Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support 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.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:.If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.


Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

Gray contrast test image.svg
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Highlight test image.svg
Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Colortest.png
On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.
Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.
FPCs needing feedback

Current nominations

Albizia saman (rain tree) in the Mekong

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2018 at 14:23:16 (UTC)

Original – An Albizia saman (rain tree) in the Mekong
Reason
Lead image for the most relevant article, and already featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Albizia saman, Si Phan Don
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
Creator
Basile Morin
  • Support as nominatorPine 14:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only a tree....and not sharp especially on the left --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)



Lady at the Tea Table

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2018 at 20:32:00 (UTC)

OriginalLady at the Tea Table, painting by Mary Cassatt. The painting was the first of Cassat's works enter the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it is now on display.
Reason
The image in question is a painting by a well-known artist, has an interesting history behind it, and has an article concerning it. It is in the public domain courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and is of high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
Lady at the Tea Table, Mary Cassatt
FP category for this image
Artwork
Creator
Pharos
  • Support as nominatorSamHolt6 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Added to nomination list, 10 days stars from now. MER-C 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Need to to something about the black surround. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support conditionally on cropping out the black portion...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - I agree this needs a crop. MER-C 14:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • not a crop as that would remove some of the photo. Needs a re-shoot or careful edit. Conditional support is not as far as I can see, a valid vote on FP The Herald (Benison) MER-C.Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)



Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Interior

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2018 at 19:05:01 (UTC)

Original – Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Interior
Reason
One of most beautiful church in Rome
Articles in which this image appears
Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
LivioAndronico
  • I know none of the details, but this user is on on list of Commons users indefinitely blocked in December 2017 Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)



Rock hyrax

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2018 at 15:23:43 (UTC)

OriginalRock hyrax (Procavia capensis), known locally as the dassie, Erongo, Namibia
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Rock hyrax
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Very good detail in this nice shot of a cute critter. Sca (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)



Delist and replace: Deleted and renamed file cleanup

This is a notification, not a nomination. I have deleted the following pages, previously containing featured pictures, because:

I've forgotten how to deal with these and they are in some inconsistent state. It also looks like File:Edward Hopper - Girl at a Sewing Machine (1921).jpg can be uploaded locally. MER-C 12:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've also tagged the following images as featured pictures. The originals promoted have been renamed on Commons, but their local FP tag got lost somehow in the mix.

Note that File:Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle.webm has been replaced in articles by File:Duck and Cover 1440 x 1080 01836081.webm, a higher resolution version. I will nominate it for replacing separately. The images listed at Wikipedia:Featured pictures and subpages are now in sync with Category:Featured pictures.

The only action required here is to determine whether File:Edward Hopper - Girl at a Sewing Machine (1921).jpg can be uploaded locally, and to upload it. I'm not a Commons admin, so I can't do this. If the image can be uploaded locally, then I'll restore the local file description page. MER-C 15:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)



Delist and Replace: Along the River During the Qingming Festival

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2018 at 11:10:42 (UTC)

Proposed replacement
Reason
Superceded in articles with higher resolution and more detailed version.
Articles this image appears in
Along the River During the Qingming Festival, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Along the River 7-119-3.jpg
Nominator
MER-C



Black-chested snake-eagle

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2018 at 20:33:51 (UTC)

OriginalBlack-chested snake-eagle (Circaetus pectoralis) holding a snake in Awash National Park, Ethiopia
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Black-chested snake-eagle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp



Naqsh-e Rustam

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2018 at 18:13:49 (UTC)

OriginalNaqsh-e Rustam
Reason
High resolution, detailed, featured on Commons, high EV shot of a historical site with its own article. Probably what the reviewers at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Naqsh-e Rustam had in mind.
Articles in which this image appears
Naqsh-e Rustam, Iranian architecture, Achaemenid architecture, Rostami, List of necropoleis
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Diego Delso
  • Support as nominatorMER-C 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. --Gnosis (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support very useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – This is an adequate size for a panorama! --Janke | Talk 08:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)



Eagle Nebula

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2018 at 07:06:39 (UTC)

Original – Three-colour composite mosaic image of the Eagle Nebula, with north at top.
Reason
Higher resolution, good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Eagle Nebula, etc.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
ESO
  • Support as nominatorThe NMI User (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a slightly too small field of view, though I think it will be a bit difficult picking up the extended emission without saturating/blowing out the central region. Reserving judgement for now. MER-C 17:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The image has lots of noise in some areas, isn't it excessive?! Bammesk (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Astronomical images are generally noisier than photographs. This is not because of the equipment - any emission slightly below the detection threshold appears as noise. MER-C 08:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Pine 14:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)



