Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11

message: Am I the only seeing what could be some sneaky vandalism in one of the lower right windows in this image? Zerak-Tul 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only not so sneaky vandalism I see, is posting an insanely huge pic full size on this talk page. The window qualifies as art :-) --Dschwen 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so quick to accuse; posting the image was a mistake that was quickly fixed. Raven4x4x 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy... ...yeah I'll make sure to throw in a few more smilieys nex time. Apart from that, the history surprises me. No edit conflict, yet when I posted my reply the image was definately still big. Instead the diff says I just capitalized the I in image. Weird!. --Dschwen 06:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image in the window seems to be a banner that coincidentally falls exactly in front of the window.  It confused me for a while, and I thought it might be image vandalism because of the way it is clearly in front of the banner pole (so not actually on the window), but seems to fit the dimensions of the window.  However, the same image can be made out on two other banners to the right of that one; they're side-on, though, so not as visible. TSP 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice spot TSP :) Still uncanny looking though, and sorry about the initial posting of the image here, forgot that formatting Zerak-Tul 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I was wondering if the banner was split horizontally in the middle with the bottom part left/right and the upper part flipped head-on. InvictaHOG 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think more likely it's on the border of two images (remember it's a stitched panorama), with a face-on view fading into a side-on view. TSP 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:GrazerRathaus-edit.jpg|Grazer Town Hall]]

message: Anyone else a little suspicious of QAZ, 66.36.155.198, Babayi who have suddenly popped out to rescue the Baghe Eram Shiraz from opposes? --Fir0002 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm pretty sure now that they are socks of Arad, the did the same thing with the "Arge Bam" nom --Fir0002 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not cool. The user contributions are quite a give-away. Even with the greatest benefit of the doubt plus extra assume-no-evil I'd guess they are at least meatpuppets. My suggestion would be weighing those votes a little less (or not at all, even if that is begging for in-crowd conspiracy theories again). --Dschwen 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks incriminating to me.  Too bad that the FP crown is so glamorous that it distorts the process.  SteveHopson 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: DUDE i don't even care about FP CROWN or the so called. I just thought that the image is nice and nominated it. I don't know about these users.
I agree, I ask the admin to remove these votes if possible, it's probably one of my friends at school who wants to support me. I'll tell him to stop because it's truely unfair and I understand. Thank you for watching these pages. Arad 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: not sure who they are but I agree with above Arad 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not allowed to ake the votes off. Arad 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible socks 

message: I have read the archive posts on the issue, and there seems to be no consensus on how much modification of an image is too much, and also whether that should be codified or whether it should remain so undefined, for lack of a better term. Cat-five - talk 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean modification of a given image by people other than the photographer, or modification by the photographer? It is common (and to a certain extent, encouraged) for people on Wikipedia and Commons to make edits to freely-licensed images here if doing so will improve the image's usefulness for the projects. -- Moondigger 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, FPCs that are edited (other than for brightness, color or contrast) may be opposed (if the edit is apparent, or done during a nomination period). Cases in point: the discussion about removing a duffel bag, people on front of a ruin, pink poles at the waterline... --Janke | Talk 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how much 

message: Why no one is voting for the 2nd and 3rd image on this page? (Hong kong one and the paranoma) 66.36.148.132 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, this is the Labor Day weekend -- a long holiday weekend that marks the "end of summer" and last weekend before school in many parts of the country.  Lots of users may be away for a few days and there's definitely an above-average number of wikibreak notices around.  That may explain, at least in part, slow voting for a couple of days. Newyorkbrad 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No one is voting 

message: Hi all - just thought I'd draw attention here to my concerns regarding Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arge Bam and the rest of Arad's uploaded photos. As I've said elsewhere, I may be barking up the wrong tree and if I am, I apologise... comments appreciated. --Yummifruitbat 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am a little dubious, and certainly support your view. There may be a simple explanation, but I agree with what you said. --Fir0002 05:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are scans the differences in image size is typical of scans. They lack luster of recent print images. The vehicle concerned appears to be a 1960's toyota landcruiser this vintage but the wagon version. I have some 4500 pix on the pc I know when each one was taken. Also got 1000's of paper and slide images upto 30 years old and I can identify a generalise time frame (month year) of when they were taken. Gnangarra 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arad's(?) Iran photos 

