Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 34

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 34

FPs moved on Commons

I just now restored the templates for File:Lyndon Johnson signing Civil Rights Act, July 2, 1964.jpg, which seem to have been lost when the image was moved on Commons several months ago (though I can't seem to figure out what happened to the old en.wiki page for the file--I guess the issue is I don't really understand how image redirects work). Is there a relatively painless or bot-assisted way anyone can think of to check for more of these, perhaps periodically? Chick Bowen 20:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this case was a combination of issues. The real issue was that the enwiki file page was deleted by a bot (User:MPUploadBot) after the image appeared on the main page. Then the file was moved on Commons, erasing any history of the {{FP}} template and {{POTD}} template even being there. I believe that the issue of the bot deleting the enwiki file page after appearing on the main page has been fixed. I'm not sure how we would go about getting a bot to check for Commons file moves... Jujutacular (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 34

FPC urgents

Hey, everyone. Hate to nag, but do have a look at the FPC urgents: We have a lot of nominations at the moment, and I'm doing my best to pull up the ones that need more attention. Some of them would be a shame if they failed. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can say it, now that it's pretty much too late: [[1]] should have passed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this Urgents list a healthy thing? Unlike the Commons practice of shortcutting nominations that have got overwhelming support (unanimous 10 supports in 5 days), here we seem happy to consider an image is "going to succeed" if it has only just met the threshold. There are many images that have barely achieved community support that have been overlooked for this list. What this urgent's list does is to bias eyes towards "meh" nominations.

Are these really urgent? The Ivory soap poster and Galerie des Batailles were listed here when they had 5 3/4 days left out of 9. Hardly urgent considering there are 22 nominations closer to their end than the poster. The WWI poster and the Wulingyuan image were similarly early "urgents" that were only middle-aged. In what way are those nominations any more deserving of reviewer opinion (positive or negative) than any of the other 45 nominations?

-- Colin°^Talk 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit out the nominations that already have the quorum or opposition, and you'll find the only other one in this timeframe represented here is one undergoing editing at the moment. They're in order from most to least urgent, and form a comprehensive list.

The explicit purpose of FPC urgents is to direct reviewers to underreviewed nominations; there is no urgency to one that already has a quorum or consensus not to promote, so it's ridiculous to suggest they should be on the list. Further, these are by no means necessarily meh nominations: If someone puts in a nomination, then others almost immediately put three nominations in above it - and, if you check, you'll find this happens fairly often in the current set - then the one below those three will have substantially reduced eyes on it.

Further, this helps to counter systemic bias by trying to assure everything gets its fair share of reviews. Everyone is quite able to oppose if they genuinely disagree with a nomination; that everyone who reviewed found a nomination supportable hardly makes a nomination "meh".

If you disagree with this, feel free to ignore FPC urgents. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that barely achieving quorum does not mean the urgency to get more eyes on it has gone away. And a lack of reviews does not necessarily indicate a failure of the candidate review system. Images that are borderline - nothing special but no serious flaws - often fail to attract criticism or support. Your suggestion that "Everyone is quite able to oppose if they genuinely disagree with a nomination" doesn't hold due to human psychology. Many editors have a problem with being bold and critical, so just plain avoid doing anything other than supporting the obvious winners. That's the way some people are wired and we need to accept it. Such images should be allowed to fail without angst or reviewers being nagged. I strongly disagree with your language "ridiculous". Please can folk raise ideas here without being insulted. I agree with you that sometimes someone's nomination gets buried under a flood of others. When I tried to suggest some folk here pace themselves a bit, I was told I was silly.

FPC Urgents doesn't counter systemic bias. Quite a few pictures are sunk by a swift and possibly unfair oppose. Similarly, some pictures have serious flaws that aren't spotted immediately (I'm thinking of the kingfisher recently). Both problems are simply dealt with by having more eyes on all pictures. Concentrating on the images that most people have already gone "meh" to, is likely to bias such images towards promotion when in fact the unspoken consensus was that they weren't up to it [And I'm not commenting on any specific images here] Your "Everyone is quite able to" comment could equally well be phrased as ".. to scroll down to the bottom of the list and review in reverse order" or any other scheme someone wants to personally choose to review. Colin°^Talk 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

FPC urgents does not allow ones that have a quorum to be listed, and I'm not entirely convinced it should: certainly, it was very useful for keeping things running during the Christmas period, anyway, when the reviewer numbers plummeted. Given we often have large numbers of nominations, I think it can be useful to provide a selection of under-reviewed ones. I'm not sure what to do with these cases

Perhaps me giving my opinion on the nominations will help explain why I think FPC urgents helps.

• Jutland Map: Good map, probably going to need renominated or put into suspended nominations, since it took a while to fix some issues. It's a reworking of an original U.S.-military-produced map, but Wikipedian-created work is held to higher standards.
• Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Map_of_Lorentz_National_Park (not on FPC urgents yet) undergoing work; been considering shoving this into suspended nominations, which would let it be relisted when work's done.
• Bay of Fires: I think this one is going to pass or fail on whether it's deemed encyclopedic enough for the article it's in. Decent photo, but the EV discussion is complicated enough that it's likely to put people off. Directing more eyes may resolve this.
• Wulingyuan: I really want to support this one, but have been having trouble viewing it due to its gigantic size, and it would be dishonest to support without a full review. If I can sort out the problems, and don't find issues, it's going off FPC urgents. I suspect others have viewing problems as well.
• Is Your Home Worth Fighting For?: [one of mine] I always thought this one might be awkward at FPC, since it has high EV as a hard-to-find type of image, but is rather poor artistically. I'm interested to see how this goes.
• Ivory soap: [one of mine]: I'm honestly a bit surprised this isn't passing yet. But then, it's mine.
• Galerie des Batailles: This is a good example of where FPC urgents is really helpful: it was a bit poorly used in the article and captioned at first, but a little work fixed both, and now it's an excellent nom which missed out on some of the early interest.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, those that seem to attract comment that I have to edit my work to account for I am more than happy to renominate a second time. Indeed that might be quicker and cleaner than suspending it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Nomination Stats

Happy New Year everyone! Stats again, updated through 2012. Raw data can be seen here. Jujutacular (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This would be a lot more useful if it noted how many were promoted too. It's been a pain for the past two years I've done it for the Signpost. Interesting data, though, and kinda sad about the decrease... -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • But note that half-way through January we are now at 68, so for the moment at least there is a spike, which could be bigger than the 2010-08 one. Maybe Juju's sandbox should be copied to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Statistics. --ELEKHH^T 05:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Well done. Would actually be interesting to have data on the average number of votes per nom too, especially in light of the discussion above. FWIW a straight-line fitted to the above data has a gradient of -0.71, certainly not insignificant. --jjron (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Copied the new stats over to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Statistics. Thank you, I forgot about that! Jujutacular (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Would be interesting to see numbers of promoted and declined images on that graph as well (as opposed to using a separate percentage graph). --Dschwen 18:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Potential candidate feedback

Hi all, I was thinking of nominating File:E Minas Geraes C.jpeg here. While the quality is grainy and blurry, probably because no tripod can compensate for ten 12-inch guns firing at one time, there are no other images out there (that I know of, at least) of this. There are others that show the ship itself, but none that show it, or any of the five South American dreadnoughts, firing their guns, which is the defining element of this picture. Any opinions? I don't expect the reception to be positive, but it's worth a shot. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be scanned from newsprint (or similar). A better scan (i.e. from the negative or a photographic print) would probably pass, as it's an impressive picture, but it's hard to get a scan like this through, since at this point we're so far from the original photograph. Chick Bowen 01:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't believe that the original negative is anywhere online, and I'm not even sure that it still exists. I'll keep looking. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Tiffen

I see that Tiffen has no image. Should I shoot my Tiffen UV filter, the box it came in with Tiffen logo or the UV filter leaning on its packaging.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Or should I take a picture of a Tiffen filter leaning on a cap like this picture at UV filter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think something like your second option would be best. Would be nice if it says "Tiffen" on the filter in the picture? Jujutacular (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Types of cameras

Can a photo by any type of camera used be added here or does it have to a high-end SLR or similar? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not really a reg at FPC, but I beleive that more expensive cameras and lenses take higher quality photos. Thus, you are more likely to meet with success with pictures from better equipment. I have only one FP and it is from a point and shoot. My FP is based on encyclopedic value. It serves as the main image on about 5 different pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we have a number of FPs taken with PowerShot or similar level cameras (high-end point-and-shoot, in other words, below SLR in price range). File:Lucky Diamond Rich face.jpg and File:Lactarius indigo 48568.jpg come to mind, but there are many more. Chick Bowen 20:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong question to ask! The type of camera which was used to take the picture is not part of the featured picture criteria. Full stop. The criteria are only concerned with the image itself. --Dschwen 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My only photographic FP (that is, taken by me, not things like restoration of Mathew Brady photos) was taken on a relatively low-end point-and-shoot camera. I did have to take around a hundred shots to get it, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the wrong question to ask, but having said that, it's still difficult to get the required image quality with a low-end camera. Certainly not impossible though, and high EV can compensate for lack of quality. A high-end SLR can in some circumstances make up for poor technique, but on the other hand, poor technique can also exacerbate image quality issues on a high-end camera. Bottom line is that the camera is not part of the criteria, as Dschwen said. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Candidate feedback

I have encountered this image, did some tweaks to contrast and lightning and would like to see some feedback if it is FP worthy. I am not completely sure about it and appreciate the feedback. Thanks. -- ???²¹ 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a powerful composition, which might mitigate for minor technical issues such as the slight CA, but the image is currently not in use in any article.--ELEKHH^T 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I will add it to an article into wich it can have a high encyclopedic value, and will test its potential later :) -- ???²¹ 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Focus stack

I tried to focus stack. I got more blur than any of the originals. It is as if two versions were compiled on a third that was moved over by a few pixels.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TonyTheTiger, which software do you use? I use helicon focus with best results. You can me mail your single photo-set for a test with my software. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am using CombineZ. The second set has some weird artifacts. I emailed a request for your email address.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

