "vote" to count? Isn't it inappropriate to strike another's comment, even if they are an anon? IvoShandor 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the header: "Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded". I am more than happy to pretend they don't exist, but the comments may be relevant to the discussion. MER-C 09:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one I saw wasn't but I was just curious, thanks, not sure how I missed that! IvoShandor 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just wondering

message: Something appears to be wrong with this promotion. Not only the promoted picture had only 3 support votes (and 2 oppose) but also it stayed in the FPC page for less than 6 days - Alvesgaspar 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply here. MER-C 05:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own insight from back when I was closing noms. As per various discussions and developing tradition the way a nom with multiple version is closed basically goes like this. All the supports regardless of the version preference are counted (also if someone for example votes: Oppose Original, Support Edit 1 it is counted as a support) and then all the opposes regardless of version (unless a vote is specified in favour of an edit). Then using the following values: Weak Support = 0.5, Support = 1, Weak Oppose = -1, Oppose = -2, add all the votes together and if it's greater than 0 (it's got a 2/3 supermajority) it's a promotion (of course there are other factors which can come in play based on the closer's discretion). Then it's just a matter of finding which version was most popular (this is where you take into account the opposes in votes such as "Oppose Original. Support Edit 1"). So in summary treehopper nom was closed correctly --Fir0002 06:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Two-lined gum treehopper02.jpg]] 

message: I came accross this images which appers to be featured but doersn't have the FP tag on it or a link to the discussion. I know it was selected to be featured here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2006#Incandescence, but was it delisted at a later date? --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's still featured. What happened was that someone vandalized the image description page, replacing the featured and POTD tags, and then the page got deleted for being vandalism. I restored the partial history and the tags are all back now. howcheng  {chat} 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah got it. Complicated stuff :) Thanks for clearing it up. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 16:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this still featured? 

message: I'm going to avoid naming nominations or names so I don't fall afoul of WP:NPA but the opposes over a couple pixels in size is getting absolutely ridiculous, to the point of being anal-retentive even.  I'd suggest not eliminating but somehow toning down the size requirement/suggestion (depending on your point of view) text if nothing else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat-five (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 October 2007
: Naming a nom wouldn't be a personal attack. Without that I don't have any idea what opposes you mean. Of all the noms on the current page, only the fox one has size issues, and that has greater problems. Debivort 07:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridiculous 

message: I'd like to suggest making Template:FormerFeaturedPicture smaller and less dominant. For the same reason we don't use a template to mark failed FPC's, we shouldn't tag former featured pictures with a black eye forever. The idea of having the little star with a wing knocked off is clever, but unfortunate. Removing the little star icon from the template would probably solve most of the problem, and making the text shorter would help too. Comments? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. --MichaelMaggs 05:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think simply placing it in a category is sufficient for marking it and finding all of them later. The visual portions of the template to me seems of little value in itself.  1 != 2 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the star image and trimmed the text of the template, but did not remove the template. I'd be OK with deleting it entirely, but having a small template might be good to go along with the POTD tag. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:FormerFeaturedPicture]] 

message: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates why don't use  and   templates as Commons?--Beyond silence 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FPC is less about voting than consensus building. The icons give the discussion a very vote-tabulating feel and are less appropriate here. Some frequent FP contributors use them though... de Bivort 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed a myriad of times. Using templates for voting stifles discussion and further encourages places like XfD to degrade into simple polls. Plus, transclusion, server load, blah blah blah. -- Chris B • talk 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: okay. --Beyond silence 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote templates  

message: Hello All - I'm heading to Iceland in November, and want to be well equipped to photograph it. Currently I only have a 105mm Sigma macro lens - so I need a different lens for taking pictures of glaciers, fjords, aurarae etc. Variable zoom is a requirement. I have a Canon 20D. Any suggestions? de Bivort 22:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS would be a good choice, unfortunately it wont give you any more telephoto reach. The Canon 17-85mm IS would be very nice but with probably slightly less optical quality than the 24-105, the Image Stabilization is nice though. If you have the bankroll, also get the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and 1.7 teleconverter (Giving you a 119-340mm at f/4.7. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting... Based on some quick reading, I'd lean toward the 24-105, since it seems a bit more portable and I try to travel light. de Bivort 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that 24mm on a 20D won't give you much of a wide angle view. 38mm to be precise. I would have thought that you might want a little more than that. The 24-105mm f/4L IS is perfect on a full frame camera like my 5D though, except that it is somewhat soft (not overly so though, I'm just picky) and vignettes wide open. Its my walkaround lens when I can't/won't carry my arsenal of lenses. Its not my best lens but it is certainly my most used lens. I would recommend it but reservedly on a 1.6x crop factor camera, because of the lack of wide angle. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diliff - Does an obvious alternative come to mind? de Bivort 09:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't shoot Canon but I've heard good things about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens which  should suit you fine (roughly 28-85 equiv) as an always-on optic, plus it's nice and fast at fixed f2.8. I have the equivalent Nikon and find it ideal for almost everything, although I sometimes (rarely) resort to cropping when I've been out without a longer lens. Take your macro and you'll want for nothing. --mikaultalk 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't personally used that lens but I've also heard good things about it. Its probably the closest lens to the 24-105mm for 1.6x crop though, only with f/2.8 and slightly less reach. Would be absolutely ideal for indoor handheld shots. Have a look at the lens reviews here. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lens advice (a bit off topic) 

message: The TOC ended up right before the current candidates section. I don't want to screw anything up, so I won't try to fix it. NyyDave 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Contents moved

message: It's likely that sometime within the next few months, an image will become the one thousandth Wikipedia:Featured Picture.  My guess is that the subject matter of the image will be ... a bug. Spikebrennan 05:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have a pool, it'd better close by the end of the month. I foresee hitting the milestone in early December, it could be earlier if we churn out those pictures quicker. Just make sure it happens before I go on holiday around Christmas time. MER-C 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Picture 1000

