Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Featured Graphs? 2 Anons 3 Removal candidates 4 Science imagery 5 Any chance? 6 Removal Votes 6.1 Straw poll 7 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosions.jpg 8 MIT News Office uses recently promoted FP 9 Editing candidates 10 Help requested with FP listings tidy up 11 Commons featured pictures 12 Size of FPs 13 Apologies

Featured Graphs?

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)

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:

1. Use SVG as graphic format
2. Make them bigger ( Mstroeck 21:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC) )

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)

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)

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).

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)

Graphs pose a problem for FPC. Only by a stretch of my imagination do they meet the FPC criteria (they aren't exactly the most beautiful things). Perhpas it is time to create "Featured Media Candidates" to be more inclusive (audio, video, graphs, and everything else). Still nominate a graph or two and I think everyone will be understanding and adjust the requirements in their mind. BrokenSegue 13:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Looked at your collection, they're great. However, there's one caveat that I'd like to point to: Unless you have the information very clearly sourced and verifiable, there might be objections of all kinds. But I see that many of the graphs include a range for each data point, so with such good data, I personally see no reason to oppose some of your graphs for FP. Keep up the good work! --Janke | Talk 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would definitly support one of these in a higher resolution, even jpg at say 1900xwhatever. -Ravedave

Anons

I had assumed that as an anon, I cannot vote on these pages. However, that is not mentioned on the introduction to this page, so I will vote should I wish - unless having checked back here I find someone has burst my bubble :-(.

Removal candidates

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)

• Well, if there's no consensus reached for the suggestion to delist, then doing nothing, i.e. "keep" would seem logical... --Janke | Talk 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree a consensus to delist should be required just as it was for promotion. Images shouldn't have to prove themselves a second time by producing another clear consensus in their favour just to stay. I reckon both the Geisha I nominated for delisting and Monopoly get to remain as FPs. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I was leaning the other way actually. Take the Monopoly game picture. It has 10 opposers and 9 supporters. If this was an FPC discussion it would not have been promoted, so my thinking was that maybe it should not stay promoted. I'm not sure at all now. Raven4x4x 00:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

I disagree with Raven4x4x and LiquidGhoul - another way to look at it is that there were 9 supporters, so there are still people who like it! Remember that the discussion at hand is whether it should be delisted, not relisted, so if the votes are split down the middle, then no consensus means that we should keep the status quo. enochlau (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

It should run like WP:FARC where you need a consensus to remove FA status. Otherwise its status is kept. BrokenSegue 02:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely forgot about FARC. You're right, it should be the same. Raven4x4x 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. enochlau (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Science imagery

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)

Any chance?

If I were to upload a larger version of 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) PS: I removed Kurando-san's robot messages from this page, since Raven seems to be aware and trying to fix the problems...)

In what article? - JPM | 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes it has a chance and, if you can, upload it at a higher resolution (even if it didn't have a chance why not upload at a high resolution?). Remember that you'll have to remove (or not add) the copyright watermark before you upload it. BrokenSegue 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Removal Votes

This is an extension on the Removal Candidates section above. I would like to change the delisting process, so that there has to be a consensus to keep the image, for it to stay a featured picture. The two main arguments I have heard so far to keep the process the way it is now, is:

1. If no consensus is made, then it should stay the same. This is to delist, not relist.
2. This is the way FARC do it.

I don't like either of these reasons. Firstly, the main reason for having featured pictures, is to exhibit our best images. The standard of quality used to be lower, and although some people still have a lower standard, they are the minority (or maybe even equal), and lower quality images they support never make it through. However, if something has already made it into Featured Picture, it is really easy for this minority to vito the decision, and keep a lower quality image in Feature Pictures. This is inhibiting the our ability to make the Featured Picture list as high quality as possible. It just isn't logical that an image does not have to go through as rigorous review to stay a featured picture, than to become one again, when it is known that the standards used to be lower. If something cannot get through featured picture candidacy now, why does it deserve to be a featured picture?

Secondly, the excuse that WP:FARC do it the same way is just a silly argument. If we want policy change in Wikipedia it has to start somewhere. The policy of another part of Wikipedia should not affect the changing of policy in another part of Wikipedia. Otherwise the policies will never change, and Wikipedia rules will be set in concrete. That is not what wiki is about. If this is succesful here, then I will take it to other parts of Wikipedia.