With Helicon Focus, I got a successful stack of three f/9 images at 300mm on a 70-300mm, but it seems inferior to a single f/45 image to me. The stacked photo does not have the same sharpness in many locations, but it did remove specs of dust. Should I upload the images (3 f/9s, 1 f/45, CombineZ stack and Helicon focus stack).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also redid my afternoon stack with Helicon and got something fairly decent. It came from 3 f/13s at 55mm on an 18-55mm in direct sunlight. For this I have 3 f/13s, 1 f/36, CombineZ stack and Helicon focus stack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found the f/36 for comparison from the afternoon with sunlight. Helicon beats the f/36 in sunlight, but not the f/45 from later. My interpretation is that this software may give results equivalent to a better depth of focus than f/36, but not quite f/45 based on my two results.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aligning the images before you stack them? JJ Harrison (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am just loading the photos and telling the software to do its thing in both CombineZ and Helicon. It worked well in Helicon, but not CombineZ.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually for me stacking is a two step process in combineZP. First tell it to align the images, and then tell it to stack them with whichever algorithm looks best. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am now realizing that I was only doing one of the six algorithms in CombineZ.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. CombineZ seemed to align them by itself (not much aligning really necessary since I was on a tripod). Some of the algorithms worked out pretty well. I just need to control my lighting better. Also, I might do better with more than 3 source files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Women's_Suffrage

While I'm fully aware I acted foolishly insofar as I didn't get the alt ready on Commons - despite having it prepared - until well after the nomination started - there are reasons for this, but I'd rather not go into them, suffice to say my life got suddenly a bit hectic for a bit - I would appreciate if people would have a look, as I do think this is a lovely artwork, and I think it'd waste everyone's time if I go to my default of "say nothing, renominate in two weeks or so". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

White background

Why are all the camera FPs (File:Sony A77.jpg, File:Sony-Alpha-A700-Front.jpg, File:Canon EOS 5D Mark II with 50mm 1.4 edit1.jpg, File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg, File:Lens aperture side.jpg) done with a white background. How is it done?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It makes the subject of the picture stand out nicely without any distractions and looks good when embedded in a page with a white bg. There are two options

1. Masking the background and filling it white through image processing (Gimp, Photoshop). You can add a fake drop shadow to make it look less like it is floating in a void. It is difficult to achieve results that do not look cheap!
2. Proper lighting. Use a plain white background such as a piece of poster carton. Don't lay it flat, but have it bend upwards behind the subject to create an even background with no corners or horizons. Then make sure the bg is lit bright enough to make it truly white.

--Dschwen 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I just tried it at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I make the background whiter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Might need to use backlighting. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• O.K. How do I do that. I have a Canon Speedlite 430 EX II. That can be a slave to the internal master of the Canon EOS Rebel T4i. I just need to know where it goes. Are you saying I make it flash onto the back of the white paper?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A very good book on lighting, which I have read, is ISBN 0240812255 "Light Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting". Something to spend your Christmas Amazon vouchers on, perhaps. It discusses lighting objects and portraits. Photographing products to a professional quality is not easy, as you are discovering with your FPC. Just getting them spotlessly clean is a nightmare. Even with the best lighting, you will find it essential to be able to tweak the levels afterwards, and to remove dust spots. For this reason, I strongly recommend shooting raw and using a program like Lightroom. It will make more of a difference to your images than buying another lens. You don't need Photoshop for this kind of image. There are free focus stacking programs if you want to experiment with that too. While Lightroom can help lift the whites to whitest, I don't recommend using an image editor like Photoshop or Gimp to cut out an object and fake the background/shadow. There are some FPs that have done that but it is very hard to do well and easy to spot unless you are only looking at a thumbnail.

As for advice with your shots, FP is not the place to learn. Individual editors may help but please don't post FPCs that aren't at the quality shown by existing examples. There are loads of forums and Flickr groups that specialise and are more suited to helping you learn how to take a certain kind of photograph than Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 21:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, Commons Quality Images is a place you can put up pictures you think are nearly there. If they're not up to scratch, they'll get summarily rejected, but you'll always get a reason, and if you learn from each rejection, it'll help your photography a lot. --99of9 (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about QI for feedback. It is more aimed towards a quick tick or cross style of response. And the quality requirement is supposed to be as high as FP (but without the wow). You might get a terse reason but no help towards fixing it. Commons:Photography critiques is the relevant place, but I don't know how well staffed it is. But really, the internet is full of places where photographers can learn their skills and get feedback and criticism. This is an encyclopaedia, not a photo tutorial. Colin°^Talk 11:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured Picture on Commons versus Featured Picture on Wikipedia?

If a picture on Commons is a Featured Picture, does one have to do anything special for it to be a Featured Picture on Wikipedia? It seems to me the FP Criteria for Commons and Wikipedia are quite different. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have to do anything special? Well, not really, other than nominate it here. Perhaps the key difference though is that the image needs to have good Encyclopaedic Value (EV) to be featured here, which is indicated to a large degree by the image being included in a significant capacity in at least one Wikipedia article and it being stable in its article usage. The full criteria are at WP:WIAFP. --jjron (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It has to be used in an article and have strong encyclopedic value. Additionally, commons requires images to be a minimum of 2 megapixels in resolution while FPC here requires a minimum of 1500 pixels in the smallest dimension.--Muhammad(talk) 15:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

FPC resolution requirements

I see that new noms are suggested to by 1500x1500 pixels. Are current FPs that are below this threshold suppose to be nominated for delisting?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The size change was and is not retrospective. While size can be a factor, any delist should be based on other reasoning. --jjron (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Give it time Jjron, in the past pretty much every tightening of guidelines has been used as an excuse to nominate older images for deletion and there's no reason to think that this will be any different. It should be made explicit that rule changes aren't retroactive and to that end there should be a subpage linked to from the guideline page that documents the old and new rules so that people know what rules to use if it comes up. Doesn't have to be retroactively done but for future rule changes. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, which is why I'm being pretty blunt in the 'no' response, but I can foresee the day when someone comes along with mass delist noms based on size. Perhaps not a bad idea to create a new subpage explicitly documenting changes to the criteria though, perhaps with a simple summary of the discussion that led to it and when it was done. I guess it would basically be off in the FPC Criteria page history anyway if someone did want to trawl through it and get such a page going. --jjron (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

At the same time, though, we do see raising standards over time, so it may well be that some older noms aren't good enough anymore. But we should do so in a selective fashion, getting rid of ones that seem alien to the idea of a modern FP before ones that are merely a bit smaller. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but any delist nom based solely on being "too small" based on the current criteria would get an automatic Keep at least from me. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, agreed, except maybe if it was something like "too small to see the details that are necessary to its encyclopedic value", like if was so small you couldn't make out most of the components of a clockwork machine or something. And there's also some cases where an image could be delisted on size alone. For example, File:Sand sculpture.jpg or File:BrisbaneByNight2004.jpg - two images from the first month of standardised FPC archives - are so small as to seem laughable next to any modern FPC. But before you reach that point where the image cannot be imagined as an FPC anymore, size considerations are insufficient reason. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another good example is File:Dragonfly eye 3811.jpg, which, looks rather shoddy next to a more modern FPC on the same subject, such as File:Calliphora_vomitoria_Portrait.jpg. So I suppose there's that as well - if much better FPs on similar subjects are coming in, the old ones may be ready to delist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Exif data

The topic of purged Exif data came up at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Common Leopard Phalanta phalantha.jpg which made me look and see if the nomination guidelines had anything on pushing people to nominate images with full Exif data, I'm specifically thinking camera, shutter speed, aperture, ISO. Number 7 on the FP Criteria lists geotagging but not basic information which is much more helpful for evaluating an image. This seems like a pretty simple change but does anyone disagree? Cat-fivetc ---- 16:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily deliberate. When folk muck about with an image in PhotoShop or Gimp, etc, then this sort of thing can get lost. Also we accept images that aren't created by Wikipedians, such as those from Flickr. The Exif data doesn't really affect the quality of the image or the ability for it to be used on Wikipedia or by anyone who licences our work, which is all that matters. -- Colin°^Talk 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be against making it a requirement for those reasons but we already have GPS data on the suggested list of things for an image to have and how an image was made seems as important as the pinpoint location of where it was made. On that note, in a pinch if the nominator is the photographer they can add precise or imprecise location data and/or image creation details in the description page and/or the caption if they want. Obviously that's not going to apply to people who are using government or third party images which (regretfully) don't come with that information but it doesn't seem to much to ask where possible. Cat-fivetc ---- 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the status quo. We can encourage photographers to use it (and not all FPs are photographs) but I don't see it's a reason to oppose by itself (so it might be evidence of inappropriate digital manipulation). If anything I think we should remove the Geotagging advice. A commenter can always mention it, rather than add all sorts of other "best practice" type stuff to the criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That works too but it isn't just geotagging, there's a bunch of things that aren't strictly necessary on that page. I'd be happy to have a go at if people are willing to discuss after the fact, otherwise we're just going to get bogged down on each item as we go down the list. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Geotagging is of significant encyclopaedic value. It is absolutely something to encourage for certain classes of photograph. So I support its inclusion as the sort of thing that should appear on the image description page. Stuff about panorama frames, camera models and f stops is merely "nice to have" but really nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. Colin°^Talk 08:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that having a solid description giving the general location (down to the building, ridge, field, lake, studio, or whatever) where the photo was taken is necessary and having GPS data down to 50 feet or better is just icing on the cake. That being said, I see no issue with having GPS as something that's recommended where possible but if that's the case then so should Exif at least the basic set of Exif data. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say both geotagging and exif data are nice to have, but in almost all cases should not be 'deal breakers' in terms of deciding the merit of an FP nom. As Cat-five says exif info can be helpful to evaluate an image, for example this discussion arose out of my vote on that image where I was trying to confirm whether the DOF we were seeing was essentially the best we could expect, or if it was a poor choice on the part of the photographer (knowing the macro photography skills of the photographer concerned I assumed he would have chosen well, which he later confirmed, but the exif would have saved the initial uncertainty). The metadata can also be good when you see a superbly executed photo and you are interested to know the settings used to help develop your own skills. On the flipside, I would have to say I have seen images shot-down at times significantly because people have decided a photographer has chosen settings poorly after viewing the exif, although it's also true to say in many cases the exif simply confirms initial suspicions of poor choices. But including it can be a bit of a double-edged sword. And while the exif can be useful to us reviewers at FPC, in terms of Wikipedia itself, frankly most people wouldn't know what it was all about, and more to the point simply wouldn't care. The geotagging is probably more encyclopaedically useful, but even then I suspect few people would ever actually click through. And sadly both are probably further examples of where I feel we favour non-Wikipedian generated content, even if it's almost unconsciously. But the key point I think (and one that I feel is too often overlooked by reviewers) is that image pages should include a clear and detailed description of the image, which is really what Criterion 7 is all about. --jjron (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