message: Voters/editors may wish to re-check out the nom for the Eastern Newt picture here. The nom was passed for an edited version of the picture, but the creator has since added a note regarding the "fix". It looks to me like his note was added after closing and so might have been missed. We may want to re-open the nom and/or switch back to the originally nominated version. Given his comments, I think the original probably should have been left "as is".  Not sure if this is worth a delist/renom, etc. Matt Deres 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator says "I'll probably go back to the original file and upload an update to Commons that goes about half-way in the correction at some point." Perhaps we should put this up for delist based on his own information, and then it can be renominated if/when his own 'corrected' version is uploaded. I think it's pretty clear that the original version wasn't going to pass the nom. --jjron 14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be, but I think the major issue was that people thought the colour was 'off'. I missed the nom, but if it was explained that that the colour was in fact accurate, I'd at least re-think my position.  Matt Deres 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that now even the creator is saying the original colour was off, so it's not just that people 'thought' it. The thing is that he's also saying that the edit's colour is off, which means they're both wrong and probably shouldn't be featured. Knowing that, I'd change my vote (I did support it) and await the new version. --jjron 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about the colour being off. The shot was flash lit with AWB set on a Canon 10D; the likelihood of a WB problem is slim to none. The strong (almost memetic) suggestion of a problem which developed in the FPC nomination is what shifted credibility away from the original capture data towards the completely subjective idea of neutral WB in the minds of a handful of FPC reviewers - and retouchers. This is actually a fairly rare example of WP:NOR getting into an image-based contributon. Maybe it should be renominated, or maybe we should just improve the original according to some more objective  criteria (have you seen the colour of these?). I'm interested in general in what we should do in the event that we need to "tweak" FPs: overwrite the FP version? Or delist/renominate, which (it seems to me) would be a promotion "done deal" in 90% of cases. I have to say, the ruddy newt looks like one of the 10%, but I'd still like to hear peoples' thoughts. --mikaultalk 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This whole nomination became so absurd I didn't even want to comment on it anymore. How can someone who was not present when the picture was shot and has no expertise on the depicted animal assert a whitebalance problem and dare to upload a presumably corrected version?! Sorry, but that's worse than OR, it is Original Guesswork... --Dschwen 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, in all fairness, the picture certainly looks as if it had a severe red tint. But please, discuss any WB issues first before creating an edit. --Dschwen 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah good idea - actually take a look at the photo rather than just shoot your mouth off. The point of an edit is for discussion - how much easier is it to show the improvement than discuss it? The image clearly has a white balance problem as can be seen from the histograms. Both the blue histogram and the green green histogram show that there is very little blues and greens. But what is most telling is the red histogram which shows by the spikes that white areas are tinted with red, and that the red channel is overblown - take a look at the red channel for a better idea. I've also included a version of the red channel which has had reds desaturated by about 50% showing heaps more detail coming through. Clearly there is a problem with the reds in this image. --Fir0002 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see the original nom but the original looks heavily red shifted. The blown red is also telling. What is more, is that in the edit, the rocks are a realistic color. I see that it was 'flash fired' and AWB but is it possible that the flash was gelled or that the photographer attempted to bounce the flash off his (presumably red) hand or something? : / -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fir, I see what you mean, but the red histogram doesn't show a white balance problem, it just shows that the red channel has been clipped, presumably due to the bright red spots on the beastie's back being out of the sRGB colour gamut. It's a common enough thing in nature where the aposematism is so intense that the colour quite possibly ranges outside even human perception. Interesting that the same clipping can be seen with the red on the FP of a dragonfly which appears at the aposematism article. </br>You often get that other effect with images with one very dominant colour, where desaturating (or further clipping) that colour reveals colours and even detail not present in the original shot. The interesting colours and details that came out in your edit were never there in the original, but that doesn't mean they should have been there. The best way of finding out what was there is by reference to the species and by listening to the guy who took the shot. BTW, Fcb, they're not rocks – apparently it was on a tree, and that's Loblolly Pine bark in the background. --mikaultalk 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you look at the red channel image it shows that it's not just the beastie's spots or back but the needles etc which are blown. The extra detail in the desaturation comes through from the green and blue channels. Also FWIW this is an image of a Loblolly Pine bark and as you can see it's not red at all but a neutral grey. --Fir0002 05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The histogram shows nothing about any specific object, it just describes the red curve response to the scene in general. Lobolly pine bark is grey alright, but like any fallen pine, damage to the bark will most likely reveal the very much redder underside, which is visible even on unfelled trees. Look, I'm really not averse to a colour correction here: when you consider that AWB isn't foolproof by any means (a proper manual white balance is much more colour-faithful) and even with a flash (which I have to say, doesn't seem to have lit very much) it's quite possible that the camera freaked out a bit with all this red about. However, simply deciding the bark is neutral grey isn't the way to objective colour here. I suggest we take this to the image talk page and properly interrogate the photographer, as a fisrt step to renominating. --mikaultalk 09:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh - I was talking about the red channel not the histogram just then. This does reveal plenty about specific objects - check out the pine needles and the bark etc. But whatever - I'm going to have to leave it to you guys to work out, I've allowed myself to become to distracted by this as it is. --Fir0002 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the problem right there: substituting green and blue channel data for lost red channel data will produce a more colour-detailed image of entirely the wrong hue. It will look a lot more balanced in terms of colour – there's a nice range of blues, green and reds – but that wouldn't be a desirable quality in a shot of a blue kite against a clear sky, for example.