Triton

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2018 at 07:06:38 (UTC)

OriginalVoyager 2 photomosaic of Triton's sub-Neptunian hemisphere
Reason
Good EV, excellent photo, high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
Triton (moon), Neptune, Voyager 2, etc.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
NASA, uploaded by Jbarta
  • Support as nominatorThe NMI User (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This image has been nominated twice before: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Triton Mosaic, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Triton (moon). I understand that part of the fuzziness comes from differing resolutions because it's a flyby and resolution varies with distance from the object. However, there's some weird JPEG(?) artifacts even on the high resolution parts, and that's enough for an Oppose. MER-C 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose images havn't been merged properly Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per above, also lots of black pixels (dead pixels) on the planet near the top boundary (top left). Bad software manipulation! Bammesk (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)



Mekong River

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2018 at 05:03:22 (UTC)

Original – The Mekong is a trans-boundary river in Southeast Asia. It is the world's twelfth longest river and the seventh longest in Asia. From the Tibetan Plateau the river runs through China's Yunnan Province, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The extreme seasonal variations in flow and the presence of rapids and waterfalls in the Mekong make navigation difficult. Even so, the river is a major trade route between western China and Southeast Asia.
Reason
This seems to be the best photo that we have of the Mekong. It is the lead image of the Mekong article and used on five mainspace pages.
Articles in which this image appears
Mekong, Laos, List of Ramsar wetlands of Thailand, River pirate, Jullien's golden carp
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places
Creator
Allie Caulfield, cropped by Pine
  • Support as nominatorPine 05:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's risky cropping someone else's image. I would object if anyone cropped mine. Does the photographer agree? Too much cropped I think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I agree with Charles about too much cropped, given the river is the primary subject. Bammesk (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)



Nominations — to be closed

Nominations in this category are older than ten days and are to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 18:47:32 (UTC)

Original – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal
Retouched by Alexis Jazz, third version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal
Retouched 2 by Bammesk, second version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal
Reason
iconic photograph. After a long debate, it finally appears that the copyright was not renewed.
Articles in which this image appears
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator
Joe Rosenthal
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this jpeg version due to strong artifacts, either from editing or jpeg compression. The sky is heavily speckled - compare with the png or tif versions. --Janke | Talk 20:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I removed the jpeg artifacts. The nom image has a lot more detail than the png and tif versions. Support (revised my vote below) , iconic and good quality for a 1940s war photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a decent version of this iconic photograph: the EV is huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this new version with less noticeable grain & artifacts. --Janke | Talk 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • comment what is the source for the copyright not being renewed?©Geni (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reading the arguments on Commons [1], [2], [3], [4], no one has established that copyright was renewed. The summary of Commons arguments are: copyright might have been renewed and that such renewal could not be confirmed in the renewal records [5]. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    On a sidenote: the photo was published without a copyright notice in a 2016 book [6] [7] of 100 influential photographs by Time magazine. 32 of the 100 photos have a copyright notice and 68 do not, the Iwo Jima photo does not: [8]. This gives additional credence to the public domain arguments on Commons.
  • @Geni: Also this LoC copyright notice. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- KTC (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I've not yet looked closely at the copyright arguments, and will defer to Commons folk to sort that out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support GMGtalk 14:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all versions, I'll leave it to others to decide which is best. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've collected links to the copyright discussions on c:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Retouch discussion