January 30

Just to note, there's a LOT of underreviewed images ending January 30; indeed, we seem to be falling behind all over the place this week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Restorationists: File:Inflatable habitat s89 20084.jpg

I just found File:Inflatable habitat s89 20084.jpg when I was going through a portal. It's fun looking, large enough to be an FP, and only has some slight damage (as best as I can tell). Just throwing it out there. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also: File:Moon colony with rover.jpeg. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

These would be excellent choices for new restorationists - outside of the black sky having been worn down by greasy fingers on the left edge of the inflatable image, which will require a little care, but not much, it's all just simple dust specks and the occasional scratch, both of which can be easily fixed with the clone tool if you zoom in enough and use a suitably-sized clone stamp. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder, how does one tell dust specks and stars apart? --125.25.147.169 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can tell when they're on buildings and people. Leave anything plausible alone, of course. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Would this be FP quality?

I just came across File:Male human head louse.jpg and think it's rather intriguing. I have no idea of how photo quality is judged, though. There seems to be some ghosting which is probably hard to avoid at such magnifications, and the crop is rather tight on the right. Does this have FP potential? Also, it's currently inconvenient for me to log in so if someone thinks this pic has a good chance it'd be great if they could help nominate it. Thanks. --125.25.147.169 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly support it, and it shows the characteristic grabbing of the hairs very well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Nominated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bulbs for light tent

I have come to the conclusion that I need to have better control over my lighting and am putting together a light tent. As a first attempt, I picked up a $12 popup on eBay. I have some clamp on desk lamp lighting fixtures. I have read an online DIY guide and I just need to understand what is meant by "Full Spectrum" light bulbs. I have some 60watt soft white bulbs. Are these full spectrum?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• If they are incandescent, then certainly. The most important thing will be consistency. You want consistent color balance from each source. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean by balance. I have just posted the two lights that I have around the house that are not in use. They have different size heads. Does that throw off the balance too much even if I put the same size bulb in each?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • They don't look incandescent, they look fluorescent, which doesn't have a full spectrum. It's not about the colour temperature or the wattage of the bulb, it's whether the bulb emits light across the spectrum evenly. See Color rendering index. Whether it's a major issue depends on the subject you're photographing and what phosphors are used in the bulb. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Looking more closely those are energy efficient 13 watt flourescent replacements for 60 watt incandescent lightbulbs. I will pick up a couple of incandescent bulbs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • See here: Metamerism (color) --Dschwen 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/La Dame aux camélias

This has had a little additional editing by Bransmeister, so I'd appreciate if people'd have another look. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bicycles

I thought there was potential in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bicycle diagram if only some of the issues could be ironed out. I've now done that an uploaded an edit to File:Bicycle diagram-en (edit).svg. However, I haven't put it in articles yet, as I wanted to confirm people thought it was an improvement (I think this is unlikely to be universal). I went through discerning what about each oppose could be easily changed, and did that. There's a change list in the file description. Thoughts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

At first glance I immediately noticed that the rims are not circular and are uneven width, as are the tyres, and the spokes are unevenly spaced. Otherwise it looks okay. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 19:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the tyres shouldn't be circular - they should be partially flattened at the bottom. Other issues hold. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's POTD

Does anyone else see a stitching error in the current POTD? To me it looks like there's one between the second and third peaks from the left--a ghost of the mountain visible in the sky. Am I wrong? If others concur, I'll try to do a quick edit, but then what? Would we forget about POTD and start a normal Delist and Replace, or is it worth pinging Howcheng for emergency action? I'm also willing to accept that I'm just seeing it wrong, since there was no mention in the original nomination. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a rough edit if it helps make clear what I mean. Chick Bowen 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what is supposed to be done in such a case, but just thought I should mention that there are quite a few errors and your edit has missed some just to the right of the ones you fixed. --Muhammad(talk) 01:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure that's true! I just did the edit so people could see the spot I mean. Chick Bowen 01:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Macro images

I am trying to deterimine what factors are keeping me from producing FP quality images. Since my best contributions to WP will probably be basketball, I have two bodies (Canon Rebel T3i and Canon Rebel T4i). Would I be able to produce FP quality images if instead I put all my money in one Canon EOS 7D, which costs the same as my two bodies combined? Is it my lenses? I don't have any macro lenses and have been working with EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens. Is it my accessories such as tripods, flashes and a light tent purchased on eBay? My Manfrotto 190XProL seems stable enough to me. I am satisfied with my Speedlite 430 EX II. Is it impossible to do consistent FP level work with my equipment or is it just me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If your doing basketball photography, provided you don't have press access getting you right courtside, then you'd need fairly expensive lenses for closeups... check out this article: [2]. The bodies should be fine, I think. Remember with action shots, more pictures the better, pretend your camera is a video camera and just hold down the shutter and shoot as fast as possible.. lol -- raekyt 08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By fast as possible do you mean fps or shutter speed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For sports photography, both. The big ass lenses you see the pro camera people with along the side-lines, they're very large apature lenses that allow them to take faster shutter speed photos in lower light, and are generally stupidly expensive. If you want to do good sports photography, then you need to learn about these kinds of lenses, there are some larger apature lenses that are not multi-grand expenditures. And for rapid-fire taking pictures, more pictures you take more likelyhood of getting a good one. -- raekyt 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The main reason keeping your from producing FP quality macro images is technique. If you are serious about producing good close-up product images, then a macro lens and perhaps some lighting equipment would make a difference. But you need to learn more and read more - esp about lighting - and practice lots. The camera is most definitely not the problem here. There is zero difference in image quality between your T3i and T4i so I hope you didn't buy the latter hoping to take better pictures. And I don't know why you think buying the out-of-date 7D would improve your picture quality. Moving up to a prosumer camera will give you improvements to the exposure and focus systems that may improve your hit-rate of successful pictures, but don't in themselves equal higher quality images. But there are times in the product release cycles, like now, when such cameras are lagging behind the latest consumer models in terms of sensor tech. And the speed and accuracy of focussing is determined by both the camera and the lens, so buying a better camera and sticking a cheap kit lens on it makes no sense. Your T4i is a fine camera and we have plenty FPs taken with lower spec cameras.

My 2p: buy kit because you want to take and enjoy the pictures that require it, not in order to get an FP. Colin°^Talk 09:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I bought the 2nd body (as well as a monopod, tripod, 40mm pancake, 430EX II speedlight, larger SD cards and a new bag) when a one-time windfall enabled me to double my camera equipment budget. The budget only has $77.67 left, so I won't be buying much new stuff for a while. The 2nd body was chosen mainly because i jumped me from 3.7 fps to 5.0 fps, which is important for basketball. I decided not to sell the first body for situations where I might be on one end of the court and need different lenses for the near and far courts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I also think technique is honestly the issue here. The most recent focus stacked version had a weird angle. The white balance was off. The lens was dirty. The focal length was too short imo. The version before that combined with maybe a few hundred pixels in margin and focus stacking would be perfect. There have been many featured pictures taken with quite humble equipment. I'd sell one body though - pointless having two so similar. The 7D is a better body than the t4i for it's ergonomics, durability and fast action capabilities. But the sensor is the same as your bodies anyway. At any rate, upgrading to a newer crop sensor wouldn't improve your photos at all. Improvements to high iso capability and the like are totally irrelevant in an iso 100, tripod mounted, lighting controlled studio situation. Spend your money on lenses (a few good ones, not loads of mediocre ones) or lighting gear - they don't depreciate as quickly. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of featured pictures taken with both of your lenses. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

FPC in 2012

Anybody willing to do a 150-200 word write up for the Signpost about the state of FPC in 2012, including more unique images or patterns, please contact me. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could, although I was on wikibreak for part of it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We could also collect some thoughts here for Adam or whoever ends up writing it. Here are mine: in photography: 1. JJ has really raised the bar for nature photographs, and I think has had a positive influence on some of our other photographers; 2. we had more action shots of performers and athletes, and 3. after a number of broad, panoramic urban landscapes in previous years, our architectural images have moved toward very precise, high-res images of single buildings. In historical images, I think we're seeing more heavily edited images, with less tolerance for dust and damage. Oh, and the resolution criterion was raised in July, though I think that really reflected a trend in the FPC discussions going back another year or so. Chick Bowen 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't counted the exact number, but there were more than a few successful nominations of space related photography in 2012 including subjects in astronomy and space vehicles. --Pine^? 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if you two want to write something I'll be glad to include it. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page Today

Just saw the image on the main page. I thought it was agreed that we'd avoid controversial images like those on the main page. --Muhammad(talk) 04:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm biased since it was my nomination, but can you explain how it is controversial? We have had nude artwork on the front page before. This is hardly a graphic or provocative image. Chick Bowen 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• A) I selected it as it is a featured picture and decidedly not pornographic and b) Chick is right, we have often featured nudes on the main page (like The Wave around this time last year) -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For reference, other nudes that have been on the main page: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 31, 2006, Template:POTD/2012-02-07. Selections are made on a case-by-case basis and are independent of the selection for featured status. This is probably more suitable for discussion at WT:POTD, or User talk:Howcheng or User talk:Crisco 1492. Jujutacular (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 7 clarification

