Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 1

message: Who is supposed to move approved candidates from Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates into Wikipedia:Featured pictures ? Bevo 17:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of non-self-nominations, then the original nominator seems like the best idea, or any interested party once consensus seems apparent. For self-nominations, I think it should really be one of the seconders, and not the artist him/herself. --Gaz 14:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I am not the authority here, but I do have an interest in seeing that this process works.  As I understand it, you can't move a self-nomination without at least one seconder. Inclusion should be without any objectors i.e. consensus.  At some stage we must revisit early inclusions and pass them through the approvals process again. (including my photo of Brisbane!!). --Gaz 14:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks this is much understandable. Chmouel Boudjnah 23:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text:  For :Image:Indonesia-Bull.jpg and :Image:operahouse.arp.600pix.jpg there is 3 yes again 1 and 2 again 1, what should i do ? Chmouel Boudjnah 13:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look like after the revoting there is like 5 to 1 and 6 to 1 for theses 2 pictures, could a movers guru would do the move to  Wikipedia:Featured pictures ? Chmouel 15:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those images will get processed today. And, there is no special "guru" status needed to do the moving and archiving.  You could do it if you want to. Directions exist on the relevant pages for doing the deed. - Bevo 15:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving images from candidate to Featured pictures status 

message: Why the text "Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page!" in the article? Bevo 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno.  Doesn't make much sense to me.  I'll rip it out.  - Gaz 13:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department? 

message: I suggest that a paragraph similar to the following be included at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates.
:Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below.
Opinions, anyone??  - -Gaz 06:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good for me Chmouel Boudjnah 16:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I think this page needs that type of clear purpose statement. Bevo 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that perhaps the "shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating" should be downplayed slightly.  While I would agree that the recent picture of natto was out of focus, IMO it represented the sort of picture that wikipedia needs the most (because very few people know what natto looks like).  When listed for feature picture, however, it was criticised for not being dramatic enough -- as if a picture of natto could really hope to be much more dramatic.  Of course it's important that a picture be good, but I think that featured picture should really emphasize the picture being "worth a thousand words" (i.e., its value to the encyclopedia) over it necessarily being "shocking" or "titillating" (i.e., its value as independently provocative art). -- Tlotoxl 11:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.   We're talking primarily about the pictures here, not the articles (we don't expect everyone to read the whole of every article using the picture before voting).   A good picture, considered on its own merits, is one that is visually interesting.   Having a picture of natto is great, and should be encouraged, but when people look at the Featured Pictures page I think they're looking for something a little more exciting. Markalexander100 01:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's really a question of what we think should be accomplished.  IMO there are lots of artistic collectives on the net, and I'd like visitors to the featured pictures page to think, "Hey, that's cool -- I can help out too with a few shots articles related to my area/work-school/interests" rather than get too excited about their artistic merits (though artistic merit would be nice, too).  The text does also mention diagrams, but it seems clear to me that diagrams are at a definite disadvantage -- how can any diagram  by as shocking or titillating (or instantly impressive or fascinating) in the same sense as a photo?  And yet diagrams are just as useful in supporting the articles. -- Tlotoxl 04:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of this page 

message: A poll on combining this page with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is underway at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Should this page combine with Featured Pictures Candidates? (poll).  The poll closes on March 2. Gentgeen 17:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on future of this page

message: I think there should be an expiration time for entries listed on this page.
Maybe 90 days from the day they were first listed.  Bevo 17:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiraton period for entries here 

message: I have placed a proposal to merge this page with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates on that page, if you have anything to add to this idea (agree, object, etc) then go to that page and have your say.  It has been requested that the pages not be merged until after February 20th, when Featured articles candidates will have worked through a backlog of votes taking place on articles from the old Brilliant Prose page (which were added before the current system of voting was implemented).  fabiform | talk 00:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge with [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]]

message: These sections currently exist on this page, but don't fit the reason that this page exists (at least they are not covered by the explanations on the top of the page).   These two sections seem to have "parasitic" residence here. - Bevo 03:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what thats supposed to mean, but they should stay. This page is a mirror of sorts with wikipedia:featured article candidates and those sections are needed for later removals, when they are necessary. Quality standards must be kept, these are the best of the wiki, our "brilliant prose" (or "brilliant photo's, as it were..) Sam Spade 07:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: May I add that being a "candidate" does not necessarily imply being voted in. It can also mean being voted out. - Gaz 11:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that should be explained at the top of the page.  There are no rules explained here to describe a process for impeaching a properly vetted image currently established in the Featured Pictures gallery.  - Bevo 15:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:   "Nomination for removal" and " Recently removed pictures, and reason for removal" 

message: Are we still using this section?  The latest images that were promoted to the Featured Pictures list were not added to that section.  - Bevo 15:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the " Recently added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures after going through due process here" section

