Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 3

message: To make this less like a simple vote, and more like FAC, I propose that users be required to forego voting for a period of time (24-48 hrs?) after the image has been nominated.  Instead, users would leave comments about what is good/bad about the image, or what can be changed.  This would leave time for the submitter, or anyone else, to consider these comments and change the image accordingly (if possible), and prevent a simple pile-up of Oppose votes over something as simple as "image isn't cropped right". If such a situation happened currently (say, the image had 4 opposes for bad cropping), and the submitter fixed the cropping, the only thing he could do is hope that the original voters will visit the page and change their votes.  This new policy would make voting much clearer, and easier for the person tallying the final votes (no more "Why should I include votes that Oppose an image that has since been fixed?").  --brian0918™ 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to policy

message: Well here's a milestone. In case you hadn't noticed, Featured Pictures are making their debut on the Main Page today. There will probably be some bedding-in with adjustments to formatting and organisation, but its a start. You can find more discussion on the issues at Talk:Main_Page#Pic_Of_The_Day. -- Solipsist 08:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTD on Main Page 

message: As anyone who has tried it will know, promoting an FPC nomination can be quite involved and requires editing about half a dozen pages. To help a little, I've set up Template:CloseFPC to help with the formating of the wikicode for each page.
To use it, open the subpage for the nomination and add
:
to the bottom of the nomination and save the page.
The template takes four parameters
#the Image:filename
#a short description of the image (typically something like the name of the nomination
#a link to the main page where the image is used (if it is not mentioned in the nomination, it should be on the image description page)
#a link to the Userpage or source for the image credit
Then edit the nomination again, and you will see the template has expanded into the wikicode formated for each page that needs updating. You can cut each line and paste it into the appropriate page of Going's On, Featured Pictures etc.
Finally delete any remaining comment lines up to the  tag, add the voting tally and sign.
You still have to open the image page to change the  tag to a  tag.
It is still not trivial, but it helps. -- Solipsist 22:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing FPC template

message: Since the template  is used only on Talk pages, it is likely that the members of Template standardizationwill try to make this template match all the other Talk page templates that use the "Coffee Roll" formatting. If you do not think that should happen, you should join the debate at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation on the scope of the Template standardization project. BlankVerse ∅ 04:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template standardization? 

message: Hi, I thought since people here like voting for images, you may like to check out 
this. --Silversmith  Hewwo 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MIND 

message: Looking at the winning Featured Pictures, there are many spectacular images.  One thing that's often lacking in many images is a good caption.  Essential details, - like where the photo was taken, who took it, named features that are visible, or what the people in it are doing, were doing, or are about to do - are often missing.  I would encourage people to ask questions about featured picture candidates that would lead to better captioning.  It might also be interesting to make "good caption" one of the criteria for promotion. -- Beland 03:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about captions where the image appears in articles?   I wouldn't like to see those clogged up with what I would consider inessential details like who took the picture. Mark1 03:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect Beland is meaning there should be a complete description on the image description page. In which case, I would agree. Featured Pictures should work to make illustrations as good as possible. We don't have to go overboard. Its nice to see camera detail information, but I wouldn't require it. But the basic what, where and when should be there. Pictures of plants and animals should correctly identify the species if possible. Again some leeway should be allowed - I was taken by this featured picture on the Commons, which was easily identified as a Herring Gull, but had some uncertainty over the precise species. -- Solipsist 08:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page.  Thanks.--Pharos 04:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates]] 

message: Kurando-san has returned to archive Featured picture candidates.  The bot will be moving and updating the page for anything older than 2 days and anything older than 14 days.  Under no circumstances should the following two lines be removed from the Featured picture candidates:
* 
* 
The bot will screw up if that happens. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. -- Solipsist 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the bot stopped working again? Enochlau 12:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot restored! 

message: While voting for :Image:Red_Panda.JPG, User:Zanimum raised a good point:
:"Why don't things featured in the Commons become featured on each individual Wikipedia, automatically?"
So, uh, what's our answer? >_> Coffee 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, I've got a list of potential good pictures that I've spotted at random, but most need some work before they would be appropriate for nominating - finding the right article for them to illustrate, translating an article from the German Wiki and the like. I'm often slow at getting round to sorting them out, but a Peer Review section might get others to chip in, which would be good wiki. -- Solipsist 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The short no voting waiting period is supposed to act as a short peer review though. This link is Broken 04:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so, and it is a good idea, although it often seems to confuse people who want to vote immediately. What I would like to see is a busier place for image and illustration work where people can collaborate in a more Wiki way - something along the lines of  "I've got this, what can I do with it", or "this might be an FP, could someone help write an article". There is some incentive for people to write articles to go with possible FPs, since now POTD is gaining more attention, the article is likely to get some focus when picture gets highlighted. So ideally it would need to be a page that attracts article writers and translators as much photographers and illustrators. -- Solipsist 07:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons Featured Pictures 

message: hey,
I found a great picture on the commons that I would like to put in an article here and nominate for FPC.  Is there anything special i need to so i can link the picture here. --ZeWrestler  Talk 17:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. That's just of the sort of activity we like FPC to encourage. And to clarify, just use the same image name that you see on Commons as you would if it were already here. The image's virtual, stepping stone, description page will be automatically displayed with a link point back to its source on Commons. So effectively all images on Commons are immediately available under the same name on this and all other language Wikipedias. -- Solipsist 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access pictures from commons 

message: I just created Wikipedia:What is a featured picture. I felt the need to establish standards for FPs so that everyone understands what they are voting on. The picture doesn't just have to be pritty it also must contribute to an article. Comments are welcome and after some time passes and some revisions are made I'll remove the proposed template and link to it from this page. This link is Broken 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FP standards

message: Kurando-san warning!  Subpage  has no signed date. --Kurando-san 04:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lrotschildi.jpg]] 

message: Why do all the dates for comments on this picture say July? There is absolutely no way this has been around for two months (two days would be more like it). Also the first comment dates from before the nomination.  Has there been a bug or error? Raven4x4x 08:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the subpage has been around for two months.  (Check its history.)  It wasn't listed on FPC until yesterday, however. —Cryptic (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realise you could make a sub-page without appearing on FPC. How did that happen? I'd say that it shouldn't be listed as 'older than 14 days', as it has not appeared on the FPC page for 14 days or more. Is there any way to move it without the bot automatically putting it back? Raven4x4x 00:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cause is when someone forgets to transinclude the page on to WP:FPC. The bot automatically reads for the first signed date that is placed.  Sign a date before the original nomination, and you'll be fine. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alexandrine parakeet]] date 

message: Whenever a picture is promoted, there a so many pages to update! Especially since Wikipedia is not as fast nowadays, it takes quite a bit of time and patience. I was wondering what other people think about reducing the number of pages to add newly promoted images to. Enochlau 03:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. I've just cleared up a bit of the backlog that developed just now, and I did 11 non-promoted images in about the same time that 1 or 2 promoted images would have taken. Having said that I can't honestly think of a good solution. Raven4x4x 05:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot is in the works (or was in the works) to aid in promotion. You would have to tell it the category, author, description and what picture is promoted and it did the rest. I don't know how far along the bot is. In the past I reccomended that we stop using the FP thumb page in favor of the category but few supported that. Promoting articles is much faster because they don't have several galleries to add it to. My current line of thinking is that we could dump WP:FP in favor of FP visible. Who actually looks at the non-visible page? This link is Broken 15:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we could probably just do with one gallery - FP visible. FP thumbs appears completely useless, not sorted as it's supposed to be... Enochlau 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is this the appropriate forum to raise this issue? Or should we raise it elsewhere so things actually happen? Enochlau 11:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like the best place to hold this conversation. If you want to continue the discussion I'd reccomend asking some people who spend a lot of time in FP pages to comment here. Also you might want to anounce discussions on some community pages (if you intend to change the standard and get more input). I wouldn't however just do it as you might offend some people. Broken S 19:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll have a go at it soon. Enochlau 01:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How about a page that is set out the same as FP Thumbs (quicker to load etc) but ordered in the same manner as FP Visable? That would be the ideal solution to me. Raven4x4x 09:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean - have it categorised, but not having all categories on the same page as it is currently? If so that is a good idea. Enochlau 11:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion Procedures 

message: About how long should one wait before renominating an image demeed FPC worthy by a viewer, but failed on its first time through? TomStar81 07:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there's any policy on that - just not immediately afterwards I guess. However, it would be pointless unless the concerns previously raised had been rectified. Enochlau 10:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: several months seems good to me. Changes and a new rational would be good too. Broken S 14:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you're uploading the same image for the same reason (i.e. you just think the people who opposed were wrong), a respectful gap of a few months would be good to give time for a bit of churn amongst the voters, and so as not to annoy people by making them duplicate their comments.  I'd make an exception though for images that failed due to a specific fault that has been rectified, even if the rectified image was included in the failed nomination.  For example, if I uploaded a portrait with a bad artifact, and someone uploaded a good edit with the artifact removed a couple of days before voting ended, but not enough people who had opposed the first time came back and supported the new version, I might relist after a week or so with this explanation.  Provided you explain the specific reason behind the majority of opposes has been addressed, I don't think anyone would mind that would they? ~ Veledan • Talk + new 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FPC time question