message: Recently, I've found two FPs that did not go through the entire promotion process, :Image:Pantheon wider centered.jpg and :Image:MarsSunset.jpg. I'm concerned there are more, but I don't have time to comb through the archives and make sure. Perhaps we can get a group of us to do this? Maybe split it up by month so that no one person has to do more than 1-2 month's worth of nominations. howcheng  {chat} 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the problem with those? They didn't show up on WP:FP? Might be easier to write a script/bot to comb through the archived noms and compare with WP:FP. --Dschwen 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were missing from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 06 or the earlier incarnation of that page, and thus didn't get a POTD entry. howcheng  {chat} 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPs not promoted all the way 

message: Just so you all you know, we are running out of Featured Pictures for POTD. As it stands right now, we will run out of new images and have to start repeating POTDs before the end of October. I encourage everyone to step up and find worthy candidates. Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about looking through the Commons FPs? If they are used in an en.wiki article theres no reason they wouldnt be useable as a en FP (submit them?)--Nilfanion (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing that, but I also don't want to flood the FPC process. howcheng  {chat} 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that French Wikipedia uses the commons FPC system entirely, rather than have FPC on the French Wikipedia. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our criteria are significantly different than theirs. There have been a number of Commons FPs that do not pass here, and vice versa as well. howcheng  {chat} 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option is to repeat older FPs (already have been used as FP of the day), perhaps only doing so a few times a week and showing new FPs other days.  That's what used to happen before the Main Page redesign in February/March. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, I suppose some older FPs here that passed say two years ago, might not pass now as standards here have changed. I think we should be a little more flexible, in regards to Commons (and maybe use FPs from there only 1-2 times a week?) Or put some of the Commons FP up for FPC here? --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer the repetition of FP's than the lowering of standards. If you are going to repeat old ones, somebody should take the job of going over the one's that will show on the main page and nominate for delisting if they don't match current standards(the FP standard was lower in the past). That way only our best will show. But of course the best solution is to go out there with your cameras, or scour free resources for pictures. HighInBC 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there are a lot that have been repeated. The ones that have only appeared as POTD once start in Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 04. In case you don't know, FPs now get to be POTDs in the order they are promoted (generally). I know for a fact that since May 1, 2006 (when I started writing them), there have been no repeats at all, but before that date, some of the POTDs were repeats. So when we start running out, I will try to keep a good ratio of maybe 5:2 new to old per week if possible. Also, during my research I found a few FPs that never go to be POTDs so there's a few extra days' worth of buffer. (: howcheng  {chat} 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are so many good candidates right now, it's just that wikipedians think that a FP is whether the one that they find cute and lovely or the one that they think is a FP in their opinion. If we put aside our prefrence and vote on quality, (not all voters ofcourse, some voters vote perfectly fine) we will have some good POTD soon. Arad 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea. Instead of telling existing nominators to step up, why not recrute more nominators? This could easily be done by advertising. Just like the encourager in the Featured Picture template that states " If you have a different image of similar quality, be sure to upload it using the proper free license tag, add it to a relevant article, and nominate it" This could be added to every POTD box, and will invariably end up on the main page, thus promoting our cause. Anyone agree? - Jack (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We did that once and it was a disaster. See Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#POTD_Mainpage.2C_remove_.22Nominate_new_image.22_link. howcheng  {chat} 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, I am concerned that in the rush for more pictures standards will be lowered. Inviting people at random(which a message on the main page does) will produce a huge backlog in voting and dilute the quality images attention. If an advertisment for more nominations is to be made, perhaps it would better to contact the people on this list: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers HighInBC 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only person that openly opposed the link was Dschwen. We really do need more noms, it barely takes any work to close a failed nomination. Bad nominations should only take a second of a persons time, its not a big deal. The people that complain about low quality nominations tend to not even be the people that close them. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was an unregistered, anonymous contributer at the time of that discussion, but I would have been right there with Dschwen opposing the link had I been registered.  I base that opinion on what I've seen on various photography forums I've either participated on or moderated.  It's human nature to overestimate the quality and/or usefulness of one's own images, whether you're a snapshooter, hobbyist, or pro.  The difference is that hobbyists and pros tend to produce reasonably good images (even if we're sometimes blind to the flaws in our own work), whereas snapshooters tend to produce a large volume of images that have no chance of being featured. -- Moondigger 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If we must have more pictures, then more nominations is fine, but lets go for quality nominations. The main page is like grabbing a handfull of pebbles when you want quartz. Lets start with the people here:Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, that way we can not only get more nomination but more new photographs HighInBC 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know this is pretty funny, not so long ago people on the talk page wanted to restrict nominations! Anyway I'm all for more noms. --Fir0002 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are loads of images on peer review, if we're looking for more nominations (though to be perfectly honest, I doubt that there are many, if any, images that would pass. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately not possible. His profile says: "... my photos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. " Note that non-commercial = not allowed on wikipedia. --Janke | Talk 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running low on FPs 