  • Comment the retouched version from Bammesk should be uploaded as a separate file (c:COM:OVERWRITE). While it looks better overall, some details were also lost, so the original needs to be kept as a separate file. If Bammesk uploads the restored version as a separate file and we're voting on that, you can count a support vote from me as well. I'll vote more clearly above. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I found another version with less compression artifacts. The sky still looks speckled, I suspect the photo was saved as a .gif at some point. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I added a retouched version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yann, Bammesk, Nick-D, Janke, KTC, MER-C, The NMI User, Rhododendrites, and GreenMeansGo: An alternate image was added the nominations. Please update your !vote to indicate which version(s) you support. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh cool. I see lots of dust spot removal, which I wasn't going to fuss about given the nature of the photo. Is there anything else I'm missing? GMGtalk 21:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: the sky was blurred. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I uploaded another retouch, Retouched 2, made from the higher quality original that Alexis Jazz gave us here. Both retouched noms are worthy of support. My upload has less artifacts and is a bit sharper along soldier/background boundaries, smoother left valley, smoother background between soldier's arms/legs, and I touched up the lower left edge. Also touched up a couple of spots based on the negative image here: [9], [10](no longer so, see below). I Support both retouches but prefer Retouch 2. Bammesk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Either of the versions are OK for me, but Retouched 2 is slightly better. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've improved my retouched version a bit. You may have to refresh the page/image in your browser. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I'll say that I prefer some retouched version to the original, but my retouching expertise is mediocre at best, and so I don't pretend to have an authoritative opinion on which version is better. GMGtalk 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I prefer retouch #2. MER-C 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@MER-C: can you say why? Perhaps I can improve my version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. 1 has sufficiently improved over #2 in the time since I wrote that comment. I now prefer #1 as the specs that were there are there no longer. MER-C 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose I prefer #2, but two comments: (1) why is the [rivet?] on the helmet of the soldier on the right noticeably brighter in just that version? (2) in both retouches there's a space between the leftmost and second leftmost soldiers, around waist level, that looks to be actually a gap between them rather than a blemish on the photo itself, but it's smoothed out... (in case that isn't clear I've added an annotation to that image on Commons here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not a gap but actually light that is reflected off of the handle of a holstered knife, more easily seen in File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg. I've corrected my version accordingly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, I don't understand your first question? About question 2: as I said above, I used the negative image here: [11], [12] as a guide. The gap is smaller in the negative, that's what I went by. However looking at the negative more carefully, it has bleeding (or diffusion) because it is old, which would make the gaps smaller. So I did a recheck of all gaps, and compared the print gaps to the negative gaps, and it turns out all print gaps are a few pixels wider than the negative gaps. So going strictly by the negative is not a good idea (because of the bleeding). I redid the gap and did an upload (also redid another tiny gap/spot at shoulder level, plus helmet of left soldier, the things I had relied on the negative for). Thanks for the question! Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: Can you say what you mean in your first question? Nothing “on the helmet of the soldier on the right” is “noticeably brighter” in any version! Bammesk (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been following and I'd just like to say that maybe this discussion is not yet ripe to be closed. The images are evolving, which is ultimately for the good of the project(s), and this is an iconic image of the type we don't often see discussed. GMGtalk 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I agree. I'm not sure if we are done retouching (unless someone points out flaws in my version, I am) but if we are it still leaves us with three images to pick from. Since I created one of them, I support all three. There are arguments for sticking to the original and between the retouched versions it'll largely be matter of taste. Bammesk filled in the gaps one way, I did it another way. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For reference, Commons promoted the original. MER-C 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually 16 of 18 votes on Commons here were for a restored version uploaded at 02:11, 29 August 2018. Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Obviously the higher quality original uploaded later at 09:16, 4 September 2018, is more deserving of promotion, but not when there is a cleaned up version of it, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So how exactly ought we go about finding some resolution to this nomination? GMGtalk 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing procedure

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the October archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  4. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
  5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  9. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the October archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  3. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  4. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
  5. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  4. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  5. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
  6. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  7. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.

Recently closed nominations

Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three full days following closure and subsequently be removed.

World War I casualties

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2018 at 16:34:34 (UTC)

Original – British wounded of the Royal Berkshire Regiment returning from fighting on Bazentin Ridge, July 1916.
Reason
Lead image for World War I casualties, featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
World War I casualties, British Army during World War I, Ernest Brooks (photographer)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
Creator
Ernest Brooks (photographer)
  • Support as nominatorMER-C 16:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The NMI User (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)



Closeup of the center of a stone wheel - Konark Sun Temple, Orissa, India

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2018 at 14:18:21 (UTC)

Original – Closeup focusing the stone motif created at the center of the stone wheel - Konark Sun Temple, Orissa, India
Reason
A high resolution closeup image of the center of the wheel
Articles in which this image appears
Konark Sun Temple
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator
Subhrajyoti
  • Support as nominatorSubhrajyoti07 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has only been placed in the article today, and is only in a gallery, so fails the "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article" criterion. I'm also not sure it's the best for encyclopedic value, as only a small part of the carving is in focus. TSP (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not FP composition - the eight carvings on the spokes are cut off. MER-C 16:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Konark stone wheel
  • Oppose – A more visually accessible photo is already in the target article. Sca (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Yes, but in that photo the center motif of the wheel has been got eroded/erased over time. This photograph specifically focuses on the center motif of another wheel in the same sun temple complex where the stone motif is still visible/reasonably intact-Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Aha, the temple has "24 elaborately carved stone wheels," so these are two different ones. Nevertheless, I concur with MER-C that the nominated pic. is too close up – a wider field would aid viewer recognition of a wheel form. Sca (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)