If you are against this, I would like to hear your arguments, so I can hopefully respond to them. I find this policy is holding Featured Pictures back. Please do not disregard this. --liquidGhoul 08:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

holding Featured Pictures back ?? Do we have a limit on the allowable number of FPs? Shall we summarily remove all old FPs less than 1000 px wide? I don't think so... --Janke | Talk 10:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not neccesarily, but if it wouldn't pass the FPC process again, then it is lower quality than what should be in featured pictures. Also, since size is one of the main problems with old FP (although I was more worried about general quality), having it go through FPC again may get the original contributor to try and get a larger version. --liquidGhoul 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not just about image size. And while we do not have a limit on FPs, we should strive to make the selection as good as possible. LiquidGhouls arguments make perfect sense to me and I can only second them. If a picture is still up to our standards it should be no problem to get a majority vote again. If not, there must be something wrong with it. --Dschwen 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite being one of the people who supported the opposite opinion on the discussion above, I'll concur here too and say I think this would be a good change of policy. FPC is not quite the same as FARC in any case, so it isn't necessarily the case that the same procedures should apply: there is always the possibility that an article will be 'rescued' and improved as a result of a FARC nomination; all we can do here is ask the uploader for a bigger one if that will help. And I agree that requiring a consensus to delist could indeed hold Featured Pictures back by keeping the overall quality of FP below our current standard (which is still allowing us plenty of FPs). ~ Veledan • Talk 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if this were implemented on FARC as well, then it would encourage the bettering of a featured article. If someone really wants an article to stay a featured article, they will have to work harder on it to get a majority of votes, than if they only need half the votes. --liquidGhoul 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this iff an article must have a consensus of keep to remain (thus no consensus results in a delete). BrokenSegue 22:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What about pictures? --liquidGhoul 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if this were to be applied to a featured article, it would be unnecessarily difficult to keep an article featured, because by human nature, it's always easier to find fault than praise. You will almost never please everyone. And by extension of the fact that I like to keep similar processes on Wikipedia similar, I would have to say no to this proposal. I agree that the effect of this proposal would be to raise the minimum bar for featured pics, but I think the current standards are sufficient. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, and I think having a limit of 6 months or a year between allowed delisting votes would keep people from perpetually adding an article to FARC. That way, with articles at least, it has time to degrade a little. Also, if someone has a small problem with an article, the idea is to fix it. You don't go crying to FARC saying it shouldn't be a featured article.

I have only put one article through FAC, and you are right. You cannot please everyone. However, I worked with the few people who opposed, and finally got most of their support votes. It did improve the article. I don't see the people who opposed putting it up for FARC, and I don't see them complaining at all about it. If they were to put it up on FARC for a weak reason, then most people will still support it, and it would still get through. Just like when it was originally nominated.

We don't want quantity in our featured pictures or articles, we want quality. If an article is renominated, and it fails, then it is not of high enough quality. Plain and simple. This wouldn't be "unnecessarily difficult", it may be neccesarily difficult, as if it is so low quality that it is difficult to get concensus, it shouldn't be there.

"And by extension of the fact that I like to keep similar processes on Wikipedia similar" Again, this should not come into discussion, otherwise policy on Wikipedia will never change, and it will become stale. --liquidGhoul 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is of such low quality, then as we've seen here before, it gets delisted. People exercising common sense have in fact gotten bad FPC's removed, i.e. the system works! It's the borderline cases that this policy will affect, and if there is such indecisiveness among voters for a particular picture, I'd rather see it stay as it is. Btw, keeping similar processes on WP similar does not imply that policy will never change; it just means that I'd rather see FARC and this change at the same time and in the same way. enochlau (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The borderline cases are photos that would not get promoted to featured picture. So if they wouldn't get promoted, why should they be a feature picture? --liquidGhoul 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to add another point, I found this quote on the featured pictures page:
"This page highlights images and diagrams that we find beautiful, shocking, impressive and informational."
The "we" in the sentence, I interpret as the Wikipedia community. The Wikipedia community is the current community, and not the past community. Therefore, if something was featured picture worthy to the community a few years ago, and is not now, it is not something "we find beautiful, shocking, impressive and informational." Therefore, it does not belong there. --liquidGhoul 05:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not a particularly strong argument. I could quite validly argue that Wikipedia is the sum of the contributions of Wikipedians past and present, and thus we means Wikipedians past and present. enochlau (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, good point, ignore my last comment. --liquidGhoul 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any use splitting hairs here - how often would we get an exact 50-50 vote? Why change policy for those few cases? I think the current system work OK, i.e. no consensus = keep. The bad ones do get delisted. Nuff said. --Janke | Talk 09:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This should work the same way it works anywhere else - in a situation where you must decide on what to do in a tie situation, you preserve the status quo. For AfD and FPC removal, this means keeping; for something like DRV, it means keeping deleted. Let me repeat: no consensus to overturn FPC status equals keep FPC status. --Cyde Weys 09:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read up on the consensus, and FPC is not consensus voting:

"Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. The method also increases the likelihood of unforeseen or creative solutions by juxtaposing dissimilar ideas."