message: I nominated a few pictures which are definitely FP so we're going to be OK for pic of the day when they are accepted. Arad 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're accepted. Nauticashades 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture of Day 

message: I would nominate :Image:IronInRocksMakeRiverRed.jpg for delisting, but I'm afraid I don't know how. Could someone do it for me? Nauticashades 10:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, nevermind. Someone showed me how to do it. You can go vote on it, though. Nauticashades 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting 

message: (This discussion was started by User:Janke, copied from FPC discussion.)
*Support original. One of the few artifacts of mankind that have left our Solar system. NOTE: It seems it is not in any article at the moment - some other version, perhaps? Needs to be looked in to. --Janke | Talk 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the line drawing is in the articles. What do we do when most people here prefer the original? Substitute it in the article? Maybe not the best option, a line drawing fits better there... --Janke | Talk 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The line drawing lacks the historical significance that the original has. The image itself is really only important due to it's historical significance. Not sure what to do about it's lack of presence in the article. HighInBC 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, in a sense it IS in the article, only another "version" of it. However, I would NOT substitute the line drawing with the color version in the article, but I would put the color one in POTD. Is there a true conflict, really? --Janke | Talk 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They seem to me to illustrate very slightly different things - one illustrates the plaque, the other illustrates the content of the plaque.  So I'd put the coloured version in Pioneer plaque (if it is preferred in the FPC vote); but Information graphics, for example, might be better with the black and white version because it is only concerned with what is printed on the plaque, not with the form of the plaque itself.  TSP 15:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The image definitely deserves to be in the article, so I've been WP:BOLD... Good nomination by the way. –Outriggr § 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Pioneer Plaque? 

message: Becuase of 4 day periode of waiting, I renominated the photos so everyone can vote. Arad 12:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor's photos 

message: I'm pretty sure User:NegativeNed is vadalizing on FPC. He opposes every image with jokes. It's OK if he likes to have fun and make jokes but FPC is not the place. 
* To the person who closes the nominations: Please do not count this user's votes on any of the nomination unless they are changed or are credible. Thank you. Arad 03:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go so far as to call your comments vandalism, but many of them are hardly what I would call 'credible votes'. Would you care to explain how this and this are supposed to be constructive comments? Raven4x4x 05:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ned, you have an intersting way of pushing the issue of FPC Suffrage...-Ravedave (help name my baby) 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This guy actually makes my laugh. Arad 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ned, perhaps this will help you Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_picture?, it shows the criteria that we use the judge featured pictures. HighInBC 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK i exaggerated, he's not vadazlizing. Keep up the good work. Happy? Arad 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:NegativeNed 

message: Anyone out there to close a dozen of nominations? If I knew how exactly, (because I don't want to ruin anything) I would do it. Thank you. Arad 19:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing Nominations 