Abyssinian black-and-white colobus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2018 at 07:27:35 (UTC)

Original – Abyssinian black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza guereza) male in Ethiopia
Reason
High quality expressive image of an Ethiopian subspecies. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Abyssinian black-and-white colobus
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp

Promoted File:Abyssinian black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza guereza) male head.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)



Silver spotted skipper

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2018 at 11:18:39 (UTC)

Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Hesperia comma
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 12:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll skip this one because of the rather messy composition (criteria 3.1 & 3.2). --Janke | Talk 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)



Gold rim swallowtail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2018 at 11:14:45 (UTC)

OriginalGold rim swallowtail butterfly (Battus polydamas jamaicensis), endemic subspecies in Jamaica
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Battus polydamas
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp
This one's gonna fly. Sca (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Gold rim swallowtail (Battus polydamas jamaicensis) underside worn 2.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)



Cannon diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2018 at 11:22:27 (UTC)

Original – Side elevation of a typical 19th-century cannon
Reason
Quality diagram, high EV, featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Cannon, Touch hole
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator
KDS444
  • Support as nominatorMER-C 11:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The gunpowder appears as grey spots on the red when I open the SVG, but they don't seem to render in the preview, so the gunpowder appears rather as if it's a red liquid. Can that be resolved? TSP (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's a well-established fact that MediaWiki's SVG rasterizer is buggy, and the WMF don't really want to do anything about it. Firefox butchers this SVG terribly. It's best if you review this image in GIMP, Inkscape or any competent image editing program. MER-C 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    Even if it's technically Mediawiki's fault, I'm a little loath to suggest we promote as a Wikipedia Featured Picture something that cannot actually be correctly viewed on Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to produce something that looked more like gunpowder using basic SVG features - I'm not sure that "red cloud with grey splotches" is that great a representation of gunpowder anyway. (I'm imagining it's meant to represent the powder being ignited, but nothing else about the picture suggests the cannon is in the process of being fired - there's no representation of powder or fire in the vent or vent field, or of a match being applied, or of any movement to the wadding or ball.) TSP (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – the labels and text look disorganized (particularly when viewed at full size). We had a similar nom: [13] and it was resolved [14], leaning to oppose as is. Bammesk (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    Are you viewing this in Firefox? I rasterized the image in GIMP and it looked fine. MER-C 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, in Chrome. Sidenote: same problem viewing it in GIMP. Bammesk (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - great diagram. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Very informative, but needs fixes per below. (Works om my Firefox v. 48.0.2 OS X). --Janke | Talk 07:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has great potential, but sloppy labels/text ruin it. Trunnion should be singular. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure the plural and singular for several labels is correct... Mattximus (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Charlesjsharp and Mattximus. --The NMI User (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment. Probably could be featured, but too many small things wrong at the minute. Gunpowder representation is odd and doesn't work on Mediawiki; doesn't seem to be an explanation of why only the vent field is marked in red; vent and base ring labels almost collide unnecessarily; "Bottom of the bore" label not very near the bottom of the bore; I can't see any rimbases even though they are labelled. I'm also a bit concerned that the long section it's associated with in the article is pretty much unsourced, and seems oddly specific to a very particular design of cannon. TSP (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)



Nintendo Switch in Handheld Mode

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2018 at 02:28:25 (UTC)