Where in FPC does this occur? It is basically a majority vote rules, where you must give an explanation for you opposition, so as to prevent blanket opposition with no reason. This could count as consensus, however, since FPC is subjective, and someone can oppose for the reason of "not stunning" the whole consensus voting style is thrown out the window. There is basically no way for someone with a sub-par, or "non stunning", image to reach a solution liked by most parties.

Finally, there is still one question that has not been answered. Why should a featured picture maintain its status, if it would not pass FPC today? --liquidGhoul 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I will put this to a straw vote once, or if, I get some replies to the bold question. --liquidGhoul 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why all this fuss? --Janke | Talk 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with Janke. Why all the fuss? Does having a few slightly outmoded featured pictures hurt WIkipedia enough that we need to think about changing our notions of how consensus works? –Joke 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

liquidGhoul, I really don't get what your beaf is. Perhaps there was a recenting de-list nom that didn't go the way you wanted, but this really isn't much of a problem. Determining concensus is deliberately not just a straight vote, and is deliberately intended to maintain the status quo — that is, it should be non-trivial to feature and item, and it should be non-trivial to reverse and earlier decision. If standards have moved on far enough, it should be easy to get enough editors to agree in arriving at a concensus for delisting a picture — if a clique tries to defend an older picture against concensus, more editors will vote for the delisting to correct and obvious wrong. If they don't, then it doesn't matter that much if an older picture remains featured for another couple of months or so.

Remember, the only point of featuring content on Wikipedia is to encourage people to contribute more and contribute higher quality. In general, that can be best achieved by creating and nominating new pictures.

If you check the MainPage redesign project, you will see that in the next month or so, the Picture of the Day is likely to become a permanent fixture on the MainPage. Featured Articles has never repeated an article on the MainPage twice. This is because there has always been a sufficient excess of featured articles being elected. If you check Wikipedia:Goings-on and its archives, you will see that we are just begining to elect an average of seven or more new FPs a week. That is what we need it we are to avoid repeating older FPs on POTD. If we can maintain and increase that rate, we can move to a fresh POTD every day and older FPs will just disolve into the general body of featured work. -- Solipsist 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed people have been saying that a picture wouldn't get through FPC now, but they won't delist it because it is good enough. I saw that as a problem in the system, and thought someone should come up with something to fix that. There is no reason to have a lazy attitude towards something, just because it works moderately well. --liquidGhoul 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• .."people have been saying " - I said that, re. the Wolf spider. I looked at all the other wolf spider pics, and considered the current FP the best by far. If no new, better photo is uploaded, I'll continue to defend this one. Why? To quote from the FP criteria:

1. It adds significantly to that article
2. It is illustrating article content particularly well
3. It is eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article
4. It is in fact of a sufficiently high resolution to allow "quality reproductions" - if we're talking of a future print WP - and not a 3 ft poster.

While it is not at least 1000 pixels wide (admittedly, this size is arbitrary, but I've used it in my examples) nor perfectly sharp, in this case this does not detract enough for me to support delisting, taking the positive aspects into account. Today, it would probably not be voted FP due to the sharpness issue alone, and, I think that is a pity - since in all other respects, it's a great image. Nuff said. --Janke | Talk 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The wolf spider image is not one which would change if the system were changed. So far, it is obvious the majority is for keeping it, so it should be kept. Obviously, you like the image, and hopefully you have voted in the same way you would if it were in FPC. However, if people are voting the same, then why should the result be calculated a different way, when we know the standards are always changing? --liquidGhoul 09:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I commented on that particular image because you asked "why not", i.e. you questioned my vote or my logic. The same logic applies to other similar cases - but note that we are both free to vote as we think best. --Janke | Talk 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see this conversation going anywhere new, so I will just let the voting take place. However one thing just struck me. You are voting against it for the reason: "no need to change". Do you see any disadvantages to changing it? --liquidGhoul 10:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Only an age-old quote: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." --Janke | Talk 17:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