message: From Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?
Ok, there is some talk about not choosing an image for FP because it is too big at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Orion_Nebula_mosaic.
The concern of some seems to be that very large images cannot be loaded well in a browser by people or at all by people with slower computers.
My response to this is:
#Large images are not meant to be viewed in a browser, the wikipedia software automatically scales the images for use in a browser.
#A warning at the top of the image page is enough to warn people
#The Download high-resolution version button should do just that
#A featured picture should be the best wikipedia has to offer and more detailed images are better than less
#It is arbritrary, an old enough computer will crash on a 2000x2000 image, while the better computers of today can handle a 18000x18000.
#Not making the larger picture FP will not stop people from clicking on it, only deleting the larger image will accomplish that.
#The maximum size of files on wikipedia was increased from 8mb to 20mb, this coupled with the text of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb point 5 seems to indicate that the bigger the image the more prefered it is. 
Please give your opinion on this matter. Do you think that a very large image should be scaled down and then used as the FP instead of the large one? Or do you think the highest detailed version of the image should be used? If such a limitation is to exist it should be in this criteria page. HighInBC 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the quality of your computer, web browsers are not designed for large pictures. My computer is comperable to yours and I could load it, and the 385mb tif I created it from, on my computer using proper image software(photoshop). HighInBC 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, only just saw this part of your comments - surely that supports my point? Wikipedia is a website, i.e. designed to be viewed in a web browser. Doesn't it strike you as illogical to have listed as 'one of our best images' something that can't be viewed in a web browser? I maintain my earlier stance that this is a great image but we should, on the basis of your comments, supply access to it via a 'download this to view it in a proper imaging program (e.g. Photoshop), if you have have one and also have more than x amount of RAM, otherwise you're wasting your time' link, and keep the smaller image as the featured image so that everyone can view 'our best images' in a web browser? --YFB ¿ 00:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We should always have the maximum resolution file available somehow for those that want it, so I think it's a good idea to have an upper restriction on size for the actual file that gets featured. YFB's solution makes a lot of sense. ~MDD4696 00:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, always let people have access to max res, but I agree, keep the file size down of front page stuff. Now, whenever you click on an image, you first go to the image page, which has a downsampled image, click that, and you get full size - but, I have problems, too, with that humongous, but wonderful nebula. So, a medium-size FP having a link to an even larger one on the image page is a good solution. --Janke | Talk 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Maximum) size of FPs 

message: OK, so I should probably know this, but the instructions don't seem entirely clear.  Who is supposed to close a failed nomination?  1) The nominee 2) An admin 3) Someone not involved 4) Someone else? 
I'm happy to try to do it, if I can, seeing as it's obvious my nomination failed.  Please let me know here or on my talk page. Terri G 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can close a nomination. In cases where the nominee wants to close their own nomination, it should be blatantly clear as to the result (and it just seems more professional to let someone else close it if it looks like it's going to be promoted). Although it is not a requirement, controversial nominations or nominations that do not have an overly clear consensus should be closed by an uninvolved party. --Hetar 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing nomination

message: Would someone with a tripod be willing take two pictures of one subject with a digitial camera in regular and really low light (hopefully noisey) to demonstrate image noise? I think a side by side comparison would provide more info than the existing picture. From the existing picture it looks like grey is a good color to demonstrate it with. -Ravedave 
(help name my baby) 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about this? NauticaShades(talk) 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a couple examples of noise on wikipedia, I am hoping to get the same subject shot twice with two noise levels so the difference (noise) can be seen. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 07:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: HAh your camera is too good. Got a crappier one somewhere? Can you crank up your ISO setting? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you want noise, eh? - here's one with a VERY long exposure, almost in total darkenss... the only light here is the very dim daylight (7 pm, dark outside!) that comes through the closed blinds, plus a little incandescent "leaking" from another room. I had to use a penlight for the camera to focus! The resulting image was so dark that I had to adjust the levels, and the metadata disappeared. This is still 160 ASA, but now you do have noise! Satisfied? (Of course, you have to check the images full size to see the noise... ;-) Also note the horizontal striation - a CCD artifact, and the loss of color saturation, typical in low light situations. The randomly colored noise is very mottled, typical of low-light shots. Also note how the noise (grain) covers the small details in the picture - for instance, you really can't see the tiger's whiskers anymore. --Janke | Talk 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... Someone should put these together (or just the 10 second one) and put it on the What is a Featured Picture? page.  NauticaShades(talk) 06:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, you can do it! ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created a combined image and added that one instead to the article. thumb. Janke if you move your images to commons I'll link them from my combined image. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to link (and move?) the original images, IMHO. But if you wish to do so, please feel free! I do think your combination shows all that's important... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Diliff, usually the contributing factor is ISO sensitivity. Although with your cam it may be a little hard to get some noise Diliff ;-)! --Fir0002 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree with you. ISO affects the noise more than exposure time (but that affects too). Since the original question was about low-light noise, I just made a quick test of that only. When you have a better pair of images, please feel free to replace mine! Or, maybe you could even do a series of ISO 25 to 3200? --Janke | Talk 12:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone can make a "better" version then feel free. You should be able to get noise with any camera, it's just harder to do with  some.  -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL! --Janke | Talk 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noise demonstration 