Original – The Nintendo Switch in Handheld Mode.
Reason
A high quality image made by one of the best photographers on Wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears
Nintendo Switch, Handheld game console, History of video games, List of handheld game consoles, Nintendo video game consoles, Satoru Iwata, Rocket League, Tegra
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
Creator
Evan-Amos
  • Support as nominator344917661X (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – To reiterate from previous discussions, the device is of no intrinsic visual interest. It may be OK for illustrating the Nintendo Switch article, but is of zero interest to most Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We've had this discussion before. So let me reiterate my point again, it does not matter if the image is not of interest to most main page readers. Featured pictures are determined by the quality of the image and wether or not it passes the Featured picture criteria and the featured picture criteria does not say that an image has to be of interest to most main page readers in order to be promoted to featured picture status. As Maplestrip pointed out in the previous discussion, "The majority of people aren't interested in specific bird species. The majority of people aren't interested in map projections. As per 344917661X, popularity is fairly irrelevant, and I feel that this specific discussion went a bit off-the-rails." Not to mention the fact that today's featured article is about an obscure mouse species that most of the general public doesn't know about. 344917661X (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Who are you to describe what the "main page reader" wants to see? At no point has anyone ever had a criteria on what type of industry a Featured Picture could come from. Do you have an issues with video games, or any other project on wikipedia? Probably not best to simply comment on those types of entries. I can't see how it has no "intrinsic visual interest"; as there have been many featured pictures of a subject. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Congrats on derailing the entire discussion into a heated debate over wether this picture passes the featured picture criteria Sca. Your comments on this discussion are also really disrespectful and the only reason you seem to be opposing the nomination at this point is per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 344917661X (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I always have a hard time judging images by Wikipedia's featured picture guidelines (which is why I don't involve myself with it very often), but I feel like most Evan Amos pictures meet the criteria. Per Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, the image certainly meets 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Only criterium 3 is difficult, but that's because it's subjective. The image shows every detail of the device visible from this angle, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the Switch in portable mode. Perhaps it could have been slightly more angled to show the buttons and ports on the top? I do think Amos has more visually compelling works, but this photograph meets all the requirements and there's no limit on how many FPs a single photographer can have, right? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is limit on how many FPs a single photographer can have. 344917661X (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's the same with FAs: the more the merrier. The only limit is how many nominations you can have open concurrently with before reviewers lose interest, which is about four (it's not prescribed, use your judgement). MER-C 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am switching to oppose, because I do not believe the image is adequately compelling or informative. The photograph gives a poor view of the buttons and ports on the top of the console, and does not feel "dynamic" because it was shot almost head-on. An image like this one would serve Wikipedia much better, as it is both more informative (displaying a main feature of the device) and more visually compelling. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The image you provided as a "better" example doesn't even show the headphone jack or the game card or the other stuff on the top of the Switch console nearly as well as the photograph currently being nominated. The fact that people are opposing this nomination per their own opinions, which violates WP:IDONTLIKEIT and getting away with it is just absurd. 344917661X (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe the nominated pictures is showing these features fairly poorly, to the point where they might as well not be visible at all. It is indeed difficult to judge criterium 3; it is fairly subjective. The image could be more informative and dynamic, and I do not believe it is among Amos' best work. My comments here should be detailed enough to not fall under the "Arguments to avoid" guideline. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comment falls under the arguments to avoid guideline. Also, I actually agree with you and have had a change of heart thanks to your comment, the image should be more dynamic and should have one of the Joy-Con detached to show off the Switch's main feature. Your oppose vote is the only valid one in this cesspool of arguments. If you want Amos to improve the image, feel free to ask him on his talk page to retake the photo and provide the arguments you made here as to why he should retake it. Cheers! P.S. Do you think the other Nintendo Switch image Amos took deserves to remain a featured picture or not? 344917661X (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the other Switch image deserves it. It has some of the same issues as the photograph we're currently discussing (in that it doesn't show that you can take the controller apart or remove the screen from the docking station, but it looks much more interesting, having a kind of "dynamic duo" effect. I do think you are being overly critical of the "oppose" !votes in this thread, by the way. Saying people are creating a "cesspool of arguments" is a bit mean. Wikipedians aren't art critics, and I don't think it is too big of an issue that we have difficulty describing why we don't find the image visually appealing or interesting. Moreover, it's definitely an edgecase because the picture is technically so great. I honestly don't care very much either way if it becomes Featured. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I honestly can't think of another sentence to describe the discussion in this page other than a "cesspool of arguments" and I'm sorry if I sounded rude. The discussions on this thread have gone so off the rails that I have decided not to reply to any more comments on this discussion starting now. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so on my talk page so we can chat alone. P.S. I agree that the previous image deserves to be a featured picture per your comment above. 344917661X (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2018
  • Support. Great picture and will interest the main page audience. JOEBRO64 01:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Not sure how any aspect of the main page will survive if we continue to act so elitist and shoot down everything we dislike. Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I commnented on the previous nom, this image on its own does not do justice to the article. To try to have a second FP is not appropriate in my mind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Your wording is extremely vague and it seems as if the only reason why people are opposing this nomination is due to elitism. 344917661X (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Elitism? Don't be rude. The Nintendo Switch article is illustrated by a logo and two photos. One is already a FP. I don't agree with more than one FP for the same subject. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • First of all, I'm sorry if I did act rude. Secondly, there is no limit on how many pictures in a single article can be promoted to featured article status, as long as the images are of good quality. The more pictures promoted to featured picture status, the better Wikipedia gets. 344917661X (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And now that I think about it, I don't think you are an elitist since you just don't want too many pictures in the same article to be promoted to featured picture status. Sca on the other hand, is a different story. 344917661X (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. --Janke | Talk 11:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • → Plus, it fails to "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" (criterion 3). – Sca (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So now you're opposing per the featured picture criteria? Why didn't you simply say it fails criteria 3 in your previous oppose votes? Also, criteria 3 is more subjective and wether a picture passes criteria 3 depends on a person's opinion, but then again, you could argue the same point for every picture that you personally don't think illustrates the subject in a compelling way. You thinking it fails criteria 3 seems to be a reflection of your anti-video game stance. 344917661X (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Macaca fuscata, yawn, iwatayama.jpgSca (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: It is a high-quality image that would be helpful to someone interested in better understanding the console. I do understand the concern though about having two featured pictures on the same subject (i.e. the Nintendo Switch), though I think that the nominated image shows off a different aspect of the system (i.e. the portable version/mode). For that reason, I think it has encyclopedic value (just my opinion though). I am a little confused by the current discussion about the front page though, as that is not a part of the featured picture criteria. Maybe, the criteria needs to be updated to cover this too? Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: A featured picture candidate should be judged against the featured picture criteria and only the featured picture criteria. The potential use on the Main Page is irrelevant and the criteria doesn't place a limitation on how many FP an article can have. This type of limitation would also be hard to enforce as well if the community ever decided on such limitation. The image passes criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 with flying colors while criteria 3 and 5 can be subjective to the reviewer. For criteria 3 it clearly states A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. This is a case of a highly informative image. For criteria 5 it states A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. In this case for the articles Nintendo Switch , Satoru Iwata, Rocket League & Tegra it does enhance the EV of those articles in the context in which it is used. For the others two are essentially lists (List of handheld game consoles, Handheld game console) while History of video games has an overload of images in general. For Nintendo video game consoles that article would probably best served by moving Nintendo Switch into its own section titled "Hybrid" and chose either the the docked image or this image for the section.
    TL;DR When voting base the image off of the featured picture criteria and not the main page or any other criteria not mentioned in WP:FP?. This image passes criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 without question. It passed criteria 3 as a highly informative image of its primary article while passing criteria 5 by enhancing the encyclopedic value to its primary article and three other articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the fact that images should only be judged against featured picture criteria and not people's own tastes. Most Evan-Amos pictures pass the featured picture criteria with ease, which is why I nominated this image. I also agree with the fact that wether or not the image gets featured on the main page is irrelevant when it comes to featured picture candidate discussions. There are probably a lot of featured pictures that haven't been featured on the main page yet, because wether or not they should and when they should has not been decided yet. Lastly, I agree with the fact that there should be no limitation on how many pictures can be promoted to featured picture status. As long as there are quality images on Wikimedia, we will continue to promote pictures to featured picture status. I feel as if discussions above went a bit off the rails. 344917661X (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with me. Sca (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well there is something we can agree on I agree with me too Face-smile.svg however I still disagree with you. Just because the picture is a photograph of the console in handheld mode it is one of the best examples of the subject the encyclopedia has to offer. Second just because the image isn't "spectacular" or "impressive" it adds a lot of encyclopedic value to the subject which is given priority. Third it meets criteria 3 because the photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail in accordance with WP:FP?.
    If you want the interest of Main Page readers to be added as criteria 9 then I suggest you stop bringing it up on every video game related image and take this discussion to the FPC talk page and see what the community thinks of this. Everytime you bring this up on video game related images which is 3 now it gives me the vibe your only opposing these images for elitist, trivial and you don't like it. If you don't like video games and can't provide constructive, objective and unbiased criticism then don't comment on those images all it does is wastes time and discourages people from wanting to do anything related to featured pictures, good articles, featured articles, etc.
    I have no interest in learning the difference between the different species of butterflies but I didn't go to Gold rim swallowtail and Silver-spotted skipper and oppose them on the grounds I think those images would be "of zero interest to most Main Page readers." I reviewed those images objectively and unbiased based on the featured picture criteria and found with 100% I could give my support to them because the pass the criteria with (no pun intended) flying colors. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - does not illustrate the subject in a compelling way. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: If you don't mind me asking how doesn't this image illustrate the subject in a compelling way? This photograph has appropriate lighting and maximizes the visible detail of the unit. Its very clear and informative about what the unit looks like in handheld mode and it is highly informative of the subject. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The photo, although technically perfect, is generic and forgettable. It looks like it could have come out of a Sears Catalog. The lighting is flat and perfectly even; the background is non-existent; and the only thing that is compositionally interesting is that the unit is slightly tilted. I know that this is exactly the normal style for video game console illustrations, but I don't think that style is compelling. Illustrative, yes. Compelling, no. It's a great illustration, but I don't think it's a featured picture, IMO. FWIW, I don't think the other Nintendo Switch photo should have been featured either. Kaldari (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Highly informative image. --Mika1h (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)