</br>But there's a more important point here: colours can "blow" if they're over-processed (which is almost always a bad thing) or they can simply lie outside of the colour gamut being used, which will produce a similarly incomplete histogram but be totally acceptable for viewing purposes. The eastern newt FP, like the dragonfly FP I cited earlier on, has colours on its body which lie outside the sRGB colour gamut. The fact that these blow the reds out in no way invalidates the colour rendering of the rest of the photograph. --mikaultalk 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, out of gamut color won't show up as clipping on a histogram. Color space has nothing to do with luminosity, i thought. CRT monitors, based on technical limitations, cannot display as wide a gamut of color as a CMYK print, for example, but the dynamic range of both can represent anything that a camera can produce. So I think what we are talking about is dynamic range and not color space. Anyway, the red photosites on digital cameras generally have a ~1/8 stop smaller dynamic range then either the red or green pixels, so they have a tendency to blow sooner. I don't thinks thats what we are seeing here. I probably don't need to tell you that the farther a color channel is pushed right, the more the image will take that hue. As you said, a blue kite on a blue background would have a nice big blue hump. Heres the catch, in a properly corrected image, the arcs of the histogram should come together in the highlights. The light coming off natural highlights (those caused by the sun, or a flash) should be white, producing equal output in all channels. This histogram does not look like that. To me this is an obvious case of mis bounced flash or malfunctioning AWB, regardless the image was too red. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know where you guys are getting this stuff... if a colour of whatever brightness doesn't fit into your colour space, the histogram will show you that. Prove it to yourself by switching colour space: open a colourful image in pshop, say in sRGB, make sure your histogram is visible and go Image>Mode>Convert to profile... and convert to "KODAK SWOP coated Newsprint" (or any CMYK newsprint, which gives you a very narrow gamut) See what happens to your histogram? It's clipped, because your colours are now way out of gamut. Just as a point of reference, CMYK (as used in newsprint) is  hell of a lot narrower a gamut than the RGB your monitor shows you, which is (in turn) quite a bit narrower than you can see with the naked eye (Some colours, wavelengths and what have you lie outside even this visible colour space, which is why we run into predictable problems photographically) So if your lovely dragonfly pic is going into the LA Times nature section, you can kiss byebye to the red you see on your monitor.. what else.. white highlights on a blue kite will be non-spectral, ie irrelevant as far as colour is concerned, so you'll get a spike in all channels but it won't mean anything colour-balance-wise. No matter what you've read wherever, objective colour is not to be found in a histogram. It's a device-independent measure based on some kind of independent colour standard, either present in the picture or metered before the picture was taken, like a grey card or other manual white balance setting. If this is completely absent from the picture, then the only reliable reference is the eye of the guy who shot it, or similar shots of the same thing, or.. anything, except some arbitrary digital equivalence. --mikaultalk 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-full-color histogram in CMYK is useless. Look at all the channels and then look at the black channel. The black channel obviously has no latitude, there are plenty of areas where there is no black. Also, CMYK is a subtractive color space. It is a whole different animal than RBG. The limitations of color gamets are not with dynamic range but with tonal reproduction. hue. Anyway, thats off topic, at 255,255,255 there are obviously equal levels in the RBG spectrum, but 254,254,254 should also be a given. If you know what I'm saying. There is a cirtin amount of knowlage that can be gained about WB from the histogram. Enough, in this case for me to think that there is a WB problem. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, all very interesting--sorry I had not gotten back on this until now. I like that edit2 version--it looks about right, but without the critter in hand it is very difficult to say. I think the first FP version was a little too cold on color balance, but that my original was a little too warm/red, as people have suggested based on the histograms. The whole scene is lit almost 100 percent with flash, incidentally, and the some of the freshly-exposed pine bark is reddish--it is not all a neutral gray. Likewise with the needles, they are a little bit reddish. (I usually find the Canon color balance is fine with flash without adjustment, and did not alter it here, but of course, things can go wrong.) At any rate, thanks for the compliments and the FP nomination. I've no experience with the FP process, so I'll leave it to you more experienced Wikipedians to do whatever you think is best. It is really no big deal--illustrating the article was my intent. Best wishes to all, and again, I like the , that looks about right based on my recollections. I feel, too, that color balance in a photograph is partly an aesthetic issue, and not just a technical one. To me, the edit2 version looks the "best". Thanks again, --Cotinis 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern newt FP

message: :Oh, all very interesting--sorry I had not gotten back on this until now. I like that edit2 version--it looks about right, but without the critter in hand it is very difficult to say. I think the first FP version was a little too cold on color balance, but that my original was a little too warm/red, as people have suggested based on the histograms. The whole scene is lit almost 100 percent with flash, incidentally, and the some of the freshly-exposed pine bark is reddish--it is not all a neutral gray. Likewise with the needles, they are a little bit reddish. (I usually find the Canon color balance is fine with flash without adjustment, and did not alter it here, but of course, things can go wrong.) At any rate, thanks for the compliments and the FP nomination. I've no experience with the FP process, so I'll leave it to you more experienced Wikipedians to do whatever you think is best. It is really no big deal--illustrating the article was my intent. Best wishes to all, and again, I like the , that looks about right based on my recollections. I feel, too, that color balance in a photograph is partly an aesthetic issue, and not just a technical one. To me, the edit2 version looks the "best". Thanks again, --Cotinis 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from the photographer 

message: Hello all - I hate to do this, but the Wikipe-tan delist nom was closed as a delist. We have a consensus that noms are only promoted when a consensus to promote is established - if no consensus appears there is no promotion. The guidelines for delist appear to parallel this: "If consensus = keep, yada yada" / "If consensus = delist, yada yada." No instructions are given in the case of no consensus - which was clearly the case with this delist nom. Why are we not keeping it listed, by default, as we would analogously do with a promotion nomination? I respect and value MER-C's closing so many noms for so long, but this one doesn't make sense to me. de Bivort 04:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason for the delisting nom was the very obvious aliasing. This argument was not addressed at all by the keep side, therefore we delist it. After all, they did ask for an appraisal of the picture on whether it met the criteria (especially re: technical aspects) and they got one. Not to mention the ballot stuffing - this is what we were looking at (the last comment at that version is also relevant) before this happened. MER-C 06:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think we ought to remove "Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support. " from the top of WP:FPC? de Bivort 06:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to. The key word here is generally, and this was an unusual case. MER-C 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ballot stuffing accusation falls flat on it's ass. MER-C, if you can't judge the rationales presented then you shouldn't be evaluating these situations. An svg version of the Wikipe-tan image is on it's way, and anyone can see that "irreparable" couldn't be more wrong. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned that's quite an affront, you come here out of no where and then try teach our most respected and experienced closer his business. How would you like it if MER-C suddenly turned up on Wikiproject:Anime or whatever and started throwing his weight around with no knowledge at all of the project etiquette, procedures, precedents etc? MER-C acting appropriately (and courageously) in closing that nom. The anti-aliasing was severe and no comments had been made prior to the closing of svg versions. Indeed the delist was just swamped with voters vehemently arguing against the self referencing issues but utterly ignoring the quality failings. The time of the nom was up (in fact a day over) and thus the result was a delist. Any new version with the anti-aliasing issues will need to go through FPC again. --Fir0002 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are hardly a neutral party in all of this. You've hated that image since the first FPC. Like I've said before, MER-C made this closing based on his judgement that the image was irreparable, a scapegoat for those who felt uncomfortable with the image's FP status. Any computer user with half a brain can tell you that such an image is completely vectorable, and finding someone with the ability to do so is not hard. It's arguable that the aliasing is even an issue (which is why it was promoted in the first place), and this whole thing just seems to be an excuse to push the image under a rug. Why on earth do we have a section that blatantly gives images a grace period for editing if it wasn't acceptable to just vector it in a few days? -- Ned Scott 05:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's a bit like the kettle calling the pot black because you're not exactly a neutral party are you? I'm not sure exactly how you've construed that I "hate" this image but whatever. The reason why the suspended nomination area was not used in this case is that MER-C had no way of knowing whether a vector version was on it's way because no one even bothered to address the quality issues let alone suggest that a new version was coming. 8 days was plenty of time to have mentioned it and if it had been it would have been moved to the suspended nomination area. However it was closed and that's the end of it. Please stop attacking users and calm down. When you have a vector version feel free to renominate but this delist is over. --Fir0002 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick note to let you know that I'm going back to study now and won't be commenting further (if at all) probably until tomorrow or later tonight - just so that you don't think I'm avoiding what you are saying or something --Fir0002 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will not be relisted for FPC, it will be speedy promoted as having already been granted community consensus (twice now). -- Ned Scott 05:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And saying the suspended nom wasn't used because he didn't know is total bullshit, because he knows now, and when I moved it to that section he reverted me again. Given not only the claim, but evidence to back it up (the past vector work which was excellent), there is no reason whatsoever to re-close the discussion, except other than to give a big "fuck you" to everyone else in the discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry ... but wikipetan closed as delist? 

message: :Image:Snow Scene at Shipka Pass 1.JPG is marked as featured, but it has issues which make me suspect it was not legitimately tagged as featured:
* The nomination discussions for the image on Wikipedia and on Commons are missing.
* The image does not look like an image that should be featured - it is almost completely blown out highlight.
* The image is not used as a primary image in any article, and doesn't really depict Shipka Pass at all, only snow covered trees.
--Ozhiker 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image possibly incorrectly labelled as featured status