message: :Image:London Eye panorama.jpg and :Image:IronInRocksMakeRiverRed.jpg didn't have Former Featured Picture tags, so I added them. NauticaShades(talk) 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, sorry, I missed that section. I didn't realise those tags even existed... Thanks for picking that up. Next time, if you ever find a tag missing or similar, there is no need to announce it here; just dropping the closer a note would perhaps be better. Thanks again. Raven4x4x 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay, no problem. NauticaShades(talk) 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Featured Picture Tags 

message: The archive is red-linked. What happened? NauticaShades(talk) 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New month, gotta make a new archive. howcheng  {chat} 06:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... okay. Sorry about that. NauticaShades(talk) 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Archive 

message: :Image:Metal movable type.jpg says it is a featured picture but isn't linked to from the main list, and doesn't have a little star in the corner. Any ideas?--Andrew c 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's featured at Wikimedia Commons, not here on the English Wikipedia. -- Moondigger 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks.--Andrew c 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FP or not? 

message: I added another useful test image that will show whether your display has a properly adjusted gamma. There are some technical notes on the colortest.png image page. --Janke | Talk 07:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It isn't addressed how to fix your monitor if the circles aren't properly blending. Can you add that as well? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not any adjustment on the monitor (which has a fixed gamma - read the tutorial linked on the test image page), it's in the computer system software. On the PC I'm using right now, there's a gamma setting very deep down in the hierarchy (sorry, can't give you the proper tab names, since they'e all in Finnish on this version of WinXP!), but not all PCs may have it. On Macs, it's much easier to find, among the "control panels". --Janke | Talk 18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Found this link googling for windows+XP+gamma+setting: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/colorcontrol.mspx --Janke | Talk 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need Linux instructions ;) chowells 21:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: People who use linux don't need instructions, just type out a really long command line that'l do it. HighInBC 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there was something in the gamma tutorial. Did you read it? The link is on the image page. --Janke | Talk 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color gamma test 

message: I don't think that :Image:Villarceau circles.gif was promoted properly. It's only in Featured Pictures Visible, and nothing else. Am I right? NauticaShades 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Villarceau circles.gif]] 

message: Hi!
I've noticed a couple of "very weak opposes" on FPC - I think it'd be best to define them as -0.5 where:
Support = 1
Weak Support = 0.5
Very Weak Oppose = -0.5
Weak Oppose = -1
Oppose = -2
And if sum of those votes is equal or greater than 0 it's a promote. Is that OK with everyone? Or should a Very Weak Oppose be counted the same as a Weak Oppose? --Fir0002 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think oppose votes should carry double the weight of support votes. IMHO "very weak oppose" is the same as "weak oppose". Also, it shouldn't be if the sum >= 0, because then that would imply a 50/50 split, which as we all know is not enough for promotion. At the very minimum you need a 2/3 majority. howcheng  {chat} 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  oppose = -2? what? no way. I think all opposes should be -1 and all supports +1. If they are really that weak opposing then they should go neutral. Otherwise I plan on inventing super mega support ++ ( = +5)-Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another "rank" in closing stages 

message: 5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
====Opinions====
I would support that wording. Perhaps the third sentence could be something like: While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
Mabye too wordy, but less matter of fact and not written in the imperative. HighInBC 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, I have fixed the wording. Does anybody else have any ideas on this? NauticaShades 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, let's hope it helps to sort some things out. NauticaShades 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criterion 5 Draft v1.2