message: after recieving some particularly suprising and confusing objections to a couple of items I placed here, I would like to clarify what exactly ARE the legitimate criteria for images to be featured, are quotas a valid method of determining content (I feel strongly that they must not be) and what are we to do to persuade an objection based on seemingly random criteria? It would seem to me that some basic guidelines and procedures are in order. Sam Spade 03:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently no quotas imposed on the number of items in the subject matter categories in Featured Pictures.  Also there is no prohibition on comments that give opinions about such hypothetical quotas.  Here is the criteria at this time:
  1) images and diagrams are included
  2) must be beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating,
       fascinating, or in short just brilliant
  3) the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should
       illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add
       significantly to that article
- Bevo 20:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, thats quite helpful. The third was something I hadn't at all considered, and the first is also not entirely expected. Since art is mainly a matter of taste, in regards to 2) do we allow anyone of us to blackball any image? How many images do we want to have featured? How high or low should my standards be in objecting to images?  Sam Spade 01:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't required that an image get unanimous approval to get put on the Featured pictures page.  So, it would be unlikely that a single opinion would totally prevent an image from becoming featured.   I'd say that the standard for approving a picture should be very high (by definition).  Be bold in expressing  comments.  Also the more clear the comment, the more it would be taken into account by the person bold enough to decide that a concensus had been arrived at  and actually moves the picture to the FP list (an event that seems to happen somewhat mysteriously, either by the person nominating a picture or by someone else).   There are several pictures right now that are "ripe" for the transition, but no one had done the deed. - Bevo 19:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria, Quotas 

message: I'd do it, but I can't even figure out how to resolve the formatting issues we have on the page at the moment. Speaking of which, can someone more familiar w image management take a look? Sam Spade 20:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What formatting issues do we have at the moment?  I just tweaked Sainte Jeanne d'Arc - was that what the problem was?  fabiform | talk 21:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, thanks for fixing it so fast! :) Cheers, Sam Spade 21:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting issues

message: I'm thinking of adding a link to the Talk Page of each image (example below). Some of the nominations are attracting a fair amount of comment, some of which should more correctly be on the Talk Page. (see Zion Narrows, Dust Storm)  Am I going overboard here?
===Bald eagle===
thumb|left|200px|Bald eagle	(Discuss this image)
 Picture of a bald eagle from the public domain nominated by Ludraman
* Lovely pic. Ludraman | Talk 21:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments about the page or process (and not any individual article) should be done on this Talk page.  Comments about any particular image (no matter how lengthy) should remain on the main page in the section reserved for that image. - Bevo 18:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That's what I understood.  It just doesn't make sense to me since the items won't be listed for that long anyway (fourteen days).  We just simplified the nomination process.  Let's not complicate it for the rare ones that need more comments than usual. - Bevo 02:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions about the images 

message: thumb|left|200px|Bald eagle	(Discuss this image)
 Picture of a bald eagle from the public domain nominated by Ludraman
* Lovely pic. Ludraman | Talk 21:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments about the page or process (and not any individual article) should be done on this Talk page.  Comments about any particular image (no matter how lengthy) should remain on the main page in the section reserved for that image. - Bevo 18:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That's what I understood.  It just doesn't make sense to me since the items won't be listed for that long anyway (fourteen days).  We just simplified the nomination process.  Let's not complicate it for the rare ones that need more comments than usual. - Bevo 02:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Media:Bald_Eagle.JPG|Bald eagle]]

message: Looking at Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/Test it seems that several nominations got lost in the transition to the new format.  We need to do something to get the process resolved on these images. - Bevo 13:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These images were moved back for consideration for another 7 days. - Bevo 16:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations that were overlooked in the transition to the new format 

message: Bevo, I have been intentionally making the width of portrait shots on WP:FPC smaller than landscape shots.  The idea being that all shots should look about the same size (i.e. about 200px on the LONGEST edge). To keep the formatting of the page I have used the "width=220px" table option on portrait shots to keep the leftmost cells about the same width. - Gaz 15:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me move this to the Talk page for WP:FPC and see what others think.  Personally, I like the uniform width, as I think that allows the same amount of detail to show on all pictures. - Bevo 15:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image sizes on [[WP:FPC]]

message: Recently, several unsigned votes have been registered.  Do these count the same as signed votes? - Bevo 14:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned votes 

message: ======
I removed this candidate from the page as I think it is accepted that copyright images sould not be featured pictures. ed g2s • talk 20:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL only 

message: I removed this candidate from the page as I think it is accepted that copyright images sould not be featured pictures. ed g2s • talk 20:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Media:A320.flightdeck.750pix.jpg|Flight deck of the Airbus A320]]

message: I propose removing this section from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.  Instead of using it, I propose that now that we have the Archives, we just continue to archive the discussions of delisting there. - Bevo 14:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks have passed without opposition.  Section is removed from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. - Bevo 10:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently removed pictures, and reason for removal 

message: I just wanted to point out how educational it has been in recent months, seeing the comments for and particularly opposing all the nominated images.  I'm learning slowly how to take better photos, and detailed and explicit comments about what doesn't work and why are very helpful.  Thanks.  Elf | Talk 19:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: General observation

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/Archive-05 has been retired. - Bevo 13:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transition to the new archives

message: (William M. Connolley 18:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But I don't think an explicit waiting period is required - this would be instruction creep. I suspect it is just a difficulty with spotting when an image has been nominated before. If someone thought a picture was good enough to nominate once, chances are someone else will think the same way next week. A pointer to the right archive on the picture page should be enough. There was some discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_pictures#Featured_Picture_template. -- Solipsist 19:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-nom? 

message: G Raja Prasad yadav (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  H