Tooth and Tail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 12:38:58 (UTC)

Original – A screenshot of the real-time strategy game Tooth and Tail, in which the player assumes the role of a commander of an army of animals.
Reason
Renomination of this. The criteria mentioned there still stand, and it only fell short by one vote. I was advised that renominating this was a good idea
Articles in which this image appears
Tooth and Tail
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Pocketwatch Games, the developers of the game. Uploaded to Commons by Anarchyte
  • Support as nominatorAnarchyte (work | talk) 12:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly meets featured pictures criteria. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't quite know that this developer has totally worked through how the licenses work. To my knowledge, that they license this screenshot under CCBYSA doesn't actually matter for our purposes, so long as it is wholly derivative of a non-free work, i.e., the game itself. GMGtalk 13:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The game is non-free. This screenshot is free. What's the problem? - hahnchen 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      • That makes it derivative of a non-free work does it not? "Free works" that are derivative of non-free works are not actually free. GMGtalk 14:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not of interest to most of the general Main Page audience. Sca (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • How? I doubt most are interested in this, which is today's featured picture. JOEBRO64 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sca: As opposed to this or this? The image doesn't have to appeal to the general public; there's nothing in the criteria on that. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Sca - Why on earth are we telling people what they should/should not be interested in? Seems very elitist. There's also nothing in the criteria that it needs to be a "popular" image. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
According to Statista, less than a third (30.6 percent) of the 7.5+ billion population of the Earth plays video games. Sca (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
So? Not being intimately familiar with a subject does not imply not being interested in it. Wikipedia has tons of featured articles on people that no one alive has ever met, events that no one alive took part in, and beliefs that no one subscribes to.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, since only about (apparently) 55.1% of the world has access to the internet, and presumably there is near 100% overlap between those two figures, and 30.6% of the whole is 55.53% of 55.1%, it actually means that this has relevance to more than half of users who are liable to actually see it on the main page. GMGtalk 15:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And also note that "60% Americans play video games daily", and "More than 150 million Americans play video games, and 64% of American households are home to at least one person who plays video games regularly, or at least three hours per week". Source. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Even more to the other scale, 30% of people in the world play video games... But outside of that, how many of them know what a video game is, or even the particular consoles are, etc. My mother knows what video games are, and she doesn't play them. I'd suggest that 30% is far higher than pthe amount of people Chester A. Arthur is of interest to; who is todays featured picture. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm willing to forgive 1440p for video games, but 1080p is too small for new games in 2017 or 2018. MER-C 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Most games released today are still made for 1080p screens. Home consoles and most PCs cannot render higher resolutions smoothly. In this case, the game is presented in a pixel art style and higher resolutions would make very little difference. - hahnchen 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @MER-C: I can appreciate this, but note that it's not common for games, especially ones by non-AAA companies to be released at extremely high resolutions (they're on their way up, however), and when it comes to games anyway, the image quality does not get noticeably better (unless you're jumping from 480p to 720p or higher), unlike an image of a plant where the intricacies become apparent. Unless you're using a fairly recently released graphics card (let's say GTX 1060+), your computer will suffer noticeable strain when running at 1440p or higher (effectively removing the gameplay element, and now you're watching a pretty slideshow). Humans don't experience the same issues when taking photographs of buildings. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Framerate doesn't matter for a static image - one could temporarily increase the resolution at the expense of framerate to take a screenshot like the nominated image. Regardless, a GTX 950 should be able to render this graphically simple (much simpler than AAA) game at 1440p@30fps easily. 1080p would have been acceptable a few years ago, but as you said, standards are increasing. The bar for FP is higher than top 5%. We should expect better. MER-C 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. JOEBRO64 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not add significant value to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Whaaaat? Gameplay screenshots are essential for VG articles. They illustrate the game, which is the object of discussion of the article. JOEBRO64 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Charlesjsharp: By the same reasoning, this doesn't add much because we can just say "it's a bee". I don't understand where you're coming from here. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Gameplay screenshots are essential but there are endless possibilities and of the two illustrating this article, which is better? An image promoted to FP should feature the 'hero' or 'baddy' or core of the game and be in the highest resolution possible. Is this such an image? Is 1080 highest possible? If so, I will happily delete my oppose vote. As for the bee, I don't think it should have been promoted. There is a strong bias here on FP and voters favour images that are top-right. For instance, do you agree with the oppose vote on my monkey below? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Charlesjsharp: In relation to gameplay, the proposed image is better than the split screen. This one shows the HUD, multiple characters, and the graphical style (of course). I will say, however, that if there were an article on split screens in video games, the other one would have a fighting chance.I found this from a developer while searching, and it seems like the game's native resolution is 1080p, and ultra-wide versions (like the ones mentioned in that conversation) would be unrealistic in relation to their depiction of the game, as it was not designed for that resolution (hence the initial thread, I presume). As for the monkey, looking through the article, it looks like it's the best image there. The infobox one is nice but very few of these are portrait. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's rare that a screenshot of a strategy game manages to capture a sufficient share of the game's key elements without being excessively cluttered or difficult for those unfamiliar with the game to make sense of. This image accomplishes that. Reasoning given in original nomination holds true.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Au contraire. To a non-video-gamer, the image is nonsensical. Sca (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Sca: The majority of the HUD is captioned. There's a map in the bottom left, objectives and rules in the top left, and characters scattered around the screen. I will admit that HUD at the center bottom may be a tad confusing to those unaware to how these games usually work, but it's a scroll-able inventory. It's a lot more intuitive than this. I could say the same about some non-video game files, too: File:Sorting quicksort anim.gif, File:Snells law wavefronts.gif, File:Conventional 18-wheeler truck diagram.svg (only numbered, no words), and File:Supercell.svg. There is no requirement for the image to make sense to everyone that sees it. The closest we've got is It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. And again, that is subjective. I didn't look at the supercell image and think "I'd like to learn more about that", but it's still a good image for those who do (and makes a bit more sense when you look at it in the article). Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Outside the context of the "Tooth and Tail" game it's still nonsensical, since the labels (e.g., "Protect the Meat Merchants") mean nothing to the uninitiated. Plus, the whole thing, a screenshot, is rather fuzzy. Not visually accessible to the general reader. Sca (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia images are meant to enhance understanding of an article's text, not to make reading the text unnecessary. We can assume the image's viewer has some knowledge of the image's context. Also, the image doesn't look fuzzy on either my desktop computer or my mobile phone; are you sure it's not just your monitor?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's OK for illustrating the Tooth and Tail article. It's meaningless out of that context, and would only puzzle most Main Page readers. The background of the image is done in an ethereal style that appears blotchy at full res. Not suitable for featuring on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Sca: As opposed to this stuttering mess, this diagram that has no information that makes sense to me, this yellow-green cell, and many of these (especially this, where you can see blurriness on the white lines)? Let's be consistent with what we think doesn't appeal to the general public, especially "when 60% Americans play video games daily". Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg
Sca (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
How come you're not responding to points that clearly invalidate your argument? JOEBRO64 01:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Further the affiant sayeth naught. Sca (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Most of the people reading your comment won't understand what you're trying to say. 344917661X (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@344917661X: There's no point trying to continue the conversation. They're quite adamant on opposing (despite it being not at all related to the criteria). We've still got four days to see whether other people wish to add their supports/opposes (currently 4-2, and FP is entirely based on numbers, so one more support and no more opposition allows it to pass at ~71%). Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess you're right that there is no point in trying to continue the conversation. Sca has successfully derailed this discussion and the discussion over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nintendo Switch Portable as well. 344917661X (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the reasoning provided by Martin IIIa. I also like to clarify that currently Featured picture criteria mentions nothing about a potential Feature Picture's use on the Main Page and the Main Page should not be taken into account when taking this picture into consideration. This picture clearly exceeds criteria #5 which states Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article while further clarifying A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Based on the fact this image passes all criteria of being a featured picture plus where it adds encyclopedic value to its parent article Tooth and Tail should be enough to promote this image alone based on the (and I emphasize) current criteria. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Tooth and Tail - Desert screenshot.png --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)



Arg e Bam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2018 at 19:06:25 (UTC)

OriginalArg e Bam
Reason
Featured image on Commons, lead image for its subject. Gotta counter that systemic bias.
Articles in which this image appears
Arg e Bam, Mud, List of castles in Iran, Kerman Province
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Diego Delso

Promoted File:Fortaleza de Bam, Irán, 2016-09-23, DD 09.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)



Suspended nominations

This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.