message: I would support that wording. Perhaps the third sentence could be something like: While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
Mabye too wordy, but less matter of fact and not written in the imperative. HighInBC 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, I have fixed the wording. Does anybody else have any ideas on this? NauticaShades 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, let's hope it helps to sort some things out. NauticaShades 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: First, I'd like to draw the attention of anyone who is involved in closing nominations to the revised instructions. These changes were made in line with the refactoring of WP:FP I did. Let me know if it's not clear.
Second, I noticed that a number of recent promoted images were not being added to WP:FPT. Please note that this is a crucial step because that's how I figure out what the order is when writing the POTD blurbs. Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anm gifs be resized now? I think I seen them in several spots being resized. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently some can, but not others. I guess the only way to tell is to try it and see if the animation looks right. howcheng  {chat} 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Pi-unrolled (animated) resizes fine. There is a thumb caching bug that may cause old versions to crop up in thumbs for a week or two after new versions are uploaded over the same filename; this propagates even to the image description page. But new thumbs, created by demanding a novel width, are displayed fine; and the problem does iron itself out in time. John Reid 23:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing procedures 

message: Proposal: Election of a Featured pictures director for a term of N (to be decided) months to perform the following duties: 
# Decide if a picture is promoted or not (with absolute authority, unless re-nominated). Decide which edit is the best if there are multiple edits. 
# Remove personal attacks/un-civil votes. Make sure new users feel welcome. 
# Gate keep the rules page.
# Be the contact point when sock puppets are suspected.
# Prevent link spamming/advertising causing pictures to be promoted. 
The election would be performed as follows:
# 1 week for nominations
# 2 weeks for voting
# Nominees would be allowed a small paragraph explaining qualifications
# Voting type will be approval voting, there will be no opposes
# Candidate with the most support votes wins. 
This poll will be left open for one week (unless someone proposes a longer period)
===Proposed term===
*3 months - Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FP director proposal 

message: *3 months - Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed term

message: *If the director will be the contact point for sock puppets etc, does that mean he/she should be an admin so that they can block the sockpuppet? --Fir0002 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: #Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: If you believe a director with a smaller set of responsibilities would be the key, please suggest what their role would be. 
#--Fir0002 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I have to register an objection to the delist nomination of the shuffle picture. It seems to be a backdoor attempt to get one user's desired result. Now I didn't vote on this one and I don't think I care either way about it, but my objection is purely on procedural grounds. The way I feel about it is, the picture had its due process: It was nominated and the nomination stood for a week and it passed with a supermajority of support, albeit just barely. IMHO anyone who has objections should have made them during the nomination process. I agree with Moondigger that the time difference between promotion and delist nomination is unimportant. I also agree that the pics should be judged based on their merits, but that should be during the nomination process.
In general, I feel that existing FPs, regardless of their time of promotion, should only be delisted for blatantly not meeting the WP:WIAFP criteria as they are written at the time of delisting. Purely subjective measures should not be the basis. In other words, we should respect the consensus of the users who promoted the image in the first place. The only basis for delist nomination should be that there's no way in hell the image would get promoted now if the nomination were to take place today. The shuffle pic is a borderline case, but it made it through the process, so let it stand.
Thoughts? howcheng  {chat} 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I assume the person who nominated it for delisting was unaware that it had just passed. If the person was aware then I would see it as a bad faith nomination. Regardless, it is clear that it will not be delisted as people want to keep it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the person who nominated most likely knew it had just passed because they were one of the 3 oppose votes.--Andrew c 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuffle delisting 

