Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 5

message: Kurando-san error!  Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spiral100 could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spiral100]] 

message: Users at FPC may be interested in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. enochlau (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries]] 

message: The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion.  And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included!  However, 
we have run into a bit of an impasse.  We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format.  Please take a look and advise.  Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it?  Sincerely, Go for it! 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, I guess that would be me. Although its mostly been other editors who set up the layout of the POTD and I've just been managing it for a while. One thing to consider would be to use double transcluded templates, to allow more flexible formatting in different contexts. This didn't use to work, but it might now. It certainly appears to be the approach used by POTD on Commons (where they are attempting to handle multiply translated captions). In any case, now would seem like quite a good time to experiment with such things to coincide with the MainPage redesign. -- Solipsist 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day '''expert''' needed 

message: Should we include this, or a similar, simple monitor "check test" on the top of the FPC page, in order to alert people to the problems of different monitor settings - which can influence voting rather significantly? 
To test whether your monitor is properly adjusted and can display shadow detail properly, please check this image - in the large square, you should see the left half of the circle very faintly (or not at all), but the right half should be clearly visible. If not, you need to adjust your monitor.
--Janke | Talk 11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a cool little test (I think my monitor is pretty much perfect as I could just make out the darker side on the circle (6,6,6). I think it should be included on the FPC page --Fir0002 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thumbs up! I think it's useful as a reminder to all. enochlau (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking your monitor settings 

message: I dug a bit and found 15 FPs which are not currently used in any article:
*Reclining figure (Edit: renamed on WP:FPC)
*Pentakis dodecahedron (Edit: reinserting into Pentakis dodecahedron, this is an animated gif showing its rotation, update it has been kicked out again, will nominate it for delisting)
*Blue Morpho butterfly (Edit: renamed on WP:FPC, but I'll nominate it for delisting)
*Australian Garden Orb Weaver (Edit: this and other pic in the article were replaced by a commons link. Apparently no significant improvement of the article was percieved. I'll nominate it for delisting)
*Chamomile (Edit: nice pic, edit is featured, original was used. Replaced all occurences to use this version.)
*Yarra River
*Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley (Edit: crop is featured, pano is used. odd!)
*Mount Cook (small size was featured though high res exists. even odder. I'll replace that if no objections are made.)
::It was an early FP. Users were encouraged to upload smaller images in 2004. -- Solipsist 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is ok to move the FP template over to the highres version? --Dschwen 23:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that should be fine. I think the image may have been nominated for delisting a year or so ago, but it survived that time. It could be nominated for delisting again, but only if someone felt motivated to do so. -- Solipsist 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this one was ever promoted. It was probably added by an over enthusiastic editor who missed the promotion process instructions. -- Solipsist 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, someone just inserted it. I removed it. --Dschwen 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course, you are right. I'll update WP:FP accordingly. --Dschwen 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished going through my list and updated WP:FP accordingly. Only four pics remain to nominate :-) --Dschwen 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting spree 