Propose changing the start of Criterion 7 from "Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description." to "Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English." This does not prohibit additional descriptions in other languages, but since we're on English Wikipedia at least one of the descriptions should be in English if the photo is to be featured here. --Pine^? 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• This seems reasonable to me. Good spot. Has it come up in a nomination recently? Jujutacular (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this came up at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Branches. --Pine^? 22:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• In theory I'd allow parts to be in another language (the detail) but in practice your proposed rewording would be far simpler to understand. I absolutely agree that this is a simple part of what it means to be an FP on enwiki rather than Commons. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with this idea too. -- ???²¹ 20:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with this in theory, as long as it's enforced gently in practice. I recall a nomination--though which one I don't remember--in which the description wasn't in English, and somebody translated it while the nomination was open, and it was no problem. I wouldn't want to see nominations speedy-closed for this reason, particularly if they were in languages such as French or German that are likely to be translatable by an FP regular. Chick Bowen 02:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And now I see that there's actually a current nom that meets this description, which I've translated myself. Chick Bowen 04:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Let's not have this carry over to image titles though. Anyone remember the multiple FFDs for File:LG ??? 3D TV ? ?? '????' ??.jpg under its "redundant" English title? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• For those who don't remember: File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg, FFD 1, ANI, FFD 2, RFC. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The image page absolutely needs to be in English for enwiki for EV reasons, in particular the description section. Featured content is meant to be showcasing our best work, and they're hardly doing that if an English speaking person can't read them. Of course it can also have other language versions too, it's just that one has to be in English. The actual filename isn't so important as you don't need to be able to read that if an English description is provided, and given that the images are generally sourced from Commons which is a multilingual repository and it doesn't need multiple versions of the file named in each language. Nominators should be checking this prior to nomination, it's pretty straightforward, but there seems to be a whole raft of noms going through atm not satisfying this (I just tagged another three). Whether it needs to be stated in the criteria I'm not sure, rather seems like stating the obvious, but given my previous statement maybe it's not so obvious, so if it helps make things clearer for people... --jjron (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Y Done This seems uncontroversial and the last contribution to this discussion was ten days ago. I made the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_criteria&diff=538777566&oldid=514075536. --Pine^? 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/By George, the Country Needs Me!

I'm a little surprised this hasn't had a single vote, given it passed on Commons by the Rule of the 5th day - e.g. Such overwhelming, unanimous support that it gets closed early. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as having extremely high EV for the article's it's in.... -- raekyt 16:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How else would you illustrate the connection between St. George and Britain than by showing him being used in British patriotism? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But we don't have an article about that specifically? It's just one of the many recruitment posters they issued, one of the earlier ones, or the first one, or if any are more notable/discussed/most widely distributed or whatever would be more EV in those articles. Only has very minor EV in Patronages of Saint George or Saint George, where it's arguably not even worth including in the second one. And again very minor EV in History of the United Kingdom during World War I, only one it could have any real EV in is Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War, and that's where I think maybe the first posters of the war for recruitment would have most EV, not just one that happens to be graphically flashy. -- raekyt 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notifying the Video Game project

There seems to be an increase of video game-related pictures being promoted to Featured status and yet its hard to have it noticed for the project since there no notification on when they are up. I just want to make sure that there can be more announcements for these nominations in the future. GamerPro64 16:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. I don't think it is standard practice here to notify any Wikiprojects of nominations, but it's a good idea. Jujutacular (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

IF a bot can do it somehow, then it would be ok, but I doubt anyone would do it due to time constraints otherwise. Probably be good idea to increase participation if we did notify relevant wiki-projects though (and the article's talk pages that the picture is on). -- raekyt 23:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To add a concern though, if we did do this, then we'd have to become pretty strict about disqualifying things if they fail criteria, right now we sorta fudge things a bit, and let it drag on until it closes nautrually if it fails, but if we're advertising alot of invested parties that may vote because they like an image irregardless of promotion criteria, then the regulars would need to step in and procedurally close things. -- raekyt 23:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, do remember that the criteria do have exceptions. We shouldn't (for example) disqualify a video game shot that someone gets free licensed because the game's maximum resolution is less than 1500x1500. There can be reasonable discussion about whether something is an exception in some cases, and we should let such discussions happen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the exceptions, but I was talking more broadly than just this one project, if we started notifying all relevant projects/pages of a new nomination, there may be people who don't know the criteria coming and voting for things that shouldn't pass due to failing criteria just because they like it or have invested interests in it... -- raekyt 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

True. But perhaps if we just ask any notifications - outside of the institutionalised ones like WT:MILHIST - include a link to WP:Featured picture criteria it'd work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds strongly like Wikipedia:Canvassing to me, which has been highly frowned upon here in the past. There's a reason we don't notify 'interested' wikiprojects and other parties, and that's because we've seen disastrous consequences in the past when they've flooded a nomination with unjustified votes (anyone else remember the stoushes over the Wikipe-tan nominations for example?). Now that promotions have tipped very strongly towards simple vote counting as opposed to the older technique with more judgement made by closers to evaluate arguments, there would be little to prevent this getting out of hand. I therefore strongly oppose this being done in any form. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS is a bad-faith attempt to skew consensus by notifying only people who you think will support your position. Neutrally notifying all relevant parties, isn't canvasing. It's quite common and happens all the time. -- raekyt 15:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Indeed! If we simply worded every notification with a boiler plate paragraph about things to keep in mind when commenting at FPC, I think this could be useful. For example, we might have avoided this incident if the relevant projects had been notified. Jujutacular (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst more participation would be great, notifying wikiprojects would skew the process too much in my view, particularly with very popular projects. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The whole point is that people in a wikiproject are more likely to support the nomination without particular concern to the criteria (have seen it happen many times), which is what makes it a form of canvassing. I know this is not always the case, and indeed sometimes they can offer a valuable input and counterpoint to a nomination, a recent example being Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Pressure Area over the Great Australian Bight. On the other hand they can also bring across wikiproject infighting as well, which I think was also evident in that particular example. (And re the Ebony Thomas case, this is an example where nominator and reviewers (and yes I was one of them) perhaps did not exercise due diligence - a simple Google image search pretty much conclusively shows this isn't her. Also a case where our 7 day rule didn't do it's job of weeding out things like this; not sure about the article usage, but from time of image upload to nomination was about 6mths, so plenty of time for someone involved in that area to click to the misidentification, and FWIW I suspect the new lead image in the article is also not her. Perhaps this also a case of where a propensity we seem to have of promoting images of lower EV as indicated by their article size/popularity needs some thought - even now this article is only a couple of hundred words long, was edited only ten times last year, and hasn't been edited in six months!). --jjron (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the current infobox image is most likely her. Krug's other images on flickr show several backing vocalists with hair like the delisted image above (example). Other images of the singer also have frizzled hair (example) -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Picture File:Casing.jpg is not used in any articles

I can see no reason other than disuse that this would warrant a delisting, so I figured I'd let the rest of you know about it, and hope that someone sticks this in a few articles. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Could ask on M4 carbine if they want it back in the article... otherwise if no new home can be found then yea, Delist. -- raekyt 18:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This version of the same image File:M4FiringWithCasingInAir.jpg is still used in the M4 carbine article. As best I can tell the only difference is it's been slightly cropped. I have no idea why it's being used in preference to the featured version. I'm going to revert it and we'll see if it holds. --jjron (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW it appears this replacement in the article happened on 13 Jan 2008 here. --jjron (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, a week and fifteen article edits down the track, including edits by the two main article contributors, this image remains in its place in the article. I think we can put this one to sleep for the time being. --jjron (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Focus stack vs. Multi Shot Noise Reduction

A couple weeks ago, you guys introduced me to a technique called focus stacking. I was speaking with Canon Technical support tonight and someone introduced me to multi shot noise reduction. The canon manual does not really explain what the technique is. If it isn't too much trouble, can someone explain the difference between focus stacking and multi shot noise reduction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is similar to the "multiframe noise reduction" (aka "hand-held twilight") in my Sony camera. See this review for examples. The camera takes several (e.g., six) shots in rapid succession, aligns the images to cope with you moving slightly, and then averages out the pixels. Provided the subject is stationary, the only difference between the frames should be shot noise, which is random. The manufacturer's implementation will vary in how well they cope with moving subjects without ghosting. You can do the same on your computer by taking several identical shots and processing with enfuse. It is almost the opposite of focus stacking, which aims to extract detail unique to each frame.

I experimented with it on my camera. It does indeed produce lower-noise JPG images than would normally be possible (where the alternative is increasing the ISO). Unfortunately, Lightroom does a much better job of producing a low-noise JPG than my A33 does by itself, and I found that I could get similar images from a single higher-ISO RAW file instead. If you are taking product shots on a tripod, then this technique isn't relevant - just light the subject well and choose ISO 100. -- Colin°^Talk 08:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I had no idea of such tecnique. We are always learnig here! I hope that my new gear will save me from those complicate ways, eheh! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing ever saves you from complication. As new gear makes one scenario easier, it just introduces you to another scenario in which it doesn't work. :) High ISO image quality is light-years (har-har) better than it used to be, so we can now hand-hold what used to be impossible in the days of film. But there are still many things that we can't do without a bit of trickery. Star-trails for example. The only way to get decent image quality on long star trail images is to image stack, because the sensors can't cope with shutter speeds of over about 5 minutes without filling the frame with hot pixels. A similar technique (but seemingly not quite the same) in astrophotography is dark frame subtraction. You take a long exposure photo (or series, if star trailing), and then take another photo with the same shutter speed, except with the lens cap on. That takes a measurement of the innate sensor noise of the camera at that moment in time (which is dependent on temperature and a few other factors). You can then go back to your PC later on and 'remove' the dark frame noise from the other image(s), which cleans up the photo's long exposure noise substantially. Better than using noise reduction software, because it's the sensor's unique 'noise signature' for the given conditions. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your "dark frame subtraction" is a manual version of "long exposure noise reduction" where the camera automatically takes another picture of equal length but with the shutter closed whenever the exposure length is greater than one second. This technique/feature removes fixed-pattern noise but not shot noise. I can configure my camera to turn this feature on or off, and unlike multi-frame noise reduction it applies directly to the RAW file rather than just JPGs. However, for star trails it wouldn't be any use as you'd have a long gap between each trail segment -- so Diliff's manual version is needed to apply to all the frames. Colin°^Talk 12:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• When I was talking about multiframe noise reduction, I was talking with Canon customer support about the graininess that I experienced on January 26th. I attended a Chicago Public High School League basketball game at the Jones Convocation Center that featured Jabari Parker and Jahlil Okafor. I was seated at the top of the first level directly across from an ESPN camera crew. I was about ten rows up as you can see at this New York Times image (I am to the left of the tripod using a monopod). I shot about 2/3rds of the game at 800 ISO and 1/1000 shutter speed and the rest of the game at 400 ISO and 1/640 shutter speed. I shot 1182 pictures that day (with my Rebel T4i and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens) often using continuous shot bursts. In general, the 800 ISO shots were grainier than the 400 ISO shots. We were discussing methods of reducing graininess of 800 ISO shots. You can see some of the 800 ISO shots at Jahlil_Okafor#2012.E2.80.9313_regular_season or Jabari_Parker#2012.E2.80.9313_regular_season. Let's take for example the first of the Jahlil Okafor images as an example of the 800 ISO graininess. Compared to the main Jabari Parker image, there is a lot of graininess or softness. After having experimented with focus stacking, I felt that for action photography multi shot noise reduction was an odd technique to suggest. I was under the assumption that the technique was for still imagery.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As you are shooting JPGs you are somewhat at the mercy of the camera. Make sure you've set your JPG quality settings to the highest you can and turn down any noise-reduction settings to see if that helps. Those images look soft rather than noisy. The softness may be a combination of several things. Firstly at increasingly high iso, the camera will be using fairly aggressive noise reduction. If you shoot RAW then you can control the amount afterwards to taste. Any out-of-focus areas show up noise more than in-focus areas, so not getting the focus spot on can be an issue. Also your lens won't be at its sharpest wide-open. Stop down a little and it will sharpen up -- but you have to balance that against higher iso or longer exposure. I've not done any sports photography but wonder if you can get away with 1/500 rather than 1/1000? There is a reason that professional sports photographers shoot with full-frame cameras and a lens the size of your thigh: a huge amount of light hitting a big sensor. Console yourself that some pro spots photos you see probably look pants at 100% too -- you only see a downsampled vesion on a web page or in a grainy newspaper. -- Colin°^Talk 15:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What is Canon customer support thinking when he says to turn up noise reduction? You are telling me to turn it down. Why? P.S. what does "look pants at 100%" mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pants is UK English slang; it's roughly equivalent in meaning to - though somewhat less formal than - rubbish. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I might add that rubbish is also UK vernacular, if not slang, although somewhat easier to figure out. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cute Chicks

Stylish Chicks I'm hoping to nominate this image for POD once I am able to log-in. Since this is not my image, but an editor who I admire, I do not wish to call attention or solicit any harsh critiques.-So I'm posting it here just to ask if anyone thinks this would be a good nomination?
What strikes me here is that most bird photos I've seen are taken in nature and this one has the colorful nursery/knitted pattern. The title is silly and can be changed.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be interesting to feature pictures of animals raised in a wildlife rescue setting, but I don't know that this is the best example. The composition of the frame is a bit unbalanced, and I find the drab white-wall background to be a little boring. The image is also below the minimum resolution requirements -- see the featured picture criteria. Hope this helps :) Jujutacular (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That helps a lot thank-you. Below resolution is not something that I could fix but I will check to make sure that any other photos that I consider for POD are the right number and my eye is untrained to what you see as far as composition but that is prob. what other POD editors would see there too.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd look for something a bit more centred. The Golden Ratio applies in photographs too. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to resolve the problems with the composition and the background by cropping:16:9 crop 4:3 crop. The author may have a higher-resolution version. I agree that the tits and the baskets are cute, but if the photo showed more of the birds' tails it would be more encyclopedic. --rybec 02:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Already FP, but a sharper, larger image?

I just came across a public domain image that's already FP, but it's 2.89 times larger in size. The colors are the same and the crop is the same. How should I go about handling this: do I upload the larger image and nominate it/delist-nom the original? Or should I just upload the new image over the FP image? Or what? Thanks! - Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 03:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I should add that this is an FP across-the-board image (Commons, various languages, you name it), and my source is different and the original image is different in that mine is the original photograph, the current FP is a crop of a press release/publicity handout. - Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 03:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a pretty strict rule against uploading over the top of a featured picture. Thus, you'll have to go through the delist process (file a single nomination under the delist section, and then add the new image and make your own vote "delist and replace." This should be straightforward, although unfortunately delist nominations have been poorly attended lately. Chick Bowen 03:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chick. I'll do that. It didn't seem like saving-over would be the right thing. - Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 05:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the "other versions" field. --rybec 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of FP urgents

I'm not at all happy about this edit to the FP Urgents. Nominators should not be allowed to promote their own images as urgent, particularly when they've had plenty discussion (10 contributors). This image is the very definition of "meh" and, as I've already commented before, FP urgents has a natural bias to shift deservedly failing "meh" images to scraping a pass. The requirement to have "consensus" for promotion rather than a 2/3 majority, say, further makes it likely that a scraping pass will occur on an image with significant opposes -- because people naturally don't like to oppose and would rather avoid conflict and say nothing. As I'm involved I won't undo the edit to the urgents template but think someone else should. -- Colin°^Talk 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Nominators are the only ones likely to put it into there, unless (as I was doing for a while) someone is systematically putting things into urgents by date (and when I did that, I did include mine in the systematic list, because you must admit, it would be very foolish for me to do it for everyone else's, then expect someone to notice I had done everyone's but mine, and mine were unlisted.).

Perhaps we should make more of an effort to systematically populate FPC urgents again, but criticising someone for making use of it? No. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if nobody other than the nominators are making any effort with it, and it merely serves as a "please support me as I'm almost out of time" last gasp plea, then it is time to retire this dubious means of advertising mediocre candidates. Colin°^Talk 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly the edit summary I included said it all - this is the very definition of something that should go in FPC Urgents. Just because it was a nomination you vehemently opposed is no reason to come here complaining, and FWIW the end result totally disproves your diatribe above given that the only two extra votes after it was listed were opposes. You had already had plenty of comment on this candidate before this attack, and I'm starting to feel that your constant denigration of my contributions as seen here is going beyond opposition to just the image/s. The heading of this section "Abuse of FP urgents" says just that. As best I can remember this is only the second image I've ever added to FPC Urgents - and yet you come on here and accuse me of abusing it? Next thing you'll be accusing me of abusing FPC by making occasional nominations. Your tactics are really getting out of hand. --jjron (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about wrt "constant denigration of my contributions" as I'm truly struggling to recall what images of yours I've commented on before. I'm guess I have commented before because that's true of most people's contributions here. WP:AGF. Yes, the edit summary said it all: "1/2 a vote off 5". FP urgents was created for neglected nominations (something I still disagree with because typically nominations get neglected for a reason) not for nominations with 10 folk commenting but only 1/2 a point away from success. That's abuse. Tell me, if you'd got your 5 supports and there were 4.5 opposes, would you nominate it for urgents to see if perhaps any more opposes could be found? What you you think if I did that? The whole FP urgents concept is broken -- we should let "meh" nominations fail and nominators should have the good grace to accept that. Colin°^Talk 15:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dred Scott photograph (circa 1857).jpg

I'm kinda on the fence with this, and because PPR is dead I thought I'd bring it here. The photograph is fairly high resolution and has been restored by several editors. It seems to be the only extant photograph of Scott, whose Supreme Court case was fairly important in US history. However, the pose is rather awkward and something seems to be off with his eyes. Do others think this image would qualify it for FPC despite the technical shortcomings? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This might sound like an odd question, but is the subject alive? I believe it was not uncommon to photograph the dead and the subject died in 1858, only a year after the case. Basing it on the odd look he has. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if [3] would be better? Although it's not a photo... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, he was definitely alive. Death photos made clear that they were of the dead. The trouble with this one is simply that it was so badly damaged in the first place that the editors have had to invent a lot. That creates some weird bits, such as the blurry line between the hair and the (largely artificial) background. As for the eyes, what you're seeing is motion blur--Scott, presumably unused to posing for photographs, was unable to keep his eyes still during the duration of the exposure (which would have been quite long). Chick Bowen 21:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if he were dead at the time of sitting I doubt his suit would have been as frumpled. There's a bit of a back story, but this looks like it's for the below picture.

I doubt a sketch would have as much EV though... as an aside, PBS was wrong: there is another photo -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• It looks very blurry at full resolution. The subject has a similar expression and general appearance in the other photo. Perhaps his eyes are so wide because he was trying extra hard to keep them open for the reason Chick Bowen explained. As for the awkward pose, his head was probably held still with a clamp . I heard someone talking about the Dred Scott case recently. They were saying it was only the second time the U.S. Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of a law, the first time being Marbury vs. Madison. --rybec 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've done a bit of work with photos from that era, and something looks horribly off about it. I think that it's been saved as a very low-quality JPEG, then possibly blurred a bit to remove the artefacts, or something like that. Look around his eyes, and at the bottom left of his jacket. If we can find a better scan, I will commit to doing the restoration, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Think I see what happened: There's been a lot of hands in this pie, and none of them saved losslessly. JPEG artefects accumulate over successive saves. I'll see what I can do. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Messed up candidate page

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone knows what i've done wrong with my nomination. You can view it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George-W-Bush.jpeg

I haven't transcluded it as I was worried it might mess up the page. ??RetroLord?? 11:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I added a couple of missing }} and forged your signature. Replace my forgery with your own four-tildes signature so that the clock starts ticking from the correct moment. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Also double-check the figure reference at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George-W-Bush. I made my own set of mistakes fixing yours. :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Size

I must have missed out on something, but is there any reason why 1000 pixels in width or height became 1500 pixels in width and height? What's with the change in the conjunction? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 33#Proposal to change size critiera [sic]. This was originally phrased as "1500px on the shorter side," and the current wording was considered a simplification for clarity. The idea is to avoid overly skinny portraits or short and wide panoramas (like this one) that aren't truly high resolution. At least, that's my sense; I was away at the time and tried to catch up when I got back. Chick Bowen 04:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a small cabal, led by Colin and Diliff pushed the issue through and bullied anyone who disagreed with them into toeing the line, see the "Respecting the Consensus" section for ample proof of that. Several nominations since the change has shown proof that despite the assertions otherwise, good nominations that before-hand would have been considered good FPC candidates are getting criticized because they fall under their own guidelines. I'll also remind everyone that the term is guideline, not rule, so hitting people over the head with it over several, or even several hundred, pixels as the only criteria for opposing should in itself be opposed. Cat-fivetc ---- 01:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, it's probably for the best, honestly. We can always IAR if we need to, but it's better to be bigger if we can. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for a larger images and in a perfect world for a guideline saying as such but people misguidedly treat the guidelines as hard rules. Maybe the better idea would be to add a line to the criteria saying that no single guideline should in itself be a reason to oppose an image, although I have to imagine that the hardliners would see that as an unacceptable loosening of the rules which would allow "inferior" images to gain FP status. Cat-fivetc ---- 03:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with you there. If the image is like File:Earth-Moon.png, we should still consider it... although admittedly this one isn't going anywhere near the main page. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cat-five, I ask you to strike your comments about cabal and bullying per WP:NPA and refrain from making similar comments again or you will find yourself relieved of your editing facilities. My record shows I have championed images smaller than the criteria where justified. In fact, on Commons recently, I was a lone voice defending one of JJ's bird pictures that was a bit small (largely due to the wide-aspect crop and very difficult shooting conditions with a long lens). The statement "that no single guideline should in itself be a reason to oppose an image" is nonsense. People may oppose over whatever they like, if they feel strongly about it. One of the most common reasons to oppose is that folk dislike the crop/framing, which is merely one aspect. And others are free to agree or disagree with them. And people may nominate a picture that fails any aspect of the guidelines (within reason per WP:POINT) if they feel strongly about it. And others are free to agree or disagree with them. Colin°^Talk 08:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I resent your threatening to have me banned, except for my calling you a cabal, which was out of line and which I apologize for, my comments were aimed at your behavior on the page not at you as users. That being said, I also should not have stated that you were bullying another user, I still think you two were unneededly harsh towards people who did not disagree with your decision, a decision you did not seem to have any inclination to even consider reconsidering but to call your behavior bullying was out of line so I apologize and I have struck that part of the comment. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Colin (no, not because we're leaders of a cabal) - that was completely uncalled for Cat-Five and the same cheap shot that is regularly fired at wikipedians who merely agree with each other about something and try to apply consensus to improve things here. It was discussed at length with a large number of contributors and only a very small minority had any disagreements with the proposal. Those who did disagree did not have particularly persuasive arguments IMO. Reasons why we thought so were provided and discussed. Apart from Breathe, who provided a laundry list of issues that both Colin and I responded to at length and got no further discussion in reply, and Samsara, who has shown himself over the last couple of years to be far more of a contrarian bully than Colin or I, there really wasn't any significant disagreement with the proposal. That, in my opinion, is solid consensus. And I take issue with the suggestion that we 'bullied' people into 'toeing the line', since really only Breathe and Samsara offered any real disagreement, and they did NOT change their minds - therefore nobody 'toed the line' as a result of our discussion. I also think it's disingenuous to say that images previously considered to be 'good' are now failing simply because of the image resolution change to the guidelines that took place. Expecting higher resolution was something that was already taking place in the voting community, and we simply adjusted the guidelines to match a realistic minimum standard based on what cameras were capable of producing in 2012. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I apologize for the cheap shot. I as much as anyone understand the special meaning that has word has here on Wikipedia and even if that weren't the case it was, as you put it, a cheap shot and one that I regret making. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, perhaps make it explicit that are slightly under the guideline can still be considered? That's one of the reasons I preferred "or", as it took into consideration the various shapes and sizes available. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• But what other shapes does the existing guideline not cater to? Apart from panoramas, I can't think of any. And with panoramas, usually by definition they are multiple images stitched together, so the usual arguments about elitism resulting in point and shoot cameras being excluded because they can't provide the necessary definition is even less of an issue - there's nothing to stop panorama shooters from providing an image whose short edge (usually height) is the equivalent of the long edge of a single frame. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... File:Hyacinth-orchid-dipodium-roseum.jpg is an example. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to adding to the exceptions something like "and very narrow crops (other than scenic panoramas)". This would handle both the above orchid and JJ's bird. And the bird is handled by the technical difficulty clause already. The vast, vast majority of narrow crop images are scenic panoramas, for which the standard is high and expects a decent amount of detail. Ultimately, I think sometimes folk like to argue about perceived problems than actual ones. Even with the current guidelines, anyone nominating the above orchid could simply state that they are aware it is below the resolution criteria but that the crop is tall and thin for a very good reason, so an exception should be made. Colin°^Talk 11:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm rather surprised that that photo was voted FP actually. It's not a bad photo but the crop is awful IMO, and a more reasonable aspect ratio would have improved it. That photo could still have been shot as a vertical panorama though. I'm not saying every photo needs to be, but it could have been. I don't really accept that there's no way to avoid these low res images when the subject is static. And as Colin says, any guideline CAN be ignored if there is a fair and genuine reason for doing so. But it doesn't follow the guidelines should be adjusted to allow for these uncommon situations. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Or how about "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images" -- bold is the new text. That introduces some common-sense that some people seem unable to apply without explicit guidance, and avoid introducing a laundry-list of exceptions. Leaving aside whether that flower is an FP, there will be rare examples where a useful or artistic severe crop may be justified from a straight-from-camera photo. -- Colin°^Talk 12:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to support the inclusion of that, but previously I didn't really think it was necessary either. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll support an inclusion such as that. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problems with that wording, that would IMO give some grounds to reply to votes that are flagrantly hardline without caring about the circumstances of the image while still allowing us to stick to the hard standard most of the time. For better or worse it may some day get to the point where we need a laundry list though, if only because leaving the rules loose and open to interpretation causes these kinds of issues to repeatedly pop up. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate a bigger size whenever possible; giving allowance in case to case(No further arguments on that JJ's bird here). But I see a technical error in the existing guideline (as "1500px on the shorter side"). We've so many proportions like 1:1, 2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 16:9 and even more wider. So I think a guideline specifying area (as in Commons) may be more suitable (also with allowance for rare cases). We can also include an aspect ratio clause (eg: Aspect ratio should not be bigger than 16/9 except panoramas and x/y for panoramas). JKadavoor Jee 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have made the above suggested change to the wording, since there were no objections. Colin°^Talk 12:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Using a total pixel measurement system

I realize that currently the software does not show us the current number of pixels which forces every user to do the math by hand so with that in mind I have three proposals that are more or less based on the ideas that have been discussed here. Feel free to add your own proposal or just call mine silly but at least for me having a firm idea of what the end goal is helps.

Note: I'm using X and Y as shorthand for the horizontal and vertical lengths of the image respectively

Option A: Stick with the status quo style system of x*y dimensions as the current system for lack of a better option while working through [[ Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)]] and Bugzilla to try to get a better system implemented that would at least show the total pixels on the image description page and ideally might even make it available to a variable.

Option B Implement a total pixel based system now using the new nomination template to ask the nominator to input the x,y side sizes. It would mean two extra steps for the nominator and a nice neat and easy to see template or just one line of text could quickly and easily show participants whether an image met the pixel requirements or not.

Option C Stick to the status quo system, reject change, and go back to arguing whether side x was 1 pixel too short despite the image being a panoramic or side y was too short for a tall vertical image. I don't know if we have any FP's of them at the moment but in terms of subjects the Grand Canyon and the Louvre respectively come to mind as subjects that might have problems in a strict X,Y based measurement system but would be fine in a more flexible total pixel system.

If People are up for option A or B I'm happy to take the lead on it unless someone else wants to do it. This is not a straw pool but just a way to generally organize what's been discussed. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• But what is the minimum pixel requirement? If it is "1500px on the shorter side", we can expect more 1500x1500 square crops. JKadavoor Jee 07:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I gather it is 1500px on the short size so a square 1500x1500 crop would be 2,250,000px. As someone pointed out either in the archived discussion on changing the size requirements or higher up on this page, bad crops to achieve a 1500x1500 or whatever square already fall under several other criteria to oppose if the image is visually/aesthetically unappealing and/or the encyclopedic value is hurt by too tight or too lose of a crop on one or more sides. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

But a 2250x1500 picture (3:2 format), 2000x1500 picture (4:3 format) and 2667x1500 picture (16:9 format) are much higher in resolution than 2,250,000px. That is why I say the current criteria is (although it is simple as Colin said) not doing any justice to all works (justice means exactly equal consideration to all). I agree with your argument that we can oppose basing or other grounds if feel necessary. But that is a different point. IMHO, pictures need (except panoramas; I'm very weak on that topic) a minimum resolution of 3M in the 2000x1500 picture (4:3 format). So a square crop will have 1732px on each side and 1800x1667 for pictures in 3:2 format. JKadavoor Jee 11:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

These other aspect ratios (with the same 1500px min dimension) are not "much higher in resolution". They have more pixels for sure but for a given picture, changing aspect involves cropping not resizing. When one downsamples an image (or didn't zoom sufficiently to begin with), then width and height are equally diminished. The word "resolution" is used carelessly in English but properly concerns sharpness and the ability to resolve fine detail (which in turn is proportional to how large the image can be displayed). So assuming the picture is focussed and sharp, measuring the shortest dimension gives you how much detail there is for a given size. Measuring the other dimension (and thus establishing the MP) only tells you what the aspect ratio is -- something that is of artistic and value concern but quite distinct from detail. Colin°^Talk 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Any system will have images it disproportionately affects. We have a huge range of images here from square crops of flowers to long scenic panoramas to tall pictures of carpets or orchids. We also have a huge range of circumstances from "studio" macro or portrait shots to shooting with a 500mm lens on the high seas. We also have to make sure the system doesn't unnecessarily inconvenience nominators or reviewers -- hence for now the 1500px system is easier than a MP system. I think the px system is fairer since the MP increase/decrease with the square of the side. So, even a moderate crop can result in significantly lower MP. On the other hand panoramas can achieve high MP even if one dimension is very low and below the levels of detail we've come to expect. Since px/MP are a proxy for image detail and printed height/width, a px threshold is in proportion to this detail or size whereas a MP threshold is not.

The issues of good/bad/appropriate aspect ratios are quite separate from size thresholds. I hope people are reasonable enough that if the best crop for an image is 1450px then not to demand a little more sky/sea to get it over the threshold.

So I feel the current system is easy to understand and judge. I'm not aware of anyone arguing over 1px here or there, but if there are image that are borderline and are being judged unfairly, then feel free to post a request here for additional comments. Colin°^Talk 08:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who recently nominated an image slightly under size (but pretty much unavailable in any larger size for any practical purpose) and had it pass, I think that appropriate exceptions are being made. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree here with Adam, we've recently made exceptions, and also some with JJ's birds. What exactly is WRONG with the current version? If total pixel count isn't visible on the image page then it's to much of a burden on the end-user I think to figure out if their image meets our minimum requirements or not, so until that's added, if ever, we can just forget that as a requirement imho. As for the size of 1500, I always advocate for larger, since I think a FP should be able to be used for more than just web display, this resource (Wikipedia) allows for all kinds of uses, one being PRINT, and I think FP's should be, as being our best work, printable at 300dpi in a 4 color process and look good and not be thumbnail. -- raekyt 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; encourage high resolution whenever possible, consider case-to-case generously. JKadavoor Jee 04:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There you are. --Dschwen 18:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Now get it added automaticly to every image description page or into MediaWiki... It's not that we can't make a script to do it, it's that the end-user, the average-joe doesn't have access to that, and we shouldn't require them to add scripts to be able to tell if their pictures qualify or not. -- raekyt 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just popped that script into my scripts here and on Commons. Thanks. However, I'm certain the calculation is a simply /1,000,000 and not the 1024x1024 number used for bytes. The fact that MP ratings on cameras don't exactly match the multiple of the largest image size is due pixels lost round the edge of the sensor, plus some generous marketing rounding. Colin°^Talk 19:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to use Marketingmegapixels, but the real stuff. It feels like a cheap attempt to game the system to insist that your 1000x1000 image meets a 1MP requirement. --Dschwen 21:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? A megapixel is a million pixels. This isn't one of those contexts where e.g. 'mega-' is erroneously used to mean 2^20 of something by convention. That mostly happens with disk space as counted by computer software. Your script measures mebipixels. :P JJ Harrison (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "real" about 1024. Just because computer memory is measured that weird way doesn't mean other systems are. I haven't found any sources to support the idea that megapixels are anything other than 1,000,000 pixels. Colin°^Talk 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

When I grew up a mega still was 2^20, but if you young whippersnappers insist it on being 10^6 so be it ;-). --Dschwen 20:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You were lucky, when I were a lad there was no mega of anything - memory, disk or pixels. In fact, my camera took no batteries. Colin°^Talk 21:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even for the meter? --rybec 01:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It had a selenium cell on the front that detected light levels. You had to turn a knob to line up a little loop with the meter's dial and then read off the appropriate shutter-speed/aperture combination. By then your subject had got bored and wandered off. Colin°^Talk 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My first real camera took two button cells and they lasted over a year. But I guess Colin wins this "age pi$$ing contest" ;-) --Dschwen 16:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Even if we don't change any standards here, maybe it should be suggested, wherever the appropriate place to suggest it is, that this be added to the common js file because it's an unobtrusive, helpful, and useful bit of extra information to have. Even if nothing official is ever done with it, it's a nice bit of extra information to have and more people than just read this talk page might appreciate it. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the usual way to begin with is to copy the script to a dedicated js page, such as User:Dschwen/MegapixelDisplay.js, and then add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Images. Then anyone who wants it could transclude it into their personal js file. Chick Bowen 02:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. --Dschwen 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

I would like to nominate the following for featured picture:

I would also like to nominate all the following, which I have copied from Photochrom:

I do not have permissions to create the nomination page, so if anyone is interested perhaps they could do it on my behalf 86.146.107.128 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• PS, I've just noticed that, by an amazing coincidence, one of these, the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, is currently up for nomination. I was not aware of that when I posted the above. That is a bit spoooky! 86.146.107.128 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that several of these are already FPs in some form. I'll mark those off. The remaining are probably worth it, although I suspect a new restoration would be wise for most of them. We've gotten better with photochroms over time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that many of those were already FPs. But why are there so many duplicates? Shouldn't we get rid of the duplicates and just have one copy? 86.177.107.46 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not duplicates but original scans and restored versions. Any idea why the filenames of the unprocessed images were chosen so poorly? --Dschwen 21:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. I had no involvement with the creation or uploading of any of these. I just came across them and was struck by how attractive and interesting they were. Having perviously complained at the Main Page about the number of featured photos of birds, and having been told that there was a shortage of featured picture candidates, I thought I would nominate these to help bump up the numbers. 86.177.107.46 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. We have plenty of candidates but it does happen from time to time that we'll get a lot of the same kind together. We here at Featured Pictures don't directly control which photos are chosen for the main page although I think the general practice is that the main page shows featured pictures in the order of their nomination here, which might be why you see so many of one kind of photo in a row. Unless you're a banned user, you would be very welcome to create an account and start participating as a nominator and voter on the candidates page. --Pine^? 02:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I know it's roughly the order promoted; Howcheng tries to save back things for holidays, and separate things out a little bit when there's a lot of the same together, but I don't know how far ahead he plans. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

[Unindent] As for the horrible naming system of the unprocessed images... I suspect they were uploaded by the person who made the photochrom article, and, for that person, them being an unprocessed photochrom was the only thing they cared about. The problem is that the LoC use uncalibrated scans, meaning that that can be, in itself, misleading. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and on another subject, we haven't discussed the first image. I honestly thought this was already an FP, and will double-check the likely cats to make sure. It's a great image, a little under the size requirements, but I suspect that we'd be happy enough to IAR for a now-rare piece of relatively small electronics. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Issue

File:Dogcart3.jpg Is an FP, but does not appear in any FP gallery. Any idea what's going on there? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess it was missed after its nomination or it was missed when the last re-categorization was done. I think that image could go in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others or in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land. --Pine^? 03:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Added it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose based on license