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

1. liquidGhoul 09:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
2. As someone who regularly browses and reads featured content, I'm in favour of any initiative that will increase its overall quality, never mind whether or not it repeats on the main page. I'm not convinced either that there is a need to keep the methods of determining consensus the same across all areas of the project. Surely we are free to adopt whatever practice we feel is most suitable for the individual task at hand? ~ Veledan • Talk 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No need to change current voting procedure for just a few borderline cases. --Janke | Talk 10:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm not convinced that the current system doesn't work. Changing the process would also risk setting a precedent to change other concensus mechanisms on Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 10:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Per my previous comments. enochlau (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Changing the function of consensus here would be bizarre. –Joke 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More Comments

1. Unlike articles that can degrade over time, pictures don't. Still there might be reason why one would want to defeature a picture: if there's a major flaw that everyone overlooked during the FP process, and a new user points it out. However, a "consensus" remove (say 70% remove votes) might be a better idea to ensure that such removal happens only when there's a strong reason for it. deeptrivia (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Polls are evil. It was clear before the poll that the proposal didn't have significant support. BrokenSegue

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosions.jpg

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosions.jpg has no readable signed date. --Kurando-san 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

MIT News Office uses recently promoted FP

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)

Hey, congratulations! Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Although that isn't strictly necessary" - isn't it necessary for GFDL compliance? enochlau (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, ignore that. It credited you personally, so that's ok as well :) enochlau (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Congratulations! Now that's a commendation :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing candidates

Due to recent "surreptitious" uploads of edited versions over the original (even the digital removal of a person from an image!) I have included a note about editing candidates in the voting instructions. It appears that many contributors agree that the original should always be visible. In this way, voters will not be misled by comments pertaining to a version that is no longer visible, and will be able to decide for themselves which version to vote on. Comments, please - do we all agree? --Janke | Talk 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Any improved versions can be uploaded over the top of the original afterwards. enochlau (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I do think Brian0918 had a good point (we won't usually need multiple versions of an image once the FPC process is complete, and there is a danger that articles will end up with the non-featured version) but they should be kept separate at least during the vote if only to save confusion. I have no problem with the version accepted for FPC being uploaded over the top of the original at the end of voting — and this can be decided on a case by case basis by the closer of the debate. ~ Veledan • Talk 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered what happens to images in commons that are orphaned. Are they ever cleaned up? (Ie after spending 6 months without an article, are they automatically removed? And does the fact that they are actually linked to archived FPC pages mean they're not actually orphaned anyway?) In any case, the process should previously have been that the person who removes the candidate from the FPC page should replace the original image with the approved edit. Obviously, this could be time consuming if it exists on multiple pages, so I can see the point that simply adding a new version to the existing image is preferable to manually editing all pages to link to the new file. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems easier to me to upload multiple version of the same image to the same file, and link to them all on the FPC page. It's just easier to have different versions all in the same location, and then make the promoted version the top version. Then a bot could easily handle it. This would also prevent the orphaning of featured pictures that are never put into the articles in which the original image appeared. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 13:42

For undoubtedly good changes, such as removing dust and scratches, I will still upload over the original image, since it's just a waste of everyone's time to vote over something that minor. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 13:47

Hmmm I still don't think this is acceptable. What you consider undoubtedly good (and with reason) might still seem doubtful to me (also with reason). And we should have more respect for the photographer than that: photographs offered here nearly always have been through photoshop and prepped to the photographer's satisfaction. How would you feel if you were the photographer, someone overwrote your version of the photograph, and its FPC nomination was ruined because of imperfections in the edit that you had taken care to avoid? ~ Veledan • Talk 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If they upload the photos to Wikipedia under a free license, they do not have the right to prevent others from changing the file. Anyone can manipulate the image after the photographer, in the exact same way that nobody owns an article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 17:16

If someone's version was worse, I would ask them what they were trying to do and work on accomplishing that without ruining the image. If they insisted on their version, then I would clarify in the FPC that there were multiple versions. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 17:18

