Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 6

message: FP does a lot of good work with photos, and includes the occasional diagram or map, but as far as I can find there has never been a featured chart or graph.  Maybe this is  an oversight, or maybe it is deliberate (they aren't really pictures after all), or maybe people here just think that graphs can never be good enough to compete with all the beautiful pictures.  I'm curious because a lot of my graphical work falls in the graphs category, and I am wondering whether or not it is even theoretically possible to make a graph attractive enough to be featured?
Also, since I am here, if anyone has general comments on improving my work, I'd be happy to listen to them.  Dragons flight 20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are absolutely terrific, and I would probably support many of them if nominated. However, they are rather small, definitely not big enough for print reproduction. Otherwise, great work! There's lots of data in there. The only two things that would really make them better: 
# Use SVG as graphic format
# Make them bigger ( Mstroeck 21:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1 and 2 are the same as SVG is scalable, isn't it? We just have to keep in mind the FP definition: it either has to be eye-catching (I think most people would say no to this part) or by illustrating the topic really well (so it will have to be a graph of some significance to be featured). enochlau (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you've never seen a graph that was "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article"?  Assumming the data is surprising or remarkable in some way, I would think it is easier to make graphs that cause people to want to learn more than it is to do the same thing with photograph.  Dragons flight 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you. I'd rather see some of your graphs featured than the next 20 sunrises, haybales and city panoramas. There's nothing wrong with them. It's just that, for an encyclopedia, we have to many pretty pictures with little informational value compared to scientifically interesting illustrations or photos.
Your graphs are great. Pick one and list it for FP and see what happens. I'll support. The last 1000-2000 years get used a lot outside wiki so are clearly popular... William M. Connolley 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to strongly second the request for SVG versions! Otherwise nominating does not make much sense IMHO. Check SVG Factory Sodipodi and Inkscape. But contentwise very nice graphs! --Dschwen 12:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to disagree. I recently had two scientific illustrations promoted to FA status, which probably are not strictly 'beautiful'. Obviously there are many people who see beauty in clarity of expression and concise presentation of knowledge. I think some of your graphs would have a very good chance of being supported. Mstroeck 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We could always modify the current process by inserting a caveat to the criteria specifically for graphs if the current criteria are problematic. I agree in principle that featuring graphs would be a good idea, but as noted above, I have reservations about featuring them using the present criteria. enochlau (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Graphs? 

message: I thought it's time I got to those removal candidates, but when I started going through them I noticed that there are two where the keep/remove comments are pretty even, and I realised that I don't know whether I'm supposed to keep or remove them. I know that for promoting pictures, no consensus means to not promote, but what does it mean for removal? Raven4x4x 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with Raven, we should treat the delisting as if they were running for FP again. So, if there is no clear conceses to keep it, it should be delisted. Obviously, if there are ten delist votes, it is not a very popular photo any more. --liquidGhoul 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that we are trying to keep a certain standard with the featured pictures. All of them should correspond with the current high standards. Lots of them were passed when the standards were lower. So, if there is an image which would not pass FPC now, why should it still be a featured picture. It is obviously not of the same standard as those which are promoted now. --liquidGhoul 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I understand what you mean, and that's why the delisting procedures exist. However, if the picture is so grossly inadequate, I'm sure there would be no problems with getting a majority consensus to delist. For the 50/50 splits, it would mean that there are quite a number of people who don't believe that it falls below an acceptable standard. enochlau (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely forgot about FARC. You're right, it should be the same. Raven4x4x 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. enochlau (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal candidates 

message: For anyone interested in science photography and visualisation, I recommend the following site, especially the gallery: http://www.ensight.org.uk/index.php. - Samsara contrib talk 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science imagery 

message: If I were to upload a larger version of 100 px this panorama of mine as a CC-BY-SA, would it have any chance as a FP? Too blown-out sky? (I know, I just opposed another panorama for that reason... but here it is unavoidable, since the camera looks straight into the sun...) Comments, please! Thanks, --Janke | Talk 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what article? - JPM  | 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you only want to contribute the image if it will be a FP?  Would it add to the article even without FP status? --MattWright (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no... The reason I ask is that I would upload a higher resolution version (4500 px) if there is a "chance" of FP, otherwise I'll load a lower-res one (1600 px), in fact, I just did, i.e. changed the external link (which went to my own server) to the image I uploaded to Commons. The article is of course Hanko, Finland... --Janke | Talk 20:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article it's in does affect its chances for being a FP, usually. I didn't know that you would put it in that article... it could have been in anything - trees, skies, clouds, town, waterfront, and so on. Aside from that, the picture itself seems fine to me, and would get my vote, but the blown-out sky may turn others away from it. - JPM  | 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't vote too often on the FP candidates, but people seem to have pretty high standards, so I'd bet some would complain about the blown-out sky. I agree with BrokenSegue that if you have a larger version, why not upload it? Wikimedia certainly has enough disk space and I always prefer larger, more detailed versions when possible. --MattWright (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance? 

message: Would you like a featured picture de-listing process, in which a majority vote of "keep" is required for a image to remain featured?
Support
#liquidGhoul 09:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Kurando-san warning!  Subpage  has no readable signed date. --Kurando-san 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see what the problem is. There is a date explicitly added in to help the bot!? enochlau (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosions.jpg]] 

message: I thought you might all like to know the the official publication of the MIT recently used my illustration :Image:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png, which you deemed worthy of being a featured picture :-) It's used here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html. They didn't mention that they got it from Wikipedia, however. Although that isn't strictly necessary, I wrote to ask them to add Wikipedia to the credits for the sake of people who want to find out more about the topic. One more reason to contribute to Wikipedia: Bragging rights. "Oh, you know, even the MIT uses my work to illustrate their publications..." ;-) Mstroeck 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, congratulations! Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Although that isn't strictly necessary" - isn't it necessary for GFDL compliance? enochlau (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, ignore that. It credited you personally, so that's ok as well :) enochlau (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congrats! Yes, Wikipedia is indeed worthy even as a research tool nowadays, thanks to contributors like Mstroeck! --Janke | Talk 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Congratulations!  Now that's a commendation :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIT News Office uses recently promoted FP 

message: What do people think about Featured pictures on wikipedia commons? See here and here. It looks like there has been alot of cross posting, which doesnt make any sense to me.  -Ravedave 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons featured pictures 

message: The photographer of the photo nominated at FPC/ultilayout has offered a higher-resolution copy. What sizes do you suggest? --Christopherlin 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, as long as it doesn't get too blurry as it gets bigger, shoot for the max you can. - JPM  | 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of FPs 

message: I can't seem to get the formatting right for my nomination. Apologies for any difficulties. Frances76 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, rectified. --vineeth 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies