This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

FPCs needing feedback
Crying Kiwi 02.jpg Crying Kiwi
Aline Duval.jpg Aline Duval
Young Indian girl, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh.jpg Young Bhil girl

Featured pictures not used in any articles

I ran a computer program to check whether all our featured pictures are used in articles, and found that the following 167 images weren't:

  • Now used. GMGtalk 17:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
image has been restored to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. There's the image titled above, but there's also File:Inveraray Castle - south-west facade.jpg currently used on the article, although it looks like the latter was previously the same as the former but was overwritten with a totally new image. I'm having a hard time imagining how that was done in compliance with COM:OVERWRITE. GMGtalk 16:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Eww. Manila is a mess of image over-saturation, with tons of sandwiching and wonky formatting. Recommend a sharp hatchet. GMGtalk 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect many of these have been superceded in articles or bumped by newbies so need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. MER-C 12:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of them may have been swapped out over the years by people trying to promote their own images or for various other reasons, and on inspection might turn out to still be much better than whatever's there now. Probably best to go through them with a fine-tooth comb and consider going through the FP replacement process for those that have a clearly better image used now...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I just booted two low resolution pictures from about 40 different articles in exchange for File:Pont du Gard BLS.jpg. If only replace nominations weren't as risky... MER-C 12:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FPs with similar information

This is from a manual examination. I'm sure there are more, I didn't look too carefully. I think we should get into the habit of searching before nominating. MER-C 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on List of Photographers

You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:

  • Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
  • Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
    • Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
  • Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
    • If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?

Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for editing candidates

After uploading an alternative image for an Edgar Allen Poe candidate, I was lightly (and perhaps rightly) chided by Bammesk and Adam_Cuerden for not crediting the contributions of previous retouchers and for using the wrong license on my uploaded alternative.

To clarify the proper procedure for future newbies, I propose a change to the "Editing candidate" section of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (additions in bold):

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. In the description of the new image that you upload, be sure to credit previous editors who contributed to the image that you altered, and make sure the license matches the license of the original image that you changed.

I think this would help clarify the procedure for proposing alternates, but welcome discussion and tweaks to this language. Qono (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Except in rare cases, files are hosted on Commons, and the guidelines and rules of that project should be respected. For example, Commons:Overwriting existing files is the guideline on editing files. And it states that unless the change is really minor and uncontroversial, another filename should be used. I agree that it is good to indicate in the filename that the file is edited (and thus no longer a faithful copy of the source file).
On Commons FP, we have a rule that alternatives should not be proposed without permission from the nominator. Adding an alternative disrupts the nomination and makes it harder to get consensus. So it is only fair on the nominator to check they are happy before adding an alt. Also be aware that alternatives have not had the benefit of being used on the article for 7 days, so there is a risk that editors involved in the article may object to having a different version of the image imposed on them by members of this forum.
Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and remains perpetually a work-in-progress, Commons is not. Commons is a repository of media that is ready-to-use, and its users do not expect changes to files they link to. Often it is best to work on a lossless original copy (such as a TIFF or PNG) than to make repeated edits to a lossy copy (JPG). For example, if you think the image would be improved in some way (more contrast, say) then it may be better to discuss this with the original restorer than to upload variants that exist purely for discussion on this forum, and which then end up cluttering Commons. Lots of minor variant files make it confusing for users to know which should be chosen. One option some people use on Commons FP is to upload your proposed edit to DropBox or similar, and provide a link. That way, if your proposal is found to be without much support, the file is not cluttering the Commons category.
An encyclopaedia should value honest and faithful reproductions of historical works, particularly for famous ones. While individuals may like an image with increased contrast or bolder colours, such edits might not be considered encyclopaedic or appropriate to our educational mission. -- Colin°Talk 10:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Perhaps adding a link to Commons:Overwriting existing files would be helpful in this section then? To be clear, I'm not disputing these guidelines—I think they make a lot of sense—I'm only proposing that they be made more clear and explicit on the front page in the "Editing candidate" section of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates to help newcomers. Qono (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the biggest thing to watch is attribution. I had thought I had seen your name around a lot more on Commons - it was probably actually a similar one - and so was actually rather upset at the failure to attribute and the licensing issue, because I mistook the mistake for a credit grab. I'm really glad I was smart enough to keep calm about it, because, y'know, you're obviously earnest and well-meaning.
I really don't mind a well-documented alt; Well... I might disagree with it being superior, but I won't be upset. Derailing a nomination is a much bigger deal on Commons, where there's a very strong bias against renominations. Here, eh... wait a month or so and it's fine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 15:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen at FPC, reviewers primarily vote and provide feedback. Editing images is a secondary thing, and is not as straight forward as editing article content. In regard to editing images, generally I try to yield to image creators and have them retain credit, and I try to follow Wikipedia and Commons norms on file creation and maintenance (verifiability, traceability, and such). Bammesk (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New Script

Editors may be interested in User:DannyS712/FPC voter, which makes it really easy to !vote for, against, neutrally, etc. regarding candidates. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Hi, The current File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg is in fact a cropped version. I found a version with a larger crop, and of quite good quality. Do you think it merits a delist and replace vote? Regards, Yann (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The larger crop (the new image) is a bit smaller than existing FP, I mean the number of pixels per photographed horizontal width. When enlarged to the same magnification, the new image has more detail (for example, in shadow areas), looks sharper, it has a minute grain everywhere which covers the soldier's clothing, and looks a bit too bright (over exposed). Overall, the new image looks like a better image. The wider crop of the new image makes it look unbalanced, the soldiers are bunched up to the right and not centered. Also, the new image can use a bit of touch up on the far left side (there are some bright patched), it can use a bit of grain removal (denoising), perhaps a bit of cropping to center the soldiers (horizontally and vertically), perhaps a bit of exposure adjustment (reducing the brightness). I volunteer to touch it up. Would be nice to get feedbacks to the contrary before I start touching it up. We can do a delist and replace afterwards. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The main point is to keep it as close as possible to the original print for an iconic image like this, i.e. not cropping it. What do you think? --Yann (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Yann, I understand. I will upload a full image, no cropping. The image can always be cropped later if consensus goes that way. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, fine. Yann (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I uploaded the edited image here. The touchups are primarily in the sky area, many are minute and not obvious. I adjusted the exposure slightly, only slightly, didn't want to loose details in the shadow areas. I uploaded the denoised version as a separate upload (so the non-denoised version is accessible if needed). Bammesk (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

March had 38 promotions

...Which makes March the first time in quite some time that the number of new FPs equalled or exceeded the number of POTDs. This is, I think, a very good sign. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 21:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

By my count, January this year had 32 success3ful FPCs (and 51 images promoted). But before that, we have to go back to January 2016 which had 32 successful FPCs. We are also ahead of POTD for the year as well. MER-C 08:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a good sign if you're an ornithologist. – Sca (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Only 8 of them are birds... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)