message: I do not mean to put an end to the ongoing discussion at all, since a consensus clearly hasn't been found yet. But I'd like to propose this template
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"	
	This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: Recolored Empire State Building to match my shirt.
to label photoshopped pictures. This way the reader can make up his own mind. I'll have to code a switch into the template in case the original is not available (although I think it should always be made avaliable).
Please disregard the diminutive example ;-) 
P.S.: Yes, I accidentally vandalized , sorry... --Dschwen 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the original needs to be added, some photographers don't agree with restriction free licensing required and may not wish to upload originals. But I like this template and it may be the best option to at least label modified photos for this debate. But we should try to flesh out, what needs to be labeled, and what doesn't. Because there is not a single photo that I take that doesn't spend at least 5 minutes in Photoshop. PPGMD 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok lets draft a policy list. My general idea is list everything except touch ups by the photographer, which only try to compensate for technical deficiencies of the capturing aparatus (camera, scanner). These include whitebalance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, color curves (i.e. to lighten shadows). --Dschwen 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perspective correction should also be included, as long as it doesn't damage the photo too much, but correcting for a few degrees should be ok. PPGMD 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and add leaning and lens distortion as well. I moved the Template from my userspace to  and added the criteria on the templates talk page. I want to emphasize that this template is not intended to be a stigma of any kind, but a step towards a consensus/compromise(?) on this topic. All the best, Dschwen 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, the first thing you'll have to worry about is getting people who disagree to admit to having modified their pictures, unless the picture itself was drastically altered and the edit is obvious.PiccoloNamek 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kind of hoping for good faith here. Why would anyone lie about his pictures? I'd consider that highly unethical, especially since this is an encyclopedia. --Dschwen 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention pictures from 3rd party sources such as Flickr which may have been retouched long before arriving at Wikipedia without any way of knowing for sure. But it doesn't mean that the template isn't useful for those images that we know about. -- Solipsist 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, I posted on the commons village pump. --Dschwen 12:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal, labeling touched up pictures 

message: The general requirements and guidelines at the top of WP:FPC make no mention of images having to be of a high resolution where that can reasonably be expected, but we enforce this principle rigorously in practice.  I've even heard one or two comments recently on rather small nominations expressing the position that if the nominator had only looked at the page for a couple of days before nominating, they wouldn't have troubled us with this pic.
Well how about we remove the requirement that new contributors read the page in full for a while before knowing what we want and add this requirement to the description at the top?  I'm sure someone clever could come up with a 'preferred if at all possible' wording that wouldn't put off the proponents of smaller images justified by their rareness.  Size may not be everything, but let's admit we do find it compelling :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if there is a size requirment it should be reasonable enough to factor photographers copyrights to the original. A photographer isn't likely to upload something is is big enough to print in photo quality, so expecting something bigger then 1024 on the largest side maybe a little too unreasoable, unless it makes the subject/details of the photo too small. So I say remove, or make it defined what is reasonable. PPGMD 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now we need to define "quality reproductions" - is that 3-ft poster size, or a 1-column image in a future print version of Wikipedia? If the fist, only Diliff's images qualify ;-) - if the second, any image larger than, say 480x640 will do fine...  I lean toward the second, if the image is otherwise good enough. --Janke | Talk 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I'd expect it to be at least 1000px in width, because only with a decent size can you see the details that are so important in images. But of course, that's flexible; if we have an image of historial significance then it might go down. Image quality is also something that's important for maintaining detail, but this time, it's hard to quantify unfortunately. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being up front about image size requirements 

message: See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brooklyn Bridge at Night for example. What's with all the "strong support" votes? I'm a strong believer that one vote is indeed one vote, and that some users' opinions should never count more just because they hold the belief more strongly. A long time ago when I closed FPCs, I treated a "strong support" as if it were just a "support", while respecting the wishes of "weak support" voters by treating it as if it were about half a support. What do others think? enochlau (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy.  As such it isn't the number of votes that matters it's that there's a rough consensus to promote the image... rough being the operative word since there are almost no true consensuses in any group, especially one this large. JtkieferT | C | @  this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is true, but should a "strong support" vote contribute more to the understanding of what the consensus is than a simple "support" vote? enochlau (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you're asking, here's my thoughts: A "strong" vote should count just as a vote, but "weak" vote should be weighed in context. A weak vote (either way) may be a way of showing interest in having an edit uploaded. --Janke | Talk 07:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strong support" 

message: I have written up at the bottom of the page some rough removal information and have added an archive including archiving the two overdue removal requests.  I think we should work on refining the guidelines and stuff though so if anyone has any suggestions please bring them up. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal requests 

message: Having gotten back from my vacation and uploaded tons of pics and movies - would it be a problem if I were to nominate a large number of pictures (say, a 6-12) at once? Raul654 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that as long as you do them all as one nom per picture and follow everything else correctly. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, remember that they also have to be in an article, and add substantially to that, in order to qualify. FPC is not a photo competition... --Janke | Talk 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those except the tiger pics (which I am getting to) are in articles already. Raul654 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto above. FPC has always been a little subjective, and if I may suggest, perhaps don't put pictures of the same subject right next to each other (mix them up... unless they're all of tigers), just so we don't get comments like "yet another tiger" or something like that :) enochlau (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large number of noms is OK?