message: I proposed color changes at the featured content "home base" talk page, Featured content color palette tie-ins, because the changes are related across multiple pages.  I would like to see why changes were reverted here. I ask that the reasons also be given at the discussion noted above. Rfrisbietalk 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it would have been nice if we had been notified about it, for one. I think our main objection is that it's being imposed unilaterally here with most of the FPC regulars completely unaware of what you were doing over there. howcheng  {chat} 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, that was my procedural faux pas. I apologize. I mistakenly assumed all those pages were coordinated. I belatedly request you consider the proposal at the featured content talk page. Rfrisbietalk 03:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the current color. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the new color Rfrisbie (briefly) implemented, but I agree it should have been discussed here prior to implementation. I think a change every once in a while would be nice. -- Moondigger 11:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I apologize.  I'll leave it up to others to decide if and when the colors change again. Rfrisbietalk 12:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I definitely prefer the blue. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color adjustments 

message: Nominations in this category are older than 7 days and voting is closed. They will stay here until somebody deterimines consensus and closes them.
*Support. What the heck, I'm pretty neutral, but someone needs to support this. BTW, suggested rewording of other statement below (since that looks like what will be going in). --jjron 09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision time means voting is closed

message: Nominations in this category are older than 7 days and may be closed soon. You may still vote, but do so soon.
Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. (suggested rewording)
*Support reworded version HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision time means voting is almost closed

message: Is there anywhere where you can request the stitching of pictures you have taken into a panorama? If not, can someone point me out to some reliable free panorama software? You could say this isn't the right place, and I would agree with you, but some pictures I have would have a chance at FPC if stitched. Thanks in advance. NauticaShades 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try my talk page, or Fir0002's, or Diliff's. I'll happily stitch panoramas for people who want it done (having said that, I don't have such advanced software as Fir or Diliff). Just ask (nicely) anyone who's uploaded panoramas they stitched themselves. --YFB ¿ 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of cameras come with stitching software, e.g., Canon cameras typically include Photostitch. Having said which, at least as far as Photostitch is concerned, it only rarely does a good job. If you have Photoshop, that has an inbuilt stitching facility called Photomerge (access it by File>Automate>Photomerge...). However again, and strangely for Photoshop, not very good. A simple, reasonably good, and fairly cheap program is Arcsoft Panorama Maker. You can download an unrestricted trial version which runs for 14 days from their website - certainly worth trying out. --jjron 15:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the help. Actually, I did have a Canon with PhotoStitch (which I had actually heard was quite reliabe), but the CD for it currently resides in another continent, which rules it out for now. As for the Arcsoft program, I'll look into it. For now, I have found a free program called AutoStitch which is practically the "first" 2D photo stitcher ever, but it still works quite well {First Try}. If I need a picture done professionally, I can always ask Fir, Diliff, or YFB. --NauticaShades 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panorama Requests 

message: Is there any particular reason the archives for featured pictures are located at Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/ (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/November-2006) instead of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ (sans the s)? Would anyone object to moving the pages to be in line with this page title? -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, it used to be Featured pictures candidates. I think the archives just never got moved. I have no opposition to this. howcheng  {chat} 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan, cleaning up some old dusty archives. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So, is this going to happen? NauticaShades 10:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPC Archive Titles 

message: This is a discussion over the Twin lantana nom. I just thought I'd post it here to see what you think NauticaShades 07:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right, I've changed it. However, this unfortunately doesn't change the outcome. Thanks anyways. NauticaShades 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to insist, but I think it does change the result (2/3 majority). Also, you forgot to count my vote (which, of course, applies to both versions). It should then count 7 support and 3 oppose. - Alvesgaspar 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6/3 is a 1/2 majority, not a 2/3 majority. Also, I recounted it, making sure to include yours, and found it was actually less than I had thought. Let me go over the supports quickly:
*Your vote: Support = 1
*SOADLuver's vote: Support = 2
*Janke's vote: Weak Support = 2.5
*CountdownCrispy's vote: Weak Support = 3
*My vote: Weak Support = 3.5
*gren's vote: Support = 4.5
*jjron's vote: Support = 5.5
*jlao04's vote: Weak Support = 6
--NauticaShades 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin Lantana Nom 