Would it be valid to oppose promotion of images based on chosen license, (yep the GFDL-1.2 thing again). I still think this license is detrimental to the project, and we're promoting images that are supposed to be our best work on a free encyclopedia but these images are basically not free. I also think we should be more on-par with commons:Commons:Image_guidelines for featured picture quality. So I'm wondering, is this a valid reason to oppose promotion? -- raekyt 15:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Similar to the Commons discussion, I think if it's good enough for Wikipedia it's good enough for FPC. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's really not see Template:GFDL-1.2 and Template:GFDL-1.2-en. It's use has been depreciated since 2009, see Template_talk:GFDL-1.2-en#Deprecating_this_template_for_future_use. -- raekyt 15:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • also see wp:speedy criteria F3, they're not even allowed to be hosted locally, so that is a weak argument. -- raekyt 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, didn't know about that... I'll have to reconsider my position. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different point, but I *do* think we should still allow America-only copyright free stuff, for instance, British works from before 1923, but which aren't out of copyright in Britain due to Britain lacking a statutory cutoff year. Because otherwise, we fail to incentivise good-quality copies of such works, which en-wiki encourages otherwise. Since we have automatic ways to tag them for transfer to Conmmons on a specific date (see the parameters for {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}), that would be a bad thing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting a bit tired of this now. SO we are still looking for useless reasons to oppose perfectly good pictures despite this being rejected again and again? How about we spend that time taking pictures and upload them at the licenses of our choice for wiki's benefit instead? --Muhammad(talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Both Wikipedia and Commons are founded on the principles of Free Cultural Works, which means anyone can reuse the content (whether charity, non-profit, commercial, government, personal, religious, atheist, communist, capitalist, Friend of America, Axis of Evil, cool or uncool). The GDFL licence (designed for software documentation, not pictures or encyclopaedias) was originally accepted because there was nothing better. There are now are better licences. It is widely accepted that the GDFL is an unsuitable licence for images and is being used as a nearest-alternative to an CC BY-NC licence, which is not "free" in the way WP/Commons understands the term. The GFDL for images potentially harms all re-users whether they are the scout-group leader wanting to include one of our images in a quiz or a medical charity wanting to use them in a patient leaflet. Those who persist in using it as a sole licence do not fully "get Wikipedia" IMO but I agree they are contributing valuable content. I don't think individuals opposing is an appropriate way of dealing with it as it would just be disruptive. The main reason I started the discussion on Commons FP criteria over this was to end the festering sore cause by the same individual actions and hot-head responses there. Nobody forces you to support such images if you don't regard them as Wikipedia's "best work". Raising this issue for discussion does not deserve the rude response above. Colin°^Talk 20:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think it is a perfectly legitimate reason for opposing. If we sometimes oppose with no reason at all, or with childisg reasons, why can't we oppose based on the fact that an image cannot be used outside Wikimedia? Anyway the correct way of dealing with the subject is, of course, to eliminate GFDL-1.2. A first step in the right direction could be, as we did in Commons, to prevent pictures with such license to be nominated. Yes, it is all right to make money with our creations. But no, we can't have it all... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • They're not allowed to be uploaded here anymore since 2009. Only stumbling block is we allow images from Commons, and common's allows them to exist. It's really on Commons now to eliminate the license like we did 4 years ago. I don't see why we should allow featured pictures of something we won't even allow to be uploaded locally? -- raekyt 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Here I agree with Raeky and Colin. Commons also doesn't encourage such a restrictive licensing. They have only three options at their Commons:Special:UploadWizard; CC-BY-SA (recommended), CC-BY, and CC0. Here, all of our pages have the footnote "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." Why not we can discourage something we really want to discourage (restrictive licensing)? But I don't agree with the "individual choice to oppose" (from my experiance in Commons). It only attracts revenge votes; making that page a war-place. I think it is better to make a decision as in Commons ("Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses."). JKadavoor Jee 07:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well then can we have the conversation to disallow these again? -- raekyt 13:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If someone with a bot can sort through the 3,312 featured pictures we already have to get some idea of the impact this would have? I suspect only a small number are under this license. -- raekyt 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • There is a gallery available for Commons. May be PierreSelim can help in this case too. But I think it is not very important for the time-being unless we plan a mass delist which is not practical and not necessary now. We can consider it when a better candidate come (case to case). See this discussion too. JKadavoor Jee 15:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Theres a difference at commons because it's still a valid license for uploading and contributing with, here at Wikipedia it's not. -- raekyt 15:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Also on that list, there's very few that are SOLEY GFDL-1.2, many have other compatible licenses listed as well, so they wouldn't be a concern. -- raekyt 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Wow; I didn't noticed it earlier. May be that list is under construction. :( JKadavoor Jee 15:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think this is the time to bring that conversation here too. But I too suggest to do all homework (like collect the number of existing FPs that may affected, etc.) prior to the start. It was a very hard discussion, lot of longtime-inactive-members came to oppose; but the decision of the closer was very critical: "consensus isnt defined as 2/3rds nor is it the majority opinion, for the record 19 opposing votes out of 51 votes is only 37% which is within the descretionary range for rfa. Weight of arguments presented based on policy is also part of deciding consensus. I considered policy there is no specific policy that preculeds projects determining their own requirements, so then I considered accepted practice(policy by default). The long term accepted practice is that projects like FP, QI can make restrictions greater than that of the overall community participation requirements, FP already restricts who can vote, QI already restricts source, they both set minimum size limits. I also considered what FP is, FP is the means to identify "our best work" the proposal put forth the argument that our best work should also inculde best practice when it comes to licensing. The support argument was that GFDL is being deliberately misused to restrict reuse(not freely available), compared to the oppose arguments of acceptable license but that never addressed the issue of misuse. What I'm expressing is a carefully considered outcome based on the agruments put forth and that is our best work(FP) can and should excluded works where the deliberate misuse of licensing makes an image not freely available. Gnangarra 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)" JKadavoor Jee 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• We need to clarify something that I misunderstood when the Commons discussion was started. The "GFDL 1.2 Only" licence is a reaction to the historical licence migration process from GFDL 1.3 to a dual licence with CC BY-SA that occurred in the past and no longer applies. Any content uploaded with GFDL 1.3 since November 2008 can't be automatically migrated to CC BY-SA. So the issues with 1.2 currently apply to 1.3 and to any future GFDL licence unless GNU in their wisdom decide to remove some of its onerous terms. So a discussion that focussed on "GFDL 1.2 Only" would achieve very little -- folk would just switch to "GFDL 1.3" which has identical problems. The issue is with all GFDL licences. -- Colin°^Talk 20:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• There was an interesting article in The Guardian recently: Even Google won't be around for ever, let alone Facebook. A librarian, discussing the Google Books project, asked the Google co-founders "I'm wondering what happens to all this stuff when Google no longer exists." We should be asking "I'm wondering what happens to all this stuff when Wikipedia no longer exists." In addition, when we no longer exist as Wikipedian. Part of the attraction of licences like CC is that the re-user is given permission to do something without having to ask. Typical copyright licensing requires negotiation. Muhammad has, in the past, suggested that on request he will permit folk to use his images without the GFDL requirements as long as they aren't greedy big corporations looking for a free ride. But if Wikipedia or User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim or User:Colin no longer exist (or are inactive) that is not possible. The greedy big corporations can get stock images for tuppence ha'penny these days anyway, and with all the benefits of indemnity protection that WP/Commons can't offer. Colin°^Talk 20:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• One more point. The "number of existing FPs that may affected" that Jkadavoor mentioned: the answer is zero. Nobody proposed this would be retrospective on Commons and I don't think it should be retrospective here either. Wrt new FPs, only a handful of editors use this licence, compared with dozens of active editors and the whole multitude of Flickr and other free sources. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I agree, but I would propose a moratorium on such licenced images in the POTD que that hasn't appeared on the main page since this license has been determined to be not in the spirit of the open freedoms of the project. Existing FPs can stay, disallow promotion of GFDL-only licenced images, and halt any in que for POTD with license would be my proposal. -- raekyt 22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Agree (with Colin); it was a response to Raeky's argument that the case in Wikipedia is different. Further, I think most of the contributor's (if still alive and able to respond) will change their mind and add another suitable license as an alternate choice. I fully agree with Colin that we should plan with a long-sight to future where Jkadavoor or any other user not able to respond to any queries or requests due to their death or inactivity. Raeky, I think you can go on with this proposal. JKadavoor Jee 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I concur with this proposal as well. -- King of ? ? ? ? 09:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change

I am closing this discussion as no consensus, as an uninvolved administrator, and after lengthy consideration. Featured pictures are judged against guidelines which, by their very nature, exclude some pictures which are permitted for use on Wikipedia. However, numerous contributors to this discussion do not support these particular proposed guidelines. There is no policy requiring their adoption. Therefore, the proposal has not reached consensus. This closure is without prejudice to the above discussion regarding opposes based on the license used. Warofdreams talk 01:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg

{{Unresolved|Is there any reason to oppose delisting this image? 75.215.235.59 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC) That delist process looks like something of a one-man show, with the same editor nominating it, providing half the "delist" !votes and proclaiming the result. Maybe a more experienced editor than me could take a look? In particular that IP editor apparently couldn't complete the delist process; see WT:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg. Huon (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely a "No consensus to delist". I've reclosed it appropriately. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the comments, there were at least four distinct people involved. Only one person besides the nominator voted; those votes were in favor of delisting. One commenter seemed to think that a US-centric image was being promoted. 75.208.156.58 (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

NO' I questioned whether your 'reason to delist was US-centric. As it turned out, it was, since Upwind leg is used internationally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Upwind is a US term and is used in other countries, but not for the climb out leg. In Australia, for example, the climb out leg is called Initial. I did not see any examples where climb out is referred to as upwind *anywhere* in the world. If you have even one reliable source, I need that, please. 75.208.156.58 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, this discussion is moot. Regardless of the merits of a case, a successful delisting requires 2/3 support and 5 delist votes. Period. This did not achieve it. -- King of ? ? ? ? 04:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the reasons Adam gave that he did not vote to delist are reasons to delist. The image does not meet any of the criteria for a featured picture. It is based on original research, it does not (and cannot) reflect a global perspective, and it was based on a mistaken idea of the standard US traffic pattern. Voting did not remain open long enough for five people to vote. Adam is an example of someone who did not participate in the discussion long enough to decide how to vote. With only two people voting at all, there clearly was a problem with the process. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• I wish someone would tell me (1) where this rule "2/3 support and 5 delist votes within 10 14 days" is written, (2) where I go to challenge the 10-day14-day limit, and (3) how this picture got featured in the first place. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree very much with your sentiments on how difficult it is to get enough people to delist an image. That's why on Commons, I made a proposal (which was accepted) to hold delisting nominations in the same section as regular nominations, thus increasing the traffic to the nomination. My first delisting candidate has already gotten 8 delist votes in 2 days. So we could consider the option of holding delist nominations in the regular section. (However, I would not want a lowering of the vote requirements; you need enough people to establish a consensus. I imagine that this would not be difficult to accomplish if the nomination occurred in a high-traffic area.)

As a side note, 10 days is not correct, it's actually 14. -- King of ? ? ? ? 07:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Fwiw, the particular image that brought me here is one that requires subject matter experts. It should be a diagram which visually illustrates encyclopedic content. But its content is not backed by any published source. From reading Adam's comments, it sounds to me like he would oppose delisting the original version of the image and oppose the changes that were made to address problems raised in the nomination to delist. Those changes are now in the current commons picture which retains its status as FP that was granted to the prior erroneous diagram. There should be no doubt that the process needed more time and that people didn't even know which version was nominated or whether it could be salvaged because the picture was edited twice during the voting window. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Where exactly in Commons did you make this proposal? What would I need to do the renominate a picture for delisting and publish the notice in "the regular section"? 75.208.217.192 (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, we do regularly delist images, and we have FPCurgents to tell people when something is unreviewed. But the IP is acting in precisely the way - claiming that comments that one isn't convinced by the nominator's rationale are reasons to delist (Shall I edit it and change my vote to "keep"? Because, while a bit stronger than I wanted to vote, it's a damn sight closer than what the IP is claiming I voted when I questioned whether his rationale to delist was biased towards American terminology, to make this perfectly clear, the IP's rationale to delist was based on "this didn't appear in an American source", I questioned whether it might be an international term, and so delisting it would be American bias. Other people made it clear it was a term used internationally. Therefore, the nominator's rationale WAS based on upholding an American bias, and I was right to object.) Frankly, once someone starts claiming I, or anyone else, for that matter, hold different opinions than what we have