Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

FPCs needing feedback

Requesting feedback

Hibiscus Rising sculpture from above. LEEDS 2023. 01

Hello FP friends, I am hoping to nominate my first Featured Picture, but I wanted to gather some advice as it would be my first nomination. The image I would like to nominate is this one which features on the page Hibiscus Rising. My questions are:

1) I was uploading the images as part of a paid project, is it still OK to nominate them for FP? (It is for DYK, but I couldn't see a guideline for FP)

2) EV: this is a unique view of a unique sculpture - does that reflect encyclopaedic value enough? Or is the fact that there are likely to be other aerial photographs of other sculptures detract?

Thanks very much for your advice Lajmmoore (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Diliff

Just a pointer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#License fee demands for Diliff’s images since he was one of our prolific FP creator. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I see one of Diliff's images was nominated for delisting, so I'll elaborate here on what's been going on over on Commons. What we know is that Diliff works with Pixsy, which has a rather bad reputation among free culture communities for "copyleft trolling". It's a process that exploits the "please use this!" signal that Creative Commons licenses communicate by subsequently demanding money anyone who doesn't comply with every aspect of the license. From Diliff's own words, this applies to minor violations and to independent/small-time reusers, and not just e.g. unattributed use by for-profit companies. It's a practice that Creative Commons itself has explicitly condemned as out of line with the principles of the license. There are multiple discussions on Commons about this, and it's unclear what there will be consensus for. Forced watermarking a la Larry Philpot's images (example) is possible, which would itself raise questions for FPC (do we want FPs with big destructive watermarks). But at least as likely is no action, in which case it will be up to this FPC community to decide if this sort of behavior should factor into the promotion/delisting of images here. I don't see much point in delisting one in particular, unless I guess it's being used as a test case for future nominations. As a related aside, anyone interested in this subject is welcome to provide feedback on a draft document about copyleft trolling on Commons: commons:User:Rhododendrites/Copyleft trolling. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

Hi, File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg was designed FP after Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Rushmore. Then it was removed from the article, and replaced by this poor quality image. I reinstated it, but Randy Kryn objects. See discussion on the article talk page. I think a FP should not be removed from the main article for which it was promoted, unless there is a consensus otherwise, and specially for such a bad quality image. Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support FP to the lead. The image is far better than the below par resolution image and an existing FP with such high EV should not be replaced without prior discussion or consensus. Agree with Yann because the image was promoted to represent the best of Wikipedia. It was a POTD too. Moreover, the FP gives a better and clearer view. Randy Kryn gotta give some very solid explanation for this disruption. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  No disruption, the image under discussion has been the long-time image for the article (I don't know exactly how long, but it's been awhile). The FP image, as you can see from the talk page, shows the sculpture from a distance and does not present the artwork as clearly as the two other photos under consideration (looking at the image while it's a stand-alone does not have the same effect when it is presented smaller on the page infobox). Since this discussion has now been divided among three pages (I moved the initial discussion on my talk page to the Mount Rushmore talk page) we should probably alert other pages, including the visual arts and sculpture WikiProjects. Just because an image became a FA does not mean it is the best image for its page topic (am surprised I even have to point that out). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry but you are wrong. FPC criterion 3 literally means that. And it has passed a community consensus to become a FP. Hence yea, it's worthy for the lead. You can as for a delist if you think the image isn't FP worthy anymore and doesn't illustrate the topic. But till then, it's worth the addition into the lead. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

FPC doesn't preempt editorial discussion. It just takes five people to decide something is an FP (there were nine in this case), and none of them need to have any interest at all in the article. 3,105 people have edited the Mount Rushmore article, by contrast. FPC bases its decisions in part on the sometimes ephemeral editorial decisions of article editors; it doesn't preempt those decisions. That said, it's a very strong indication that an image is good, which should influence discussion on whether to replace it. Ultimately I do agree with Randy's last comment, however, that this should be on the article talk page and primarily for article editors to decide. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the FP is the superior photo. Some people will like to crop absolutely all space around an image for the infobox. I'm not always a fan of that, but even if there were consensus to do so... just crop the better photo, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Can this discussion take place at the Mount Rushmore talk page, I think more people would find it of interest there. Cropping the feature photo seems a possibility (although not in my skill set). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

From Copenhagen Stock Exchange

Was looking at the recent ITN of the Copenhagen Stock exchange fire and wanted to see if this image, created in 1895 by a Skagen Painter by the name of Peder Severin Krøyer. Do you guys think that this painting is FP worthy?

This photo! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥

Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably yes IMO. Yann (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominating two images?

Is it possible to nominate two images to be 'one' featured picture? The images in question are shown at Fight-or-flight response. I understand I could edit the images to be a single image but that'd worsen the article quality. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You can nominate them as a featured picture set. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The only problem with nominating those two images are that their resolutions are too small. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I took it to mean 1,500 pixels eg 500 by 300 pixels would be appropriate. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)