message: I'm bumping this.
I've been reading that a lot lately. I understand that a picture needs to be of a reasonable size, and not like 200x100, but it seems like people are pushing a precendent that each picture needs to be big enough to be a wallpaper (more or less). This page says that a FP should be "of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions." Is it about time we had some numbers down? - JPM  | 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: set resolutions are a bad idea. Some pictures need to be big and others don't. I wrote the WP:WIAFP standards and I now think that the size requirement should also mention being able to zoom in and inspect smaller parts. Broken S 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He just bumped it. BrokenSegue 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoops :D enochlau (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too small according to current FP standards." 

message: Is this picture good enough for fpc?--God of War 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Enough? 

message: Yellow? Yuck. What do others think? I suggest something more subdued like blue or something. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top section colour 

message: Kurando-san error!  Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mr. Eko and the Black Smoke could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mr. Eko and the Black Smoke]] 

message: I just created  to expand to the HTML 

in order to get a break effect that includes images.  Could we start promoting using it in the instructions:  

===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]===
[[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]]
Add your reasons for nominating it here; 
say what article it appears in, and who created the image.
*Nominate and support. - ~~~~ 
*
<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{breakafterimages}}

- Bevo 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for breakafterimages to avoid explicit HTML 

message: I've noticed this come up as a reason to oppose several diagrams, most recently the carbon nanotubes one. Personally I don't see how this is a problem. It's impossable to make text readable in thumbnail view without it being two inches high in the full size image. I think this is an unrealistic expectation.
I suppose that all comes down to how you use images in the article. If I see a diagram in an article, I open it up full size in a new browser window. I don't need to be able to read the text in the thumbnail. Perhaps other people have different approaches. Raven4x4x 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I made the picture in question and in retrospect the draft was a bad idea. Text in the picture is just not a good ides. That picture was my first-ever attempt at visualizing scientific information, so I was bound to make mistakes. However, I think that labels that are explained in the image description do not necessarily have to bea readable in a 150px thumbnail. If you do that, they might be much to large when viewed at a larger size. After all, what do we have thumbnails for if not for clicking them? Mstroeck 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't entirely discount having text in an image. I can think of some legitimate uses: labelling a diagram, charts designed for identifying objects, and entire posters uploaded to Wikipedia. enochlau (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I did mean only explanatory text, not labels. I also agree with Raven4x4x's point that it would often be inappropriate for labels to be readable in thumbnails. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Text not readable in thumbnail" 

message: Can I suggest that the Featured Picture template, like the Featured Article template, provide a built-in link to the picture' nomination page? Palm_Dogg 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: promoting FPs is already enough work (we are all lucky we have Raven4x4x to close most of the noms). People can just look at the links on the bottom. BrokenSegue 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have we considered getting the bot to close and promote for us? Of course a human will decide whether a picture gets promoted, but perhaps the process could be simplified to us tagging a section with a  or  template, and then the bot comes along and places things in the right place. enochlau (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as hard as you'd think.  If you check Template:Featured, they have a line of code that reads identified. Palm_Dogg 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that we don't usually give the subpages the same name as the filename. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the discussion 

message: There's a superfluous FPC template box between the drop and the card trick. I can't figure out what causes it. Can anybody fix this, please... THX, --Janke | Talk 10:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just removed it. Was in the Card Trick nomination template. Purge the page cache to see it's gone. --Dschwen 13:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code problem?