message: I have removed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BurjDubai and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/genitalia from the page.  The former being unsourced at best and a copyvio at worst, and thus inelligable for canidacy, the latter was an IP nom with no logged in user willing to support it, it was also a nomination who's sole purpose was to be a violation of WP:POINT. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 21:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  two noms removed 

message: As this image was deleted, I've removed the sub-page and put it in the archive. Raven4x4x 11:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Berkelah falls]] 

message: I'm just throwing this out there to gauge the interest...but would anyone else be interested in a Featured Diagrams type of listing.  As you'd see from looking at the way I vote, I just can't stand diagams as featured pictures and thought this might be an idea for getting more diagrams featured.  I don't know...just an idea. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't mind either way. I personally don't have a problem with diagrams being featured pictures, but I can see the logic in a separate catagory for featuring them. However, I don't feel it's right for you to keep on opposing diagrams simply because they are diagrams. To oppose a diagram, no matter what the content, without even taking the content into consideration, doesn't seem fair on the nominator to me. Asking for comment on talk pages like this seems a better way of doing things.  Raven4x4x 09:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's kind of why I'm making the suggestion.  I feel bad ALWAYS voting no for them, but I truely don't feel diagrams should be featured pictures no matter how well they illustrate their subjects.  And please don't assume I oppose without taking the content into consideration because that couldn't be further from the truth. I simply don't think charts/diagrams are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, incredible, or in short just brilliant, that's why I vote no for them --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still from the way you worded the complaint suggestion above, if your going to vote no on the soul reason its a diagram, without having any other reason, then just save your time and don't vote. --ZeWrestler  Talk 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...that defeats the purpose of having a vote then.  That's like asking not to vote on something because you oppose something that someone else supports.  I'll vote no as long as I think it's not FP worthy. And to clarify, I'm not only voting no becasue its a diagram, I vote no for them because I don't believe they stand out as some of the finest imagery on wikipedia. None of the charts/diagrams that have been nominated to me stand out and as long as they don't, i'll have to stick to my guns.  I'm not saying there are absolutely NO interesting graphs out there, but to me they fall far short of the FP criteria. That's why I made the suggestion that there be a Featured Diagrams sort of index so they have their own area to shine. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Diagrams 

message: I've been promoting/not promoting a lot of images recently, but I honestly cannot decide whether Eiderstedt marshland should be promoted or not. It's right on the borderline; one more vote would have pushed it either way, but as it is I have no idea. I suppose if a more experienced user than myself makes a decision, that will help me next time a similar situation comes up. Raven4x4x 10:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would err on the side of going with not—the uploader has promised to get another version that would satisfy some conserns soon (related to size etc). We can reconsider it then. Perhaps when you place a note on his page, you can remind him about that? Regards encephalon 11:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiderstedt marshland|Eiderstedt marshland]], promote or not? 

message: Kurando-san warning!  Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glacial lakes has no signed date. --Kurando-san 01:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww isn't that cute - bots can talk! Enochlau 01:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glacial lakes]] 

message: Since Wikipedians knowledgeable about photography may gravitate towards this page, this seems a good place to ask. What parts of GIMP do you often reach for when correcting newly taken images?
I hear a lot about white balance and adjusting the colour, but I don't really understand how these are used to improve iamges. I often tweak things, but not usually for fidelity of the image, I just play with the dials and decide something looks better to me. I'm keen to learn more about tools that automate solving common problems associated with freshly taken images.  Can any of you point me at a good online guide for this sort of thing? 
In particular I often find my indoor pics begin by having a strange tint, and I get the impression white balance has something to do with it, but I can;t seem to find anything in GIMP that seems directly related to that. --bodnotbod 11:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *One of the best ways to achieve correct rotation is to turn the rulers on, and then drag guides out of them to ensure you're rotating  the picture to level. You can also use the measure tool to draw a line across something you want to be horizontal, and the proper settings will automatically be entered into the arbitrary rotation dialogue. Another tool I use often is Photokit Sharpener from PixelGenius. This is only for hardcore sharpeners, but it delivers awesome results. The sea turtle was sharpened with PK Sharpener. Photokit Color is also very useful, especially the RSA Neutralize tool. I also have a large amount of useful actions from The Light's Right studio. There are other techniques, such as overlay layers (which is what I used to lighten the bird in the bird picture nomination). I could literally go on all day long!PiccoloNamek 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling on regular contributors to the page for image manipulation advice