Yes, but the (unofficial) consensus here seems to be: don't do it. I can understand uploading over derived edits, as there can often be many of those and there is the risk of an orphaned FP, but seeing the original is vital to voting. What you feel is "undoubtedly good" might not be the same to another. - JPM | 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This has nothing to do with licenses or the right to make changes, but the fact that the FPC voters should always see the original together with the edits, even in thumb size. This is especially important in color/contrast edits, e.g. the British Museum or the Ajanta painting - you cant compare those side-by-side unless you open multiple windows! If it's too much trouble to change the file name when uploading, and add a single [[Image: ...]] line in the FPC text, well, why even bother with editing the image in the first place? Example: it took me only 30 seconds to do that for the cropped version of the Orb Weaver, and now the voters won't have to search through old versions to see Fir's original! --Janke | Talk 09:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I also strongly disapprove of overwriting images that are being voted on. If we are really strict, that makes all the votes that took place before the edit invalid. To be honest, I also think it is rather rude... There is no such thing as an "undoubtedly good" change to a work of art, which many FPCs are, in my opinion. That has nothing to do with "rights", it's just a matter of respecting other peoples' work. Featured pictures are a bit special, in that regard... Mstroeck 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised that we even need to discuss this: Of course you shouldn't upload over the image under voting. Just list it along-side. Yes, there is a risk we'll end up with stragglers that no one deletes.. but we currently have 11,014 fully orphaned GFDL images alone on Wikipedia... we could only be so lucky if most were failed feature picture alternatives (a huge number are just copyvios which are incorrectly tagged). The orphaned image issue is entirely another problem much larger than what we should be discussing here. --Gmaxwell 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Help requested with FP listings tidy up

I found an FP missing from WP:FP earlier and I thought I'd straighten out the listings. I ran a script to find inconsistencies between the list of FPs on WP:FP, WP:FPV, and WP:FPT. I got more than I was expecting so any help with the tidying would be much appreciated!

When checking an item from the list I'll link below, please scan the rest of the list for alternative versions of the same pic. Sometimes one version of a pic is featured on WP:FP but another on WP:FPV. Check the candidature discussion for each image to find which version was really promoted, and look for a link to the image from the delisting archive. And please strike out items as you correct them!

I would have included the list here but it's a bit long and I don't want to hijack the talk page. Anyone who will help sorting out the odd FP, please click User:Veledan/Misaligned FPs to get at the list.

Cheers all, ~ Veledan • Talk 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

:Edit: Bah! Withdrawn help request till I have filtered out the Commons anomalies. Typically, all the ones I checked and fixed last night before posting this message were genuine errors, but the first two I looked at just now were caused by a bug in the script not recognising some images on commons. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Turned out to be a bug in a regular expression in wikipedia.py stopping it recognising image links that have an external link in their caption. Fixed ~ Veledan • Talk 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! This is one of those things that I was always wanting to do, but since I have no idea about automating the process it would have taken weeks (long, boring weeks). I'll certainly help out with the list as much as I can. By the way, does your script check for FPs that are no longer in any articles? Raven4x4x 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not yet it hasn't but it will! The python wikipedia bot framework doesn't seem to provide a method of gathering 'what links here' details from image pages, but writing one will be straightforward enough. What I was actually planning to do was compile a script that would solve the problem of different versions of FPs being in different articles as well as the problem of orphaned FPs. My idea was basically to have a script gather all FPs and attempt to find and read the relevant FPC discussion. All images linked during that discussion, and all images linked in the image pages themselves would be collected as 'suspected alternate versions' and the bot would create a gallery page showing the different pics as thumbnails. This is where a human would be needed - to confirm which were genuine alternate versions and which were irrelevant. Once the human operator has removed the irrelevant pics and confirmed which is the genuine FP, the bot can then produce a report like the one you've already seen, of lists of articles which probably want Image:Xyz.jpg replaced with Image:Xyz2.jpg

The first thing to get right, was to standardize the list of FPs - hence this post. The next problem I have to solve on the way to my final scheme is to write code that can fetch the 'what links here' for images - and once I've done that I'll use it to produce a list of orphaned FPs. Thanks for your help, I'll stop poking round in python code this afternoon long enough to fix a few myself too! ~ Veledan • Talk 15:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I coded this (the what-links-here-extractor) some time ago. But it is written in buttugly Perl. If you are interested... --Dschwen 08:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please! I've not got round to this yet though I was going to work on it again over the next couple of days. I've never used Perl so I may well begin scripting my own before fully deciphering your code but I'd be really interested to see it and it might well help me fix/forsee bugs in my python script. Oh and even Perl can't be uglier or tougher to unpick than that regular expression :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sent it to you using "Email this user". Have fun :-) --Dschwen 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Commons featured pictures

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)

• A lot of Commons FPs are really great but not informative (such as sunsets). That's about it... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-9 06:49

Size of FPs

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)

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)

Apologies

I can't seem to get the formatting right for my nomination. Apologies for any difficulties. Frances76 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, rectified. --vineeth 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)