Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Just a note

One of our featured pictures has been requested for deletion at Commons. See Image:Reichstag flag.jpg. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Wasn't there a featured picture of a statue of Joan of Arc at Notre Dame de Paris? I cannot find it anywhere; not in her article, or her cultural depictions article, or the cathedral article, or in these categories. Have I gone insane, or blind, or was it deleted for some reason? --Masamage ♫ 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Joan of Arc-Notre Dame.jpg. MER-C 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There it is! Thank you. X) What featured image group was it in, anyway? Not artwork or artchitecture or miscellanious, that I saw... --Masamage ♫ 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it was in the Artwork group after all. I got too distracted by everything else in there, I guess! --Masamage ♫ 05:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo credit on main page

On the main page, Image:Neuschwanstein Castle LOC print rotated.jpg was today's featured picture. In the caption area, there was what I thought was an inappropriate photo credit: "Image credit: Detroit Publishing Co."

We don't give photo credits anywhere else on Wikipedia, other than on the photo page itself if people click on them. Why did we give a photo credit on the main page on this featured photo? Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All POTDs have photo credits for them. This topic has been discussed extensively elsewhere, I think I've seen it on the talkpage for the mainpage. --jjron (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in featured picture -- very embarrassing

Today's featured picture, Image:Citricacidcycle ball2.png, has an error in it. That error was pointed out on the talk page. I find it unbelievable that the thing is still featured and the error is still not corrected. With a known error, the featured status must be removed immediately, and featuring it on the main page when there are known issues with it is unacceptable. It is hardly surprrising that so many people have their reservations about the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia if such egregious things happen all the time. — Timwi (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the inclusion of intermediaries (FADH2, cis-aconitase, oxalosuccinate)? They are indeed quite misleading, as the reader is led to think they are dissolved rather than short-time enzyme-bound species. And FAD+ is an obvious error. Narayanese (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Valued Images on Commons

Just to let the WP:FP regulars know. A new project called Valued Images has been in progress for a few months now on Commons. It is converging to mature state now. The purpose of the project is to promote images which has unique value for Wikimedia projects, for instance, encyclopedic value for the Wikipedias. Feel free to stress test or comment on the project, which I think can be of interest for the Wikipedias. Another novel aspect of the project is the introduction of Valued Image Sets. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Video standards

Wikipedia really has some problems with video standards. While the image ones are very high (which is good), the video standards are very very low. I mean, looking at most FP videos, they're all very small in size, among others. diego_pmc (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have previously commented on this - see here for example. Others agree also. If you want to get some discussion on this though bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates - there's way more traffic there. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A delightful image worthy of reward?

Stretton Water Mill

Here is a most beautiful and painterly photograph taken by Mr Joopercoopers which I would like to nominate, as I am sure he is far too modest to do so himself. Unfortunately the nomination procedure is quite beyond me. Could any of you charming people assist? One would be most grateful.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stretton water mill. --jjron (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

I've added a navigational template to help make moving around the pages easier. Epson291 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia History

[[ ]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.27.10 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

since 6 out of 8 pictures so far in June has been of those fury/hairy/skinny little creeps :p

Smithsonian Images

The Smithsonian Institute has just released a number of images to Flickr, with the tag "no known copyright restrictions". Many of them are eminently featurable. See here for more. 150.203.230.27 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to demote featured pictures as there is for featured articles?Greener Cactus (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nominations_for_delisting. --jjron (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FPs not monitored for vandal - can this be resolved

Hi., i just noticed that Red Panda, a FP was vandalized[1] in April 2008 and was not discovered for more than 2 months.

When i checked current FP count (1240), it doesn't match with the count in the category listing (1237). Which means that there are 3 FP images that lack the Bronze Star.

I am sure that the bronze star has been removed due to vandal attacks & unlike Featured Articles where content can be added, FPs don't change unless there is a better picture added. I propose that we semi-protect all FPs to avoid vandalism or have a check mechanism installed to ensure that vandalism is prevented. --192.8.222.82 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (User:Vimalkalyan)

Now that uploads appear in watchlists, I'm not sure that's particularly necessary. Besides, most of our FPs are hosted on Commons, so there wouldn't be much we could do here anyway. As for the bronze stars missing, a more prosaic explanation is that they were transferred to Commons but the admin who deleted the local copy forgot to restore the local description page which has {{FeaturedPicture}} on it. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, there might be a problem putting video and audio under "pictures" in the future. I am not very sure how things are right now, but if there are no featured video, audio or media categories, I sugggest to create them.--Kozuch (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Featured sounds

Would it be alright if I transcluded Featured sounds to the bottom of this page for a bit, just to give it a bit more traffic? Things are very slow there, which is a real pity, as we have so much good content in that line. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Animals? Aug 17

The reindeer photo is lovely, however there are nearly as many people in that photo as animals. Is there a way to reflect this? This reinforces the treatment of indigenous people as part of the natural landscape, themselves close to animals. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. The closer was an irregular closer. This should have been in the Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle subpage, not the animals subpage. I have moved it. Thanks for your vigilance. --jjron (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the alchemist's laboratory still featured?

I would like to know whether Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg is still featured.

The image is listed on Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings and seems to have been promoted according to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alchemist's Laboratory and moved/deleted according to Image:Alchemist's Laboratory, Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae, 1595 3.jpg.

– Ilse@ 09:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. MER-C 10:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an image

I am still rather unsure (shy??;)) of the nomination process. I have read the criteria and I believe the picture in question meets it. The image in question is Image:Gold state coach.jpg. Does anyone have any advice/encouragement? --Cameron* 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too small and the subject is cut off, so a FP nomination won't succeed. You can get advice, encouragement and more at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. MER-C 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A trend I've noticed

Okay, I'm now quite sure I'm not imagining it. There's a higher-than-average proportion of FPs whose content can be described as "Stuff that photography geeks find interesting." Just FYI ;) DrVerlucci (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New Featured content IRC channel

Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlisted picture

Having survived a delist nomination with relative ease Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg (currently the lead image in Glamour photography) does not appear to be listed in the directory of featured pictures, is the a mistake or have I just overlooked something? Guest9999 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the image under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment. Guest9999 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bronze stars lost to deletion

Going through April 2007 alone, I found three images (Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg, Image:Large brown mantid close up nohair.jpg and Image:Capitol Building Full View.jpg) which have had their image pages deleted and not restored according to CSD I8. I would notify the deleting admins, but seeing as this may be a large-scale problem, perhaps something else should be done to locate and fix the missing pages, and to prevent this happening in the future? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Bronze stars lost to deletion instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Starry Night

The Wikipedia page with the template {{FeaturedPicture}} was deleted for Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg that was featured on March 1, 2007. User Gatoclass that deleted the page is not familiar with the policy of keeping the Wikipedia page in order to mark the image as featured picture in this project. I would like to receive some feedback on this issue on my talk page User talk:Ilse@#Starry night. Thanks, Ilse@ 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. – Ilse@ 07:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for images

Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed a certain bias in the selection of featured photos in the wildlife realm. Not including today's picture (3rd Feb.) I have looked back at the featured pictures for January and of 8 pictures of flora and fauna there were: 3 birds, 3 insects, a cactus and a lizard/cameleon (didn't look too carefully.) This seems to be a long running bias in the selection of pictures. Remember there are other animals without wings and apart from those pesky humans. Comments? --Kayakboy (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured/Valued picture series

Has there been any thought to creating a featured/valued picture series, which would be analogous to the featured/good topics?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have featured picture sets, for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early flight 02562u.jpg. howcheng {chat} 06:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Though some oppose the idea and hence will oppose all such nominations. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I was thinking more like a set of pictures that illustrates a series of articles. Suppose there were a set of individual images of the first family that were all FP/VP or a set of images of the Wonders of the World that were all featured. I did not mean a literal picture set like you showed, but rather individual images a that are nominated separately that form a set. That could encourage picture taking much like FT and GT spur editorial activity to complete sets.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WT:FPC#Featured/Valued picture series for a bigger audience. MER-C 11:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there no page for their statistics? Need to know how many pictures are promoted, or nor promoted monthly. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You'll have to trawl through the archives. MER-C 05:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.
This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.

Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!

Maedin\talk 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

About Value vs Quality (Who's number 1?)

After the MfD on valued pictures(VP) was closed with no consensus/keep followed by a change to the lead sentence of VP[2], I want to see some discussions on the issue that are raised on some of the featured picture delist nominations, such as this one, and to a lesser extent, this one. While most suggested that value outweighs quality, others disagreed saying that those with inferior quality should be delisted and be considered for valued pictures.

For myself, I believe rarity and the value of the image outweighs the quality. Besides, even if everyone agrees to delist an image from FP and nominate it at VP, there is no guarantee that it will pass VP nom as a result of FP delist discussion. In that case, the image would have fallen through the cracks and become have-not status. In short, I want to see confirmation from the crowd so that there won't be (hopefully) any pointy delist nomination in the future. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ohana, I'd suggest moving this to the featured pictured candidates talk. Many participants don't have this page on their watchlists or otherwise won't see it here. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Or, I could point them to here =) OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The way things used to be weighted a year ago seemed to be fair: the rarer and more encyclopedic an image, the more leeway it received on esthetics. Within limits, of course. A few months ago I blogged about the search for a potential FP of Booker T. Washington.[3] That's just one of many experiences too numerous to recount. Only about 1 in 1000 archival images has the potential to become featured even with the best restoration. Perhaps because those long fruitless searches occured out of view and a steady stream of nominations kept coming (a few of which were serendipitous and turned out especially well), expectations changed. Expectations changed beyond what was reasonable or possible, and reviewers were resistant to feedback. The most frustrating thing about it was how they first seemed to ignore (and later openly disbelieved) feedback that their direction was actively hindering efforts to gain access to more material. Quality archival images aren't easy to come by: free access is rare, and a network of volunteers are working to coax open the doors to more library and museum collections. The resources that are currently available do not have equal depth in all subject areas, so in order to interface with curators it's important to make the most of the material we have: for an archive in the Netherlands, people and scenes from the Netherlands; for a library in Egypt, Egyptian and African themes; for a museum in Indonesia, Indonesian material. Much of this is scarce (in terms of quality material) when one's principal resource is the Library of Congress. The sensible course is to feature the best we can actually get, then replace it if and when better material becomes available. Yet by moving the goalposts and changing the standards--rejecting nominations that easily would have passed twelve months earlier--reviewers have lost touch with what is feasible and acted against the project's best interests. Have a close look at recent restorations that have been getting promoted and rejected: it often looks like my work in particular is held to a different standard than other volunteers'. One hopes that the dividend of prolific volunteer work would be trust and respect; but sometimes the opposite result occurs. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think EV should outweigh TQ. You are right, this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. But I think if an image can be restored without damaging the essence of the the image, then it should be restored (the Nagasaki bombing photo for example). Scratches, hairs, and other unwanted artifacts are not part of the EV. I had a similar issue over on the commons with File:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg vs File:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450.jpg, where the reflection of a window and the lower part of a cross were removed to improve the focus on the subject. Some objected to the removal of the cross, but the photoshopped version was passed and featured on the main page. I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis as to whether an image should be photoshopped, but highly educational images should be preferred over "pretty pictures". I'm no FP regular, but from what I have seen it seems TQ outweighs EV in some nomination discussions. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, EV = Quality in importance. Neither is number one; they share the distinction. If we feature the best quality historical images that are restored well, I think that would start a bit of chatter between curators, librarians, etc; word of mouth basically. I'm on the verge of getting a donation from my local historic society; not a big one, but one nonetheless. And I'll be doing all the digitizing myself, gratis. Some images are not meant to be FPs. Many locations and buildings cannot be photographed properly to meet FP standards (like this - no clear view except across the street). Same goes for historical images. Some can't be restored enough. If it's some major historic event, yes, leniency is offered, but if it's something like this, then it really has to be good to pass. wadester16 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know you were talking to a historical society. If you'd like to plug into our little network, please email. DurovaCharge! 00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of my own nominations, I'd say value. Most failures are for EV reasons. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

EV weighed against the availability of making new images are the most important factors to consider. If they are so rare that it is almost impossible to replace or will not be replaced for many years to come, then the EV will weigh alot higher that the quality. If an image can be readily retaken, then quality should be weighted more. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget better quality => better enc as well - sharpness => detail, correct exposure and tonality means subject is depicted accurately, etc. MER-C 09:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I suppose EV = (Quality + Historic Value) x Difficulty of Reproduction in some way shape or form. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
heheh I was wondering when someone would come up with a formula. Surely FP is best expressed with EV as a multiplicative factor of Difficulty relative to HV-Q? In any event, without a constant anywhere in sight there's no chance of it having any function... and surely the whole expression should be divided by opinion..? --mikaultalk 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
FP = EV Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Section title

Just a thought following todays sound clip. Should this section be renamed from Featured Picture to Featured Media? (I know 99.9% are pictures) -- SGBailey (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We also have a separate process for featured sounds OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So a general thought - we've had a couple of ultra wide Panoramas as POTDs recently. (see Image:Dar_es_Salaam_Panorama_edit2.jpg as an example). Personally i do not think they are great images from the point of view as enclyclopedic entry components. I feel they do not meet the "Adds value to an Article" criterion given that, they are practically unviewable within an article, and have to be blown to max size before they can be seen (so effectively a short while and a few clicks away from the article). Not dissing panos as a whole, but those that are so wide (i.e. short) that their subject matter is hard to determine without maxing it out. Anyone agree/disagree? Simon. —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

For discussions such as this you're best to post to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates. --jjron (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

I just noticed, that an FP isn't listed in the archive of August 2009 and not among the FP's in the gallery: File:Munttoren Amsterdam.jpg --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Has been taken care of. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The featured picture of January 14, 2007 appears to have been deleted. Super Mario Bros. (Talk | Contributions) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Victoria crater from HiRise.jpg was featured on January 14, 2007, and it has not been deleted. howcheng {chat} 06:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed upload behavior

I’m trying to re-upload a better, color-corrected picture (here at File:The Milwaukee Road-Rosalia.png). I used to be able to do this much much more simply. I am registered at both en.Wikipedia and at Commons. When I click on “Upload a new version of this file”, it takes me to the standard upload form. I used to be able to choose the new file to upload, click the “upload file” button, and it would ask me if I really wanted to replace it. When I affirmed that I wanted to upload a replacement, it would comply. Now it just takes me to a 100% blank Commons page. The original is on en.Wikipedia—not Commons as far as I can tell—and I’m not sure about this new behavior. Is it working correctly? Greg L (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right. On the original image page, click "edit" and copy everything you find there over to the blank commons upload form – use the "basic upload" one. Don't forget to fill in the "other versions" field if you're keeping the original. --mikaultalk 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

interwiki

Could somebody add a interwiki link to the hebrew wikipedia features pictures ([[he:ויקיפדיה:תמונה מומלצת]]? thanks, Adiel lo (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC) done. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

History subsections

The history subsection does not conform to the neutral point of view. It preferentially exposes American history, WW1 and WW2 more prominently than the history of other parts of the world. Since the English Wikipedia is not meant as a USA wikipedia, it should have a more global character. Therefore I suggest that we change the categories to be defined regionally - African History, American history (this should include both North and South America), Asian History, Australian and Oceania's History, European History (as ordered here alphabetically). This would also encourage more submissions and featured pictures of places other than USA. Meznaric (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories tend to get split off whenever we get enough to do so. Unfortunately, the U.S. has laws - mainly {{PD-USGov}}, that mean we get more material related to it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New Userbox

Just out of the pipes, a userbox for non-uploaders and non-creators that nominate pictures for FP status.
It is {{Template:User FP Nominator|##}}. Looks like this...

This user found and nominated ## images to Featured Pictures status.




This user found and nominated two images to Featured Pictures status.




Enjoy,   Nezzadar ☎   16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps change to "helps"? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this userbox ? Is it for someone who provided an edit based on feedback at PPR/FPC ? Or is it only for the mere act of putting a Support vote ? If it is for the latter, I think this userbox is "dangerous" : award-whores will try to put as many support vote they can to make themselves looks good. Ksempac (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am using it to indicate that I have found two images that met the criteria and nominated them. People with no photography or illustration skills should still be encouraged to find images worthy of FP status. This is my reward. It is for nominators.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Changed wording. Don't worry, I am the only current user, so it won't affect anyone else.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Due to coding issues the template is not singular/plural identified, and a number must be put in place of the ##, as it does not function blank.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Better placement

I think this one should be placed among People, rather than Others. Brand[t] 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The practice is to categorize the photos by the associated article. Since we don't have an article about this individual, it doesn't belong in People. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the screen, one can select a section in which to look at featured pictures on the page, i.e. Animals, Art, etc. This moves one down to that section. However, once in that section, one can not choose the main page associated with that section; instead, one has to select the subpage. I would like to be able to choose to go to the Art page, (not the Art/Paintings subpage) which does exist (I think).

However, I don't know how to edit projects, or if I am qualified, and after my last few help experiences, I request that someone else, if agreed, do it, or tell me how. Please excuse any misuse of Wikipedia jargon.

Thanks. Peacedance (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You can go back to "Art" in the upper box. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the possibility of a Wikipedia: Featured pictures in the Finnish Wikipedia. However, there is no "Pic of the Day" on the front page, and some have argued against the adoption of Featured pictures unless there is a "pic of the day". I noticed that on the English Wikipedia there was over a year of gap between the adoption of Featured pictures and the adoption of Pic of the day. A question arose in the Finnish Wikipedia "What if Featured pictures aren`t shown on the front page?" I would like to ask you, fellow English Wikipedians, what did you use your Featured pictures for before adopting the pic of the day? 101090ABC (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Well I can't say for sure what we 'used them for' prior to picture of the day, as I haven't been around that long, but the point of featured pictures isn't just for POTD. It's to maintain a collection of high quality encyclopaedic images. It does seem slightly self indulgent if there is no practical and immediate use for the featured pictures other than where they were already used in articles though. I suppose it's similar to featured articles, except that the featured article process often results in improvements to the article, whereas it isn't quite as common here (although can still happen, when faults are identified and corrected). Not sure if this helps to answer your question though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A featured picture process is more about searching for, sourcing, improving, and maintaining the images that illustrate articles. As with a featured article, vetted work of recognised quality has some automatic right or "authority" to stay in its present form, and with a featured picture, to stay in an article. It's also an impetus to simply place the best illustration of a topic in an article, where it most benefits the encyclopaedia. I cannot say for certain how the Finnish Wikipedia operates, but I've often been surprised by the number of Wikipedias (not all of them small; the Spanish Wikipedia is a good example) that have hugely inferior images in their articles, when FPs on Commons and EN Wiki are available of the subject. Without the impetus of a featured picture process, many users would have no motivation to find the best available. Also, Wikipedia is criticised for the quality of its images, and that criticism isn't without some truth; we have many subjects which are only illustrated by very poor quality photographs, and many more topics that aren't illustrated by anything at all. A featured picture gallery goes some way towards correcting that, showcasing the best of what the Finnish Wikipedia has to offer. On one final note, I would like to think that a featured picture process local to the Finnish Wikipedia will inspire Finns to go out and photograph their own locality, and that, selfishly, can only benefit the rest of us, too. I'd love to see more nominations here of Finnish landscapes and people and wildlife! To sum up, no, it isn't about just the Picture of the Day. Featured pictures (and the process) have their own inherit worth, regardless of whether or not they are shown on the main page. Hope that helps! Maedin\talk 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"I would like to think that a featured picture process local to the Finnish Wikipedia will inspire Finns to go out and photograph their own locality". I believe this point has been taken into account in the discussion. I at least believe that we should not just copy the criteria from other wikis. One suggestion has been that to qualfy the picture must have been taken/loaded into Commons by a Finnish Wikipedia user. 101090ABC (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, but keep in mind that if you restrict the creator to that degree, you risk having a dead, or at least very inactive project. I mean no disrespect to the Finnish Wikipedia, but I suspect that there are not many photographers there who will be uploading featured quality photographs. That's true here at the English Wikipedia: if it weren't for 4 or 5 prolific and regular English contributors, our featured picture gallery would be decimated and the project would possibly languish and die. You have to give editors enough content, and enough interesting and varied content, that they keep coming back and voting. A handful of nominations from a few Finnish photographers of subjects in Finland is unlikely to inspire contributors. I'm not sure in what way you could give preference to Finnish content, and I like the idea of doing so, but I'm not sure how viable it is. Does that make sense? Maedin\talk 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll echo Maedin's sentiments. I think it may be counter-productive to limit Finnish FPs to only those taken by Finns. For one thing, the encyclopaedia is intended to be all-encompassing and broad in scope. To only feature the images taken by Finnish wikipedians would push the Finnish wiki towards systematic cultural bias. Obviously each language wiki is entitled to its own processes, but I would imagine that countering systematic bias is something that should be important for all of them? You could still encourage grass roots contributions while being open all images regardless of origin in my opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note two things: 1. I also mentioned "loaded into Commons". 2. There are also Finnish -born people abroad that use the Finnish Wikipedia. This should give a nice variety in the pictures. 101090ABC (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I did note these things, but I am not convinced, personally. There are about 5 million people in Finland, and according to the Finns article, approximately 1 million people of Finnish descent living around the world. How many of those people outside Finland actively contribute to the Finnish encyclopaedia, or even still speak the language, I don't know. But at best you would have an extra 20% of contributions from outside Finland based on those numbers. Given that the English wikipedia has about 500-600 million people to recruit from (or possibly a lot more if you consider that many Indians speak english as a second language) and we accept that we are not able to completely counter systematic bias even when we don't limit our Featured Pictures to those taken by English speakers, I am just not convinced that Finns would be able to do so with only Finnish contributions. If you want to only feature Finnish-created images, that's a decision that you're entitled to make, but I think you would like have the following result: systematic bias in the images (as per above) and a smaller/lower quality set of images (due to the relatively small contributor base). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Golden W Award

The Golden W, awarded for having content featured in every area of the main page.
The Golden W, with Laurels, awarded for having content thrice featured in every area of the main page.

The Golden W Award goes to editors who succeed in having content featured in every area of the main page: Featured Article, Did You Know, In the News, On This Day, and Featured Picture. It is currently proposed as a WikiProject. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Golden W Award if you are interested in making this WikiProject a reality. Time commitment is minimal, less than an hour a month at this point. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Please see WP:VPP#Featured whatever. Simply south (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow.

I'm appalled. How is that a vanity fair poster made it as a featured picture on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I take that back. How is George Clooney's picture worthy of being a featured photo on Wikipedia?? LaRouxEMP (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious question to ask is, what do you think makes something "worthy" of being a featured picture? Our main goal with the Featured Pictures project is encyclopaedic value; if it's a good illustration of a topic that we cover as part of the encyclopaedia, then it's already half way there. Are you suggesting that a clear, detailed, high-resolution, quality, free portrait of a major celebrity is not feature-able?
I think it goes without saying that if you want to object to what we feature, the best place to do that is over at the candidacies page; we rely on people with differing opinions to help us select the best, :) Maedin\talk 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies good sir. I had no idea the picture was free. Can you check this picture out and tell me if it's worthy of being a featured picture? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Vulva_labeled_no_tags.jpg LaRouxEMP (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a sir, I'm a lady, and I am also at work, so will not be clicking on the link. Maedin\talk 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies madame. I had no idea you were of the opposite gender until I visited your user page. When you do find the time however, can you please examine the photo I've presented to you as I think it is of remarkable quality? LaRouxEMP (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, :) I'll have a look tonight and comment, although (for the future) the formal venue for such things is Wikipedia:Picture peer review. Maedin\talk 12:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this user has apparently been blocked indefinitely. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Lovely, :) I guess that means I get out of commenting! Maedin\talk 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I am missing something obvious. But since all freely licensed pictures should be moved to Commons, which has its own Featured Pictures vote, is Wikipedia Featured Pictures only for fair use images? If not (and I think it is not, from what I have seen), why duplicate what Commons FP does? Do we recognize all of Commons FP as our FP? Why or why not? Does it go in the other direction? Why or why not? Thanks for the explanation, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't participate in Commons FPC, so take this with a grain of salt. My understanding is that the criteria to be a Commons FP do not include the EV requirement we have here. Because of this, many Commons FPs don't pass FPC here. The point of FP here is to promote images that do a great job of enhancing the encyclopedia. Commons FP seems to be more about the highest quality pictures regardless of whether they are particularly encyclopedic. I hope that helps. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Makeemlighter is right, the fundamental difference between the two projects is "encyclopaedic value" (EV). At Commons, featured pictures don't have to be used in any articles, and plants and animals don't have to be identified scientifically. Here FP candidates must be used in one or more articles, illustrate the topic well, and animals and plants must have a species ID (if possible). Many pictures that pass on Commons wouldn't pass here because they don't illustrate an article topic, they're just "beautiful". Some of the duller but very encyclopaedic images that we feature here would never pass on Commons because they have no "wow". Hope between us you've got the answers you need, :) Maedin\talk 10:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and two more things: the requirement for images to be freely licensed is the same here. Although Wikipedia allows some fair-use images, they are not eligible to be FPs. Also, from your comment I got the impression that you haven't yet seen our candidacies page. It's here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Feel free to contribute; we're always happy to welcome creators, nominators, and reviewers. Maedin\talk 10:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually En Wikipedia allows some pictures that are not fair use and are not acceptable on Commons. On Commons, an image must be "free" in the US and in the country of origin; En Wikipedia only cares about free in the U.S. Rmhermen (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons FPs

File:Delphine Chanéac cropped.jpg

Do you think I could nom it, and get it passed, maybe with some photoshopping? It's a pretty cool pic. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump." So I'd say it's got 40% chance of passing, it's pretty cool, I like the composition, but the problem is that when you view it at full size, there's some strange noise, and that's exactly the kind of thing that people here at FPC tend to focus on. Give it a shot though, why not? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this promoted?

It's a good image, much work went into it and I did think it should be promoted, but there were three distinct vote types at odds with each other: Gut Monk's opposition, a few votes in support only for the original and mine only for one cropped version. How is that a consensus? --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I count 7 supports for the original, a few of which only support the original. Not much support, and some opposition, to the crops. Seemed like a pretty clear consensus for promotion of the original. BTW, you're better off posting at the FPC talk page: a lot more people watch it so you're more likely to get a (timely) response. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Original had 8 supports, 1 general oppose, multiple opposes for the crops, and only 1 support for just the crops. Consensus is black & white plain as day. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, consensus is the key. We'd be passing much less if unanimity was required. From WP:FPC: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Jujutacular T · C 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Nomination for deletion of Template:Wallpaper

Template:Wallpaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Waltham, The Duke of 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Check this out please:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assorted_044.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yas_Italy_Fair-Cape_Cod-Aquarium_039.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimono1997 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sport

I noticed alot of sport images are under People-Entertainment instead of the Sport subcatagory. Spongie555 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be an independent category. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:FeaturedPicture update

I have made a small change to that template, adding a | parameter for "video" or "animation" as files like File:Bombing of Hamburg.ogg are not "pictures". I hope this is OK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued pictures MfD

Your input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures (3d nomination) may benefit the discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Images at Presidential portrait (United States)

There is a gallery of what I would say are high quality images portraits of the US presidents most of which I think would be suitable as featured images. There are a couple of low quality exceptions but for the most part I would say 90% of them meeet to the requirements for FP. Before I submit a large group for Featured image status would someone more experienced with images take a look and tell me if I am out of my depth in thinking these are high quality and Encycopedic? Here are a couple things that I noticed on a couple: A couple include the artists autograph on the portrait, a couple have what look like cracks in the painting, minor artifacts or other slight defects but again since these are paintings I am not sure what sort of changes would be appropriate to keep its historic appearance. Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page proposals

Dear FP community, a note to make you aware of an existing proposal and a future proposal for main page inclusion.

Overall, this would mean 7 FAs per week, 11 FPs per week, 2 FSs per week and 1 FL per week. Please head to Talk:Main page for the current FS proposal and shortly where the FL proposal will be listed. Many thanks, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for iconic 20th century architecture

Just a note to let you know that as part of the National Register of Historic Places Fall 2011 Photo Contest a barnstar is offered for any FP of an iconic 20th century building on the US heritage register. As the scope of that contest is geographically limited, additionally I'm also offering the same award worldwide. --Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is local "Featured Picture" template redundant to Commons "Assessments" template?

Quick question - when the description page of a Commons image uses the "Assessments" template to show that the image is a Featured Picture at en Wikipedia, is the local {{Featured picture}} template considered redundant? Kelly hi! 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is not watched heavily. To answer your question: No. Since the enwiki community only controls enwiki pages, we would like to keep our own records. Commons is somewhat inconsistent on keeping that template up to date. Jujutacular talk 00:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I watch it! And I could have sworn that I responded to it. Juju is mostly right. I'll add that English FPs aren't always marked as such on Commons, and many English FPs that are marked on Commons have incorrect links to nomination pages. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Main Page affecting April Fools Day Tradition

There is a discussion on the Main Page relative to the April Fools Day tradition that would affect this page---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Layout

I don't get the layout. When you click in you see 2-3 photos per category all the way down. Then you see these subcategory links and it opens up to a larger page with many photos -- so my question I asked myself why are there only 3 photos, why those photos, and why not a list of categories with no photos... It just doesn't really seem organized or purposeful. Mkdwtalk 19:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The latest three photographs to be promoted in each category are the ones shown on the main FP page. And each category has its own page, showing all of the pictures promoted in that area of interest. The three photographs are shown because it's a guide to the content of the categories and is also a simple showcase of the very latest we've promoted. Julia\talk 19:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disqualify promotional pictures from Main Page FP slot

I propose a ban on professionally taken promotional pictures that are supplied by agencies/promoters or TV/film/music companies appearing as the Main Page TFP for a period of time sufficient that the promotion is a long way from being current. This does not prejudice the possibility of such pictures being given FP status.

The rationale is that the Main Page is an exceedingly widely seen of internet space, with c8 million hits per day. As such, it could be perceived as of great value to advertisers/promoters, and we should avoid any possibility of the perception that images produced purely for the purposes of promoting a personality or production are gaining such a high profile spot free of charge, when an equivalent spot on a page of equal traffic would be of high pecuniary value. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Such images certainly shouldn't receive preferential treatment, but I see no valid reason to discriminate against them either.
    How is it problematic for users to (accurately) perceive that the pictures are appearing free of charge? We should be concerned about the mistaken impression that promoters are paying for the placement. This is a real issue, but it exists to a far greater extent (and arises far more frequently) when featured articles about commercial entities appear. —David Levy 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    Because getting services of high financial value for free looks either exceeding dodgy, or invites speculation about the reasons for preferential treatment. They have "paid", by allowing a licence to photos that they could otherwise have retained copyright on, but the cost in lost potential revenue is minimal compared to the advantage that is gained. Kevin McE (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    We aren't providing preferential treatment, of course. I agree that mistaken perceptions to the contrary and "speculation about the reasons" are problematic, but as noted above, they usually take the form of the belief that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation has been paid for the placement (and this is far more likely to arise in relation to TFA).
    Any living photographer or artist stands to benefit from his/her work's credited appearance as TFP. This reflects the reality that we showcase material available under free licenses, and it encourages the contribution thereof (which doesn't require the relinquishment of copyright, incidentally). —David Levy 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, neither WMF nor any of us editors receive any financial remuneration for promoting promotional pictures to FP status or for scheduling them as POTD, so there's no quid pro quo taking place. I suppose it's possible that someone might get paid to nominate it, but there's no way a substandard photo is going to make it past FPC unless every participant were to be paid off somehow. Anyway, I realize this proposal is in response to the Alexz Johnson pic, but were you aware that the proposed criteria would not be applicable to that photo? Instant Star ended in 2008, after all. —howcheng {chat} 04:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose with caveats. There's no reason that these sort of images shouldn't just be featured at Commons, after all, there's no encyclopedic background to the images there, they're just great images. Having said that, if a high quality image can be used on the main page, associated with a quality-controlled article (i.e. one without maintenance tags, without serious quality issues), then I see no issue at all. To claim one image to be more "promotional" than another is entirely subjective, we'd need another layer of bureaucracy to decide (by "consensus" I suppose?) on what is and what isn't "promotional"? Could the proposer provide instances, objective evidence etc where the main page has been "perceived" as promotional, other than in his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    OK, it was a concern that I was not the only person to observe on the other day, so I thought it worth checking as to whether it was a wider concern. Of course, Howcheng, I had no intention to suggest that you or any other individual was gaining financial advantage, but there is, I believe, legitimate concern that companies would receive something very valuable (high profile exposure) in exchange for something of negligible cost (licensing of an image), and that some people might speculate as to whether there is more to the issue that meets the eye. It is correct to assert that no favours are asked or expected, but sometimes assertion is not enough, and people must avoid any grounds for suspicion that it could be the case: particularly in the Gibraltarpedia era, I think it behoves us to edit on the side of caution.
    Rambling Man puts forward two questions: one simply addressed, the other rather unfitting. " To claim one image to be more "promotional" than another is entirely subjective": my proposal referred specifically to "professionally taken promotional pictures that are supplied by agencies/promoters or TV/film/music companies", and identifying that requires no bureaucracy, simply a glance at the source of the image. As to your other question, it is not incumbent on somebody putting forward an idea for discussion to prove the weight of concern: discussion reveals that.
    If it turns out that the concern is not widespread, the proposal will go nowhere, and will be forgotten in a few days: opinions will have been aired, and consensus will have been established. At present it looks like the proposal is likely to fail: no harm if so, and I will simply hope that those who are confident that doubt will not be cast on the propriety and integrity of Wikipedia will be proved correct. I think the possibility that that will not be so is worth the minor restriction on ourselves that I propose. Kevin McE (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, images supplied by agencies etc still have to undergo the WP:FPC process, if you have a problem with that, propose something different. Also, if you have an issue with the criteria for featured pictures, that would be an appropriate location to start a debate. As for the "unfitting" question, could you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    I have specifically stated that this would "not prejudice the possibility of such pictures being given FP status." It refers to them appearing in the TFP slot.
    I'm not sure what remains to clarify: you challenged me to " provide instances, objective evidence etc where the main page has been "perceived" as promotional, other than in [my] opinion", and I replied that I consider myself under no onus to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    That's true, but it would strengthen your argument.
    We often receive such complaints when TFA's subject is commercial (e.g. a profit-making company, film, music album or video game). Conversely, most complaints about TFP relate to concerns that the images' subjects are violent, disgusting or sexually explicit. —David Levy 17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: There have been several instances in past where content on Main page has been restricted for seemingly being promotional. DYK hooks are asked to change or altered for being promotional. Bulk appearances of similar topics, like the Gibraltar case, are scattered to avoid promotional effect. Articles related to elections are on hold for post-election appearances. I support that some discussion should be done before featuring the image as TFP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    DYK hooks are asked to change or altered for being promotional.
    TFP blurbs can be (and are) edited too. Banning these images from the section is the equivalent of banning articles from DYK.
    Bulk appearances of similar topics, like the Gibraltar case, are scattered to avoid promotional effect.
    Howcheng scatters similar images, regardless of whether they're "promotional".
    Articles related to elections are on hold for post-election appearances.
    We can do exactly the same thing if a featured picture of a standing candidate (or something similarly relevant to an election) shows up in the TFP queue.
    I support that some discussion should be done before featuring the image as TFP.
    That isn't what's proposed above. —David Levy 17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    We have in fact delayed pictures before due to elections. There was a John Edwards picture that was moved when it was pointed out to me that it was right before Super Tuesday (it was rescheduled to some time after he dropped out of the election). —howcheng {chat} 17:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What to do if a FP has to be removed from the MP?

There's talk on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that today's FP should possibly be removed and sent back for further evaluation. Today's problem is for technical issues with the image, making the situation IMHO not of critical urgency. But it does raise a good point. Those of us at MP:ERRORs tend to be the last line of defense for problems with things on the MP. For DYK, ITN, and OTD, which have multiple items in their panel, if there is a big enough problem with an item, the item can just be removed from the panel without major disruption. But for FP (and FA) where a single item is the entire panel, the question is, what should we MP:ERRORS patrollers do if there is a serious problem with the current FP? I'm thinking that a late-discovered hoaxing or copyright issue would be enough to require a rapid pulldown. But what should we put up instead? If nothing else, I suspect I could grab a random FP from years back and re-run it. But I wanted to at least have a discussion on the issue. And there is still the technical issues with today's FP that, while not the urgency of a copyvio, may need for the current image to come down. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The specifics of the issues with today's pic are already under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Today's POTD. So let's go ahead and not worry here about that issue, and just discuss the general idea of what to do if an image must come down ASAP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been informed that the FA process now maintains a short emergency list of possible FA sets. This list was set up after a different type of incident late last year, but works perfectly well as a source of FAs ready to drop onto the MP if the existing one must be pulled for some reason. Does FP have a similar sort of list? If not, then I would highly suggest the creation of such. That would give non-FP admins a resource if we need to pull an FP down. For instance, I very well might have pulled down today's FP myself for the technical glitches on it, if I had actually had something else to put up instead. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Delist process change proposal

If a featured picture is nominated for delisting and has been modified subsequent to when it was assigned FP status (e.g., any modification to address a reason for the delist nomination), then the picture should lose its FP status by default unless a consensus is achieved that current criteria to be a featured picture are met by either the original picture (in which case the picture is reverted) or the modified image (in which case the new picture receives FP status anew). But if consensus is not reached that the picture is worthy of FP status, then the fact of the consensus that the original picture requires modification shall be sufficient to strip it of its FP status (until such time as a consensus can be achieved that it deserves FP status). 75.208.123.109 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A nomination to delist [4] should not fail (2-0-?) simply because not enough people bothered to vote.

Voting should remain open until enough interested people cast a vote. In this example, the image is based on original research, but apparently is not controversial enough to bother anyone. But there is no mechanism to obtain 5 votes within 14 days. Yet were it to be nominated to be featured now, no one would support it. Furthermore, the current image in commons is not even the version that received the featured status.

This looks like a problem with the process. An image that garners featured status should not be able to withstand the first challenge so easily. Rather than simply ignoring a delist vote, editors should actually have to record their votes to oppose it. I propose that voting should remain open until at least 5 days after the minimum votes are recorded, 1 day after the last vote is recorded, or 14 days, whichever is latest. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting instructions

According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, "all discussions about individual featured pictures" should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates, "if the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate" then it should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures.

This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?

This note is being posted to both of the indicated talk pages, and I'll use Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to post my specific comments this time. --50.100.192.246 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed, but I think you're searching for WT:POTD. The Featured pictures process has no control over what appears on the Main Page. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fix. It still doesn't address where to post things about FPs after they are no longer candidates. (However, thanks for the pointer to the third talk page.) --50.100.192.246 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The de facto place for those kinds of discussion has been WT:FPC. The instruction might be crap, but that's the page you're probably best off on. Cowtowner (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo

Could available editors please give their opinion on which of [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Remender#Infobox_Photo_Discussion these photos] would make a better Infobox pic for the Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Day discussion

This cover to the Wikipedia Facebook page gave me a wonderful idea. I know there's always been issues over Today's Featured Picture and how it works. In short, perhaps a supplement, or even a substitute, could be to have the Featured Picture serve as the cover of the page for a time - for example a week. The current image of "The Tulip Folly" by Jean-Léon Gérôme is so beautiful, it just made it seem like the perfect platform to showcase Wikipedia's great images.

Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing picture of the day

  • I have attempted to edit the selected picture of the day for :March 3 - Mon. I have tried to save my changes, which can be found by following the direction below the image, but cannot make the changes into the protected box. Would someone fix this, as the present blurb is badly written. [5]
  • Likewise, I have corrected ..... which implied that the poem is well received i.e. that it is still popular. No, it isn't. It is of interest to scholars. It was a scholar who "stated" that Mariana had been a heroine, way back in 1830. The statement was not made in 1830, as implied. It was made retrospectively in about 2006. I have written alternate text and it needs fixing, before it goes front page. [6]
  • Also, the illustrations to Mariana are not the poem. Your blurb deals solely with the poem and its subject matter, as if the artwork had no validity except in some imagined context that you refer to as "encyclopedic value" i.e. as if images have no value except to refer to something else and as if the artist William Edward Frank Britten had no fame in his own right.
Amandajm (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of Media Viewer?

Media Viewer lets you browse larger images on Wikipedia.

Hi folks: because of your interest in quality images, we'd love to hear what you think about Media Viewer, a new tool that aims to improve the viewing experience on Wikipedia and its sister sites.

This multimedia browser displays images in larger size and with less clutter, providing a more immersive user experience, as described here. It was developed in collaboration with many community members -- including over 12,000 beta users here on English Wikipedia, who have been testing it since November 2013. The current plan is to release this tool gradually in coming weeks: it is already enabled by default on over a dozen sites (including the Dutch, French and Polish Wikipedia), and will be deployed more widely throughout May, as described in this release plan.

Can you share your feedback about this tool, to help address any critical issues before its May 15 release on the English Wikipedia? To try it out, please log in and click on the small 'Beta' link next to 'Preferences' in your personal menu. Then check the box next to 'Media Viewer' in the Beta Features section of your user preferences — and click 'Save'. You can now click on any thumbnail image on this site to see it in larger size in the Media Viewer. For more info, check out these testing tips or this Help page.

Once you've tried the tool, please share your feedback in this discussion, to help improve this feature. You're also welcome to take this quick survey -- or join this in-depth discussion on MediaWiki.org, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing your insights! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, at mw:Talk:Multimedia/About Media Viewer#Page view statistics the development team have indicated that it will no longer be possible to track image clicks. In that section, they are asking for feedback on that issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Featured picture wording

Hi everyone. User:Technical 13 and I are having trouble agreeing about what emphasis to use at Template talk:Featured picture#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014. If some of you could take a look, it would be very much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

about the presentation

pssst... i'm not very good at english
why the presentation is ugly ? (ugly dark blue background, very tiny photo, pale introduction)... you should make it look like arabe article (good taste, big photos, more photos...) --ᔕGᕼᗩIEᖇ ᗰOᕼᗩᗰEᗪ (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

#TTTWFTW kickstarter campaign

I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion > Diversity in origin of images

I'm new here but I just wanted to know the diversity that the Featured Picture tries to implement?

Is there a list of all previous images? and is there a way to make sure that there are many different cultures represented? I come from an art history/ visual art education that is heavily eurocentric..

In order to make sure no biases are placed is there a way to gather images from a different location - or have weeks/months dedicated to images from a specific place? X-pert Dreamer (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)X-pert Dreamer

Pradeep Jitendranath Dubey

NAME - PRADEEP KUMAR DUBEY FATHER'S NAME - JITENDRA NATH DUBEY ADDRESS - VILL & POST - AWANTI 

         DISTT - CHANDAULI (UP), INDIA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.232.140 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2015

221.212.169.62 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Altamel (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Delist based on current minimum resolution?

I was curious if we ought to be delisting FPs that do not meet the current minimum resolution of 1,500 by 1,500 pixels? Are they grandfathered in perpetuity, or should they be delisted? RO(talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

People/Musicians

I propose that we should create a new "musicians" category for our featured pictures of people. We have a sizable enough number of FP images of musicians and musicians on stage to create a new category, but they are lumped together with actors, comedians models, TV performers etc. under the "entertainment" bracket, which would be less cluttered if musicians had their own section. JJARichardson (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Would tenors and composers also go in this category? Armbrust The Homunculus 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Should WP:TAFI return to the main page?

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.--Coin945 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FPs with watermarks

Discussion here. Samsara 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue here, not at Errors, that's about the main page, not what should and should not constitute a featured picture, as you know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Move to different subpage

I think File:Endeavour docked to ISS.jpg should be on the Understanding subpage, based on photos in both the subpage it is in, and the Understanding subpage. Discussion needed? If not, is there a specific way I am supposed to move it? Kees08 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved, as the image's caption links to Space Shuttle Endeavour. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap.[1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

  • Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
  • Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

  1. ^ Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6. PMID 27765289.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.
  3. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice


    — The Transhumanist    13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong identification

Hi, We got a mail in OTRS saying that this image, initially claimed to be Augusta Savage is actually Georgette Seabrooke. I don't understand how we got this confusion, as the initial source shows a different image. May be it was changed there? The good news is we didn't have any good image of Georgette Seabrooke. The bad news is that this picture was promoted as Featured picture, and then appeared on the Main page on 2018-02-28. I renamed the picture, and removed it wherever it was wrongly used. What do we do now with the FP nomination ? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yann under IAR it is about equally reasonable to (1) remove the FP status due to clear error, or (2) keep FP status as the image would almost surely sail through a re-nomination. Personally, I'd probably make the dilemma vanish by just tossing up a re-nomination under the corrected name.
In any case the original nomination page needs some sort of {{Divbox}} at the top explaining the mistake. {{POTD/2018-02-28}} should get one too. Alsee (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Alsee : I renominate it as per your advice. Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Georgette Seabrooke. I have no idea what "Divbox" should be added. Thanks for your comment, Yann (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I added a message box added to the original nomination page and {{POTD/2018-02-28}} explaining the situation. Feel free to make any corrections or tweaks to the text. Alsee (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Verifiable blurbs

There is a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria#Verifiable_blurbs that could use input. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 23:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day volunteers needed

Hi. I'm not sure if everyone is aware, but Crisco 1492, the longstanding POTD coordinator, has recently quit the project. It appears that no one has yet taken up the mantle, because as of now, we only have three more days of pictures lined up. Volunteers are urgently needed at this time to schedule upcoming POTDs for the coming months, starting as soon as September 2nd. Instructions for scheduling new pictures to appear on the Main Page are fairly simple, and can be found here. This seems the logical place to recruit from, but if there is no interest, I will post this on WP:Centralized discussion for community-wide advertising. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 07:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please ensure any accompanying blurbs are accurate and verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Which was the last picture lined up for POTD using the normal FIFO scheduling? MER-C 10:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder if a process that falls into absolute ruin when the one and only person maintaining the process quits is something we should still have... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There was recently a fairly extensive discussion of this issue, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301#Need a new POTD coordinator--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not have interest, but someone with interest should start an RfC on using Commons PoTD, since that was a common theme in that discussion. I would recommend a couple of options, like Commons PoTD with no blurb, enwiki PoTD with no blurb, Commons PoTD with one line blurb, etc. Kees08 (Talk) 19:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
No interest either, but I do like the idea of using the Commons PoTD instead of curating our own. -FASTILY 22:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please do not derail this discussion with banter about replacing PoTD. The derailment of the relevant AN thread at the time with similar banter is primarily the reason this situation hasn't been resolved. Swarm ♠ 00:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: We now have pictures thru Sep 5. Keep submitting! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added a picture for Sep 4th, I don't know much about how the Wikipedia Image Handling UI works and only read the guideline document. If some more experience user is willing to teach me the ropes that would be greatly appreciated. Zubin12 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to come to this conversation late (the page wasn't on my watchlist hitherto), I have been taking care of the POTD entries for the last couple of weeks, since the previous coordinator left us, and am happy to continue doing so. Extra hands are always welcome, of course, although it's worth noting that the largest part of the job is researching and adding sources to the linked articles to make sure that the blurbs written are properly verifiable. POTD enjoys a fairly large slice of the main page (albeit somewhat below its more illustrious cousins such as DYK, TFA, OTD and ITN) so it's important to make sure it's representative of our best work, and subject to the same sourcing rules. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    BINGO! And thanks. I'm very happy we have someone who is dedicated to the integrity of the main page content, especially when it comes to verifiable content in the associated blurb at last. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I see an image I relatively recently sent through FPC in the queue for POTD, which makes me worried if it's FIFO. Is there a sense of how many spare FPs we have (i.e. when POTD will run out of pictures)? I note that we currently only have 2 nominations ongoing at FPC, of which only one is headed towards promotion. I can start nominating a bunch of stuff and try to vote on more, but participation has been really sparse there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we're on WP:FPT #52 or thereabouts at the moment. MER-C 08:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It's as FIFO as it can be, but there has always been a degree of discretion with the scheduling, and I'm just trying to make sure that what's posted is up to scratch as well as balanced (i.e. not portraits every day and not coins/notes every day, both of which are there in large numbers in the queue). From what I can see the previous POTD coordinator was also fairly liberal with the scheduling too. As far as I can see there isn't a single source to pick the FIFO things from, filtered by what's appeared before, so I have been tinkering a bit with the API to try to extract such a list. Once done, we'll have a better idea of how many FPs we have left in the FIFO queue, but I think we're still absolutely fine for the time being. (And if not, in the last resort we can always start repeating ones from the mid-2000s... that's so long ago I'm not sure anyone will complain!). Getting more of them promoted is also a great idea... there must be a ton of encyclopedic topics that have FPs in Commons, so presumably those would meet the quality bar and we just need to get them the nod over here so they can be used. I found one straight-off in a drive by, and nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ogoy Island, but so far nobody's commented.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: It's a relatively new nomination, but nobody will ever respond to it, if you don't transclude the page to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as the POTD coordinator before Crisco (May 2006–January 2013), the selection process is roughly FIFO, with consideration given to putting pictures on relevant dates (e.g., birthdays for portraits of people) and not repeating the same type of photo too often (usually a max of one [e.g., bird] per week). Images can get a fast-track to the Main Page if it's a nominator's/creator's first promotion, or we want to put a picture on for a significant anniversary (e.g., 10th) of some event. [Now that think I about it, I was solely responsible for half of Main Page content (this was before Featured Lists) for about 14 months. If anyone wants to know how did one person end up in that role, the answer is because nobody else was doing it.] —howcheng {chat} 03:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

FP categories

The FP categories are pretty inadequate. E.g. Category:Featured pictures by topic (which was dominated by Category:Featured pictures by country until I moved it out, since "by country" should be on the same level as "by topic"). I'm planning to start reworking these, but figured I'd post here first, just in case it's controversial somehow. I'm basically going to follow some of the Commons cats, and will rename e.g. "Science featured pictures" to "Featured pictures of science" (if that turns out being one that makes sense to retain). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think we need these categories at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Featured pictures listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Featured pictures. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on POTD

Hi all

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Further discussion, regarding the content, scheduling and other aspects of the POTD section of the main page. Please could anyone with an interest in featured pictures go to that discussion and offer their thoughts and perspectives? Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Usage of POTDs on portals

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day § Usage of POTDs on portals. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Currently satellite photographs are categorized under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back rather than a subcategory of Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Places. For me this is not intuitive as satellite photographs depict places (look at the stuff in that category); in comparison c:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images is where I would expect. Should I file requested move at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back or is there a better way to do it? (t · c) buidhe 02:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Well there are at least two images in there that are not satellite images, so it’s fine where it is. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with essay on nominating content

Hi! I've just started a draft over at Draft:Wikipedia:Nominate, and wanted to get some contributions from other people. Essentially, I would like there to be a good essay on Wikipedia that encourages editors to nominate content they haven't created for DYK or FP. In my mind, no one owns stuff here, and as long as the original creator hadn't or was not planning to nominate the content, I think editors should be encouraged to do so if they think Wikipedia would benefit from highlighting it. I thought maybe y'all would be able to contribute a valuable perspective to this essay. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew J.Kurbiko, Bammesk, Mydreamsparrow, Charlesjsharp, David Eppstein, Armbrust, and Adam Cuerden: just a quick query about the image in the above article. The featured picture File:Jan Matejko - Stańczyk - Google Art Project.jpg, which was promoted at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jan Matejko - Stańczyk - Google Art Project, was replaced by Gytha here - [7] in February 2021. The new version has a higher resolution, and is maybe slightly clearer, but it also has some sort of border on the left, which doesn't seem desirable. Just wanted the opinion of you guys (who supported the original image) as to whether we should switch the article back to using the FP, or if the FP should be delisted and replaced with the new one? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's a issue, I could crop this image (I'll remove the rest of the frame). This file is a cropped and lighter version of the TIFF file File:Jan Matejko, Stańczyk - hi-res tiff.tif, coming directly from the National Museum in Warsaw, where Stańczyk is exhibited. I believe this is the best photo of this painting available - as you pointed out, it shows more details than this one from the Google Art Project. Gytha (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
File:Jan Matejko, Stańczyk.jpg is better (higher resolution and more detail). @Gytha: the left edge needs a crop (maybe 15 pixels or so). If you do that then we can do a "delist and replace" nom (I will do the nom if others don't do it first). The current FP at this link is no longer used in any articles, so we should replace it in a "delist and replace" nom. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded the corrected file. Gytha (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I introduced a delist and replace nomination: here. Bammesk (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There are always some featured images on the main page. How are they selected? What are the criteria? Ivan Knight (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:POTD for that. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thumbnail cropping

I was just looking closely at the article and featured picture of Marie Stopes (right). The thumbnail on the main page doesn't seem to work as well as it might because it's a wide shot with a lot of murky background and the detail of the central subject is hard to make out at that scale. For example, I didn't realise until I clicked through and zoomed in that she was using a microscope. So, I was wondering whether there's a technical option for the thumbnail to show a cropped version? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_pictures/Archive_3&oldid=1206189027"