message: Will you please verify the FP vote count for picture :Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg? I can see 6 support votes for edit 1. Regards, Alvesgaspar 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right, I've changed it. However, this unfortunately doesn't change the outcome. Thanks anyways. NauticaShades 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to insist, but I think it does change the result (2/3 majority). Also, you forgot to count my vote (which, of course, applies to both versions). It should then count 7 support and 3 oppose. - Alvesgaspar 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6/3 is a 1/2 majority, not a 2/3 majority. Also, I recounted it, making sure to include yours, and found it was actually less than I had thought. Let me go over the supports quickly:
*Your vote: Support = 1
*SOADLuver's vote: Support = 2
*Janke's vote: Weak Support = 2.5
*CountdownCrispy's vote: Weak Support = 3
*My vote: Weak Support = 3.5
*gren's vote: Support = 4.5
*jjron's vote: Support = 5.5
*jlao04's vote: Weak Support = 6
--NauticaShades 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg 

message: I found this interesting:  Out of all of those photos I would say only a couple would make it past FPC. The snake is not that good. Fir & dliff you guys should nominate some of your pics next year.-Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some cool shots there — most of them would not make it past FPC because of image size or because they have too shallow a DOF.  Also.. the servers on that site suck.  Something that always amazed me about the Wikipedia is that it has ridiculously fast and efficient servers even though its a free organization.  drumguy8800 C T 10:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also many of them only show a part of the animal, which would be insufficiently "encyclopaedic". Of course, they're trying to do arty, not encyclopaedic, so it's not really a fair comparison. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing that up Ravedave! But I dunno there is some sensational photography there - but then again a tour around the world is a prize well worth having a shot at!! --Fir0002 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographer of the Year 2006 

message: I've noticed around the Delist area the some people are voting "Keep" for pictures that very visibly don't meet WP:WIAFP anymore, on the basis that is it "revising" or "erasing" the past (such as here). Personally, I think that this kind of arguement should be done in a voting area (it's bordering on WP:POINT), and should be done here or at the Village Pump. So, I've decided to bring this discussion here, to let these people be heard, and maybe let the delist process be more fluid without people debating this issue while voting. What do you think? NauticaShades 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the reasons given above, I propose:
**1 – That delisting a FP should be considered as an exceptional measure, only applied to obvious errors of judgement, recognized by a large majority of reviewers. These errors may be the result of a poor quorum or a less rational snowball effect.
**2 – That the date of promotion should be part of the FP template.
Finally, I think it should be wise to make different FP templates for Wikipedia and Commons. Alvesgaspar 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nautica Shades, but I think that we should have "Former Featured Pictures", like for featured articles. It would only serve to have a list of pictures which formally passed the criteria, no longer do, but are still visilbly better than the average picture/to not humiliate the photographer as much. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not frozen in time. As we get more content our standards go up, and what was FP material before often does not meet current standards. A vote that does not take into account the featured picture criteria should be given due weight, as in not much. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have  which is applied to delisted images. howcheng  {chat} 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. Do we have a page for all the former featured pictures though? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 21:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Yes we do, :Category:Wikipedia former featured pictures HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, FP could stand a little cropping but according to clearly set policies, however, I would bypass delisting as much as possible, especially when alluding to technical standards of quality. I agree with Alvesgaspar that those images consitute the memory of wikipedia and are a landmark in the evolution of wikipedia, thus valuable. One way to handle the issue is to display the images in a chronological manner, thinking that (but not necessarily so) that images with quality issues will go by the wayside over time, much like keeping old photograhs in a closet. At the same time, I believe that FP guidelines should be updated with objective criteria for selection as much as possible, recognizing the subjective aspect of photograhy judging. Such guideliness should include issues like encyclopedic relevance, technical quality, comparison with existing material, and other considerations. The guiding principle would be to select better images from the beginning and thus avoiding delisting practices in the future. --tomascastelazo 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with the idea in your last sentence is that in the future, more people will have better cameras. Thus we will have access to much better pictures. Our very best images may seem rather poor in the future, and barring any historical value may get delisted. I certainly agree with you that Fp could use some cropping though. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have not had the pleasure of seeing Ansel Adams' work or for that case any other great photographers. Pretty much the only stuff I have seen is a few pix by Ken Duncan. So I can't tell how high quality the original prints Ansel produced, but the scans show clearly how the image could have improved (for use on Wikipedia) if it was taken in a digital format. --Fir0002 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting