Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 1

What the heck?
Two days ago I write that some featured pictures should be removed for the list. Nothing else was on the talk page. Now, within 24hrs, what I said was deleted, the article is a lot better, and now there's a lot discussion. What did I miss?--User:NFAN3&#124;NFAN3 11:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I feel like an idiot :(
 * Are you referring to your comment at Category talk:Wikipedia featured pictures? --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

link image or article?
should we link to the images directly? Or to the articles that contain them? Martin


 * To the image files, IMHO, and to the articles as "(see foo)", like it is done right now. The image pages, on the other hand, are less interesting, because they don't take you to the picture directly, and usually contain secondary details. --Eloquence

Why thank you, Eric! I confess to being a little dissatisfied with that one, I plan to go back ad reshoot it one day, and actually much prefer my Australian Pelicans - but then, I'm probably a bit more blase about roos than non-Australians are. And now (damnit!) I better finally get around to adding some text to that page! Tannin 15:01 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You're right Australian Pelicans is better but I didn't scan all your pics... I will add this one later one per day is enough ;) Ericd 15:04 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Brilliant picture candidates
Should we have a Brilliant picture candidates page analogous to Brilliant prose candidates? This might be overkill for the time being and it's hard to argue about taste .. --Eloquence 15:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

this page is not (yet) what it should be
I tend to agree with you Erik, but it was nice of him nevertheless :-)

I would also say that I take a lot of time to take pictures, always with Wikipedia in mind to offer them. I personally think some of them are quite decent, if only from a professional point of view (for example I think my lady bird larva is good, and I took that picture for a professional training I had to give. I looked on the net for a picture, not even a free one, and the only one I really found was a bad picture taken from a book. I tend to think that perhaps this is the best larva currently on the net :-)).

Still, none of my pictures are here. Just as none of my articles will ever be in brilliant prose :-)

I can't help feeling this page is not what it should be. Why are external images there (I mean Nasa, USDA picts...) ? They should not be there at all. This page is meant mostly to show how wikipedians can be skilled at providing good images by themselves. Not for pictures from officials and professional photographers from external organisms or associations or whatever. As a parallel, listing on brilliant prose a page entirely taken in an external free source would be a sort of abuse of the goal of the brillant prose page. No ?

Well, I have no time to make your logo, so I offer you the pict in case anyone wants to work with it. It is too bad, I had a couple of other ideas in mind. But it will be too late.

User:Anthere


 * Actually, a very similar debate is happening on the Brilliant prose candidates page regarding a page that was copied from an external source. There are good arguments on both sides -- after all, finding a good picture in a public domain catalog can be non-trivial as well, and from the perspective of the casual reader, it doesn't really matter much whether the photos were shot by Wikipedians or by professional photographers. It really depends on whether you see this more as a page highlighting community effort, or as a guide to readers. Presently I tend towards the latter opinion, but a compromise might be to separate the page into sections accordingly.


 * I'm sure some of your photos will wind up here sooner or later. This page is just a few months old, and many people are not aware of its existence. --Eloquence 17:00 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Could we not have something like "best pictures by wikipedians" and "best found pictures"... just an idea. I think, it is important to give people an incentive to invest in making pictures... Fantasy 17:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

separating images taken by fellow Wikipedians and public images

 * The separation makes sense, but someone needs to fill those damn empty sections. --Eloquence 11:00 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I see it in a different way: The more empty sections you have, the more the people see that they do have a chance to get famous on Wikipedia by looking for/taking an image. See it as a challange ;-) Fantasy 11:31 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Couldn't we just combine the two sections and place a * or small graphic denoting which is which? --Sketchee 06:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on my pictures
I would appreciate comments on the pictures I've contributed to Wikipedia: User:Montrealais/Images-List. - Montr&eacute;alais

P.S. Full images available at User:Montrealais/Images-Full.


 * Me too: user:maveric149/Images. --mav 06:01, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Is it ok if I put your image link here: Brilliant_pictures ?

&lt;Sniff>... aren't any of my maps brilliant? (e.g. Image:Ph_physical_map.png) Or is it because they're not ideally suited for i18n? --seav 10:50, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Page name
Suggest changing the name (and associated pages) to match Featured prose. I.e. Featured pictures. Bmills 15:00, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should be consistent with Featured articles. Angela. 21:27, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I Concur. -- Infrogmation 22:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Here, here! -- Gaz 00:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So can someone who knows BP better than I move all the relevant pages? Bmills 09:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Done, changed from from "Wikipedia:Brilliant pictures" to Featured pictures. -- Infrogmation 10:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

propose merger of candidates pages
A poll at Featured article candidates seeks to determine if the two featured candidates pages should be merged. Please go vote. Gentgeen 17:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The vote is finished. 2 for the merger, 9 against - No merger will occur - Gaz 12:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This link was recently deleted and reverted from W:FP. I think I can understand why it was deleted. It looks ugly at the top of the page. What about we put it further down the page where it can be better ignored. ;-) - Gaz 07:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)~


 * If they are going to go anywhere, they need to go in a consistent place across all the articles that use them. There's no agreement on whether they should even be used at the moment though. Angela. 21:49, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

For now I say we move it away from the very first line. - Gaz 12:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible
I just finished adding another image to FPV, and that sucker is getting big. Not the wiki source, but the viwed article. This raises a few questions in my mind. What are your thoughts people...? - Gaz 12:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Do we really need the page?
 * I believe so - Gaz
 * If we still need/want the page, can we split it?
 * I think we should (maybe not yet, but soon) - Gaz
 * What is the most sensible split? Category? Date Added? other??
 * Category - Gaz
 * Can we organize the images so they look more like a gallery?
 * I'm going to go and play with that...

We could just use smaller thumbnails... &#9999; Sverdrup 17:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A case study in how to discourage contributors
As a long term Wikipedian, I have contributed many photos by going through my files and uploading appropriate images. I can potentially add several thousand images, as I have time.

Recently I discovered that one of my images had been nominated for featured status. I think that's great. (Note that I am not arguing for the image; I am content to let it stand or fall on its own merits.) But I was disappointed to see some of the comments made about it.

User:Eloquence complained that the photo was a thumbnail, which it isn't.

User:Denni added
 * Very nice picture and worthy under any other condition, but pixel famine rules this one out for me. I can appreciate Pollinator's concern, but I had to bite my lip and make my pictures bigger too. Either you contribute or you don't. Half-measures just make for a lousy image someplace along the line.

Interestingly no one asked me, if, considering the status as a nomination, I would be interested in adding a larger format version. I consider this a very cheap shot, as the pictures I have contributed have almost all followed the photo guideline that was present when I joined - of being 300 pixels in width (and a number of them were subsequently reduced by other users).

As noted, I do make a small portion of my livelihood from free lance sales of my photos. However, I have occasionally contributed larger format photos to Wikipedia when it seemed that shrinking them would degrade them. And I have been quite free in sharing my photos with educational institutions, teachers and students for educational use. I'm not willing to donate all large format photos, but I can make occasional exceptions.

It seems that the purpose of the nominations page was subverted, and a contributor treated in a rather roughshod way. I'll not presume to ask for an apology (I've offended others too), but it might be a good reason for some reflection for all, on how we treat contributors. It might also be nice if someone would contact the contributor when such discussions take place.

Curiously, it seems that some users are busy thumbnailing ALL photos, which I think is inappropriate. I've left comments on the need for a policy at the Village Pump. Pollinator 16:49, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was kind of shabby treatment - I've really enjoyed the pictures you've uploaded, wish I could do half as well; plus you've covered areas where we've been chronically image-poor. Seems like it ought to be standard policy to notify the contributor of a nominated image; contributors are usually in the best position to fix any flaws that have been noted. One of things I'm hoping for with a wikicommons is to have an image repository that can be managed independently of use in articles; I'm routinely surprised at how much we have that people don't know about, or to see articles changed to use poor images instead of good ones, with no apparent reason and no prior discussion. Stan 19:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The end of Picture of the day?
All of the images here have now been used as pictures of the day. Please see Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day to discuss whether picture of the day should become picture of the week, or whether non-featured images should be used. Angela. 19:09, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Picture or Image
Of course a lot of things have being done already but I tend to believe that the name is misleading. It should be renamed to "featured Image", as i means not only photos (pictures) but diagrams, drawings charts etc... --Alexandre Van de Sande 04:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You can draw a picture, you can render a picutre, your can photograph a picture. I do not think picture refers exclusivly to photographs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Antarctica satellite globe.jpg
Was Image:Antarctica satellite globe.jpg supposed to be added? I don't see a record of it in the Featured pictures candidates page. Angela. 23:47, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I can't find the nomination of that picture either. I've left a note on Neutrality's talk page, he should know. --Conti|&#9993; 09:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * 81.154.240.19


 * Thank you very much. --Conti|&#9993; 09:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please remember to put these in the archive. Angela. 17:07, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Featured Picture template
Is there a reason why most of the pictures in the Featured Pictures list don't seem to have the tag attached to them? Similarly, it might be a good idea to have two versions of this tag, the current one for Wikipedian originated images, and another for brought-in public domain images which encourages editors to go out a find similar PD / GFDL images which would really benefit an article on Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 21:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say people simply don't add the template to the pictures when they promote them. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they don't know the template exists at all (like me, a few moments ago). --Conti|&#9993; 21:37, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I never knew it existed and currently it seems to be in use on only two images. I'm not sure it's necessary since the image decription pages link to the featured pictures visible page already. Angela. 18:45, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Possibly. On the other hand if someone came across a great image and nominated it on FPC, it is likely that someone else will do the same at a latter date. It is feasible but tedious to check the current featured pictures at the moment, but become less practical if we had over 500 FP (one a day for more than a year without repeating - FA is getting there).
 * Similarly it might be a good idea to have a FP-rejected template. Again the same images are likely to get nominated repeatedly and it is even harder to check which ones have been considered and rejected in the past. Of course that wouldn't mean you shouldn't renominate, but it is helpful to be aware of previous objections so that you can judge whether the mood of voting has changed. -- Solipsist 19:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that could be useful, especially if it links to the correct archive so you can find the old discussion easily. Angela.

voting history
I have seen a few pictures added here which I never remember seeing on the canidates page. I watch the canidates page pretty much daily and think that I would notice something before it comes though to here. Is there a simple way to verify that a pic on this page was really voted to be here or a simple way to prohibit pictures from being added if they have not recieved proper approval? For an example, I see Image:Misc pollen.jpg showed up today and, while it's a good picture, I never remember having seen it before nor voting on it. Last week, I removed Image:Yantriple.JPG for much the same reasons. Cavebear42 21:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Flaming cocktails.jpg ?
What has happened to the image [[Media:Flaming cocktails.jpg|Flaming cocktails]]? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * [Cross-posted at Talk:Cocktail] From Deletion log archive/November 2004 (2):


 * 15:15, 19 Nov 2004 Ed g2s deleted Image:Flaming cocktails.jpg (moved to commons)


 * However, I can't seem to find it on Commons, so I suppose it should be re-uploaded? (The source link is still in the image description page's deleton history.) -- Hadal 16:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: It was at the Commons up until yesterday. From Commons:Deletion log:


 * 14:22, 3 Dec 2004 DaB. deleted "Image:Flaming cocktails.jpg" (URV/Copyrightproblem)


 * See also the image's listing at Commons:Deletion requests#Image:Flaming cocktails.jpg. This would explain why it suddenly disappeared. So, if it is indeed a copyright problem (as it appears DaB. seems to think so, since s/he also deleted the image from de:), perhaps it should not be re-uploaded? I don't know how the Commons copyright policy differs from Wikipedia's, if at all. -- Hadal 17:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jagged images and cache problems
The following discussion originally related to the nomination for Featured_picture_candidates/Ukraine_elections_map, but relates to a more general problem when images replace a previous version of an image.
 * Comment. I would like to support but the full image looks exceptionally jagged and I'm worried that this image will be very dated soon enough, which is less than useful for featured pictures I suppose. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is something strange here. When I viewed this on my laptop last night, the full image was baddly jagged and quantised - so bad I was tempted to revert it to one of the earlier versions. Viewing the same full image from my desktop today, it looks excellent and crisp. -- Solipsist 10:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just refreshed it here, it now looks very good in full, but I'm still in doubt whether we should feature a soon-to-be-dated image. A similar discussion is going on over at FAC: WP:FAC. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it was probably caused by a Wiki cache problem (probably with the load balancers). I'd notice on Sunday that when I over-wrote an image I was still seeing the previous one for about an hour, despite several forced browser refreshes. What I saw last night, could well have been the original smaller map stretched up to the size of the new one. Anyhow, this is probably irrelevant now and we should move these comments away from the vote. -- Solipsist 18:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A copyright infringement
Image:Orion.jpg, which is a featured image, is copyrighted by its owner and I don't think it's eligible for release under the GFDL. I placed the image on Copyright problems, but as it's featured I thought I had better mention it here as well. It appears that the NASA public domain thing was misunderstood, as it only applies to images created by NASA, and not all image which appear on NASA websites. It's been listed on copyright problems for a while now, and it's not clear to me who takes action on these things. As no-one has claimed the image is OK, should it now be removed from the featured pics? Worldtraveller 12:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, it looks like it is taken by and independent astronomer at http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/. Unless anyone knows different, it looks like it is copyright and it will have to go. Its a shame, but then again we have quite a few similar astro photos, although it might be worth double checking the copyright on them too. -- Solipsist 15:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * All the other astro images look to be bona-fide NASA-created images and so definitely public domain. It is a shame this one has to go, it's an excellent image of the orion nebula.  What actually happens to copyvio images?  I may just be being dense but can't find out anywhere after how long and by who they get deleted.  Removing the image from the featured lists is simple, but what should happen to the old POTD that has the Orion image on it?  Worldtraveller 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get the PotD on the Main Page
See Talk:Main Page --mav 03:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commons
Some pictures are not at Wikimedia Commons, so why and how we can reduce their number? --Saperaud 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've moved all images. --Saperaud 22:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion
When I go to the picture description page of a featured picture, it's got this banner saying that it is a featured picture. What about having a small star in the description of a thumbnail, too?



Of course, use a better image than the one I just used for demonstration purposes. Any thoughts? Kokiri 29 June 2005 10:05 (UTC)


 * Its a nice idea - I think it may have been floated before. Unfortunately there isn't an easy way to add the star to all the places a picture is used, and it would probably make the wikimarkup in each image link quite complicated. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Pic of Day
09-05-05 what is so remarkable about the picture Image:BDSM_collar_back.jpg? Steven McCrary 20:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice this comment earlier. The short answer is that enough people liked it when it was nominated on Featured Picture Candidates a year or so ago. A record of its nomination can be found in the Sep04 archive. However, the criteria and standards for Featured Pictures changes over time, so if you no longer think this one cuts the mustard, you can nominate it for de-featuring at Featured_picture_candidates. -- Solipsist 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply. Steven McCrary 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg
...was listed as a copyvio. I haven't deleted it since it is possibly fair use in at least it's title article. It is also a FP. Isn't policy now agains that? I'm not sure where I go to deal with this, so I'm starting here. Thanks in advacne. -Splash talk 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Adena pipe
This image was incorrectly added to the featured pictures list by User:Vermoskitten on September the 18th. It has not even gone though a nomination, so I have deleted it from the list. Vermoskitten is a new user, so someone should probably explain to her what the proper procedure is (I don't feel like I'm able to properly do that myself in an official but nice sort of way). The image has also been marked as a 'no source information' image. Raven4x4x 11:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't happen often, and it is usually easy to spot when a non-regular FPCer edits the page. Usually I would just remove the picture with a comment in the edit summary &mdash; exactly as you have done. But seeing how you've asked, I will go the extra mile and drop a note on the user's talk page :) -- Solipsist 16:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't feel it's right to delete or revert something a very new user has done without telling them why they've done something incorrect. Raven4x4x 23:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Link to discussion?
Shouldn't the entries link to the respective FPC discussions? Borisblue 17:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Featuring pictures from commons
I find it somewhat odd that pictures from commons can be featured on en. To me it would make sense that en can only feature things that are on en. I guess the borders between wikimedia projects aren't so clear anymore.

For example Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg is from commons, is featured here but not at commons. Isn't that weird? It also incorrectly gives the impression that it was featured at commons rather than here, due to the placement of FeaturedPicture below the bit that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." It doesn't look like we can change this easily, but perhaps a developer can, if it's worth it...

Anyway, I was just musing about this. I personally would like to see the situation that only fair use and English-specific images are uploaded to en, and the rest to commons, but I gather this is still some time away. If you would like to comment about this on commons, please see commons:Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. pfctdayelise 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed
The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion. And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included! However, we have run into a bit of an impasse. We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format. Please take a look and advise. Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it? Sincerely, Go for it! 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Failing that, is there a way to remove the space around your border so it matches a page's padding? Go for it! 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like to comment on the proposed Main Page redesign draft, there's still time. Let us know what you think! Go for it! 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: refactoring to enable thumbnail galleries
It would be nice if one could click on a picture grouping and see a thumbnail gallery. I was about to suggest making the thumbnail galleries manually, but with some template trickery we could create them automatically. The plan is below. --Doradus 14:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the plan:

Step 1: Refactor
At the end of this step, things will appear exactly as they do now, but the image gallery data will be condensed into a format that makes it more flexible to add new features (like, oh I dunno, thumbnail galleries).

We would create a page for each image group that would look something like this:

This change effectively creates a database of featured images, and we can then create any number of  templates that expand to what ever we need in a given situation. To produce the lists we currently have, for example, we would create this template:


 * Image: at, by

Finally, we replace the image lists in currently in Featured pictures with this:

Architecture
At the end of this step, the Featured Pictures page should appear just the way it currently does.

Step 2: Create thumbnail galleries
First create a new template like this:



Second, create image gallery pages like this:

Finally, the galleries could be linked to this page by making the sections look like this:

Architecture
Thumbnail gallery

Thoughts anyone? --Doradus 14:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

3d guidelines
3D Illustrations is trying to work out details of a policy on the use of 3D images on Wikipedia. Contributors here may be especially qualified to comment. Rmhermen 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Modifying the top of this page
Would anyone object to me redoing the top of this page to look more like the top of Featured articles? (I'm trying to standardize the look and feel across the featured content pages) It would mean a lot of pruning, but I think the result would be much sleeker. Raul654 07:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Animated featured pictures
Today's featured picture is the first animated image I have seen on the main page. Have there been any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenb215 (talk • contribs)
 * It's the first on the main page, but not the first animated FP. BrokenSegue 17:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

likely copyvio
...I think it's very likely that Image:Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Fire rings.jpg. This photo of Bjork was also found at stock xchng, also credited to Lucretious, and yet now cannot be found on stock xchng (the link there is dead - this one doesn't even have a link). I searched "Athens" on stock xchng and there are no Olmypics photos now. I nominated the Bjork photo for deletion on commons (commons:COM:DEL) and I am going to nominate this one the same, so please add any comments about this issue to that page. And in the meantime... do we have a de-FP process? Thanks, pfctdayelise 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

New Sub-section?
Should a new sub-section be created for Image:Backlit mushroom.jpg since it is a fungus, and not a plant? --liquidGhoul 08:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to the 'candidate page' in the Featured Pictures template?
In the featured articles template:

it is quite useful to have a link to the article's "Feature Article candidate" page. Would it be possible to include a similar link on:

???

as it is quite interesting to read through the pictures support/object history.


 * I second that. I find it really annoying that I have to sift through the "what links here" list to find the FPC nom. Borisblue 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead image?
This is hardly worth putting on WP:FPC, but FP lists Hurricane Katrina's eye at Hurricane Katrina from NOAA, a dead link deleted over a month ago by User:Tomf688 with reason "replaced with commons img"... no commons image has existed with that filename according to the deletion log. I don't know what the featured picture was, but on the article Hurricane Katrina there are two photos of the eye, one also from NOAA, the other from NASA, both local to Wikipedia not the commons. There are also a whole bunch of others including the ones hosted locally here at commons:Category:Hurricane Katrina from space. So which one was promoted, if any? BigBlueFish 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC) cheers i fixed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.70.166 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I fixed it. Someone overwrote the version on commons with the modified version that got promoted, but then deleted the modifed one here without updating this link. Not their fault: text links to images are not shown on the 'what links here' lists ~ Veledan • Talk 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

*Featured* Picture
I'm not sure if this belongs here, but I thought this would be of interest to the FP community in general:

http://rapidshare.de/files/19734337/P1011308.MOV.html <-Just watch that.

Now that's a featured picture. =D PiccoloNamek 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Piccolo, is that really your plasma pic? It's hard to tell from the movie. That's really cool if it's your pic. ~ Veledan • Talk 09:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my pic. :D PiccoloNamek 16:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, GFDL violation anyone? ed g2s &bull; talk 11:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how. It isn't as if I signed the copyright over to them.PiccoloNamek 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not on your part, I think ed_g2s suspects a violation by the TV producers. Did you have any agreement with them? --Dschwen 14:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They contacted me and asked if they could use it, and I said sure. I didn't give them ownership of the image, however. The gist of the agreement was "You still own the image, but you're letting us use it whenever we want. But other people can still use it too."PiccoloNamek 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So all is fine and everyone played by the rules :-) --Dschwen 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. They can use the image, but everybody else's right (especially Wikimedia's right, heh) to use the image is not hindered or changed at all.PiccoloNamek 15:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

FP & Today's featured picture
Does all the FPs be displayed at Today's featured picture. I mean on a queue basis. Or there is a further selection from the FPs to pick the ones that would go in the 'Today's featured picture' section.

Where can I see the display schedule for the FP for 'Today's featured picture' ?

thanks,

Pratheepps 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

show images
Could it be possible to show thumbnails of all the images for easy access, rather than guessing what the image looks like and then clicking to find out?

Altered photos
Hi,

The No Original Research policy states that altered photographs shouldn't be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I believe it follows from this policy that they shouldn't be promoted to Featured status. Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg and Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif are two altered (or, in the latter case, perhaps "synthetic") photographs that Shawnc pointed me to, the former photo being his work.

This isn't a slam at all on photo retouching as an art, or on the beauty of the two images listed above. However, they purport to depict something that is false, and therefore are a form of banned "original research".

I'm planning to expand the WP:NOR page's section on altered photographs to explain why. If you have any comments or questions, discussion belongs over at Wikipedia talk:No original research; I just wanted to be sure to point to the discussion from here. Tempshill 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Halleluhja, the reinforcements have finally arrived ;-). Check the archives for prior lengthy discussions on this ..lets say.. controversial subject. --Dschwen 19:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If an alteration introduces new information or unrealisticly alters existing information then yes it is not encyclopedic.

However, if the alteration brings forth more real detail, such as rotation, exposure adjustment, or in the case of an animated GIF spacial synching, then it is very encyclopedic and not original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Main page featured picture
I find it quite frustrating to see a featured picture on the main page with a description of something somewhat related but without any direct reference to the image. For example, the current Euro image shows a variety of measurement lines around it but the blurb talks about the currency. violet/riga (t) 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MotoX Picture
Perhaps it should be moved from its current category (Entertainment and Lifestyle) to Sport. Motor Racing is classified as a sport, so in my humble opinion it would make sense to add it to the sport category.

Chopin Picture
I'm not sure why, but for some reason the Chopin picture link was wrong, was: Frederic_Chopin_photo2.jpeg, corrected to Frederic_Chopin_photo.jpeg. 68.60.11.247 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)pheonix2og

FP and Failed FP description boxes on image pages
I propose that the FeaturedPicture template on the description page of every featured picture be changed to include a link to the nomination discussion, as is the case with featured articles. It is often useful to re-read these discussions when you find a featured picture, and the current way is not easy-to-use.

I further propose that failed featured pictures have a "failed featured picture" template as per failed feature articles to clearly identify those that have failed the FP nom process so they are not re-nominated.

I'm not exactly sure where this belongs so am posting it here and on the FP candidates talk page. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a template, if you want. You add to the image page. I'll post it on FPC talk and see what they think of it. Nautica Shad e  s  09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypervelocity
Great picture - but - the abstract makes no sense - shouldn't that be 'hypervelocity impact' not 'hypervelocity'. Maybe someone will be able to change it quickly?HappyVR 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC) ,mnnnn

Vectorization
I am looking for assistance in vectorizing an image, as User:Gustavb had for the featured picture a few days ago (Image:Piratey, vector version.svg). Is there an image noticeboard where someone might be able to help, or is anyone here willing to take a bit of time to vectorize the image at right that is used in hundreds of different articles at varying sizes? Thanks so much. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really a featured picture?
The Root canal illustration is listed as being a featured image, but is not tagged as such (no bronze star on the image page was what caught&mdash;or didn't&mdash;my eye). It doesn't look like someone added their own picture to the list (unless they did a great job of creating a history for it being so many other things!), but just wondered what happened.

Ditto Kievskaya station on the Moscow Metro &mdash;Chidom  talk   08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of these images were on en-WP when promoted to FP status, then moved to Commons, and the corresponding image description page here deleted, thus also removing the FeaturedPicture tag. I've been going through the old POTDs and replacing the template where necessary.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for featured pictures
I just wanted to thank the people responsible for the featured pictures section. This section has provided some astounding illustrations, many of which have at some point served as the my windows backgrounds. I especially liked "Crepuscular rays", "Blue Mountains: Three Sisters", and "Schlossvaduz". Yesterday's "Digital Art" picture was amazing! Kudos to everyone and keep up the good work!

Mikmd 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hot Air balloon
I see the hot air balloon picture has moved or been deleted. Should we delete it from featured pictures? It was really good! St.isaac 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been moved to Image:Ballon2.jpg|. I traced it back from commons. TheTall One 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

General suggestion
I wanted to throw out the general suggestion: why doesn't WP limit featured pictures to lossless PNG's? WP already blatantly prefers PNG over any other non-vector image filetype. Is there a place for suggestions where I should post this? Anyone, feel free to talk to me. --Anthony5429 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not practical for atleast two reasons:


 * 1) PNG files can very quickly exceed the 20mb limit for high res pictures, thus are impossible to upload.
 * 2) Pictures are ussually taken on digital cameras, most save only to jpeg.
 * 3) Many pictures only slightly benifit from losslessness.


 * It is of course preferable to have a lossless version, but is cannot be a limit. HighInBC 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that answers my question. Thanks! --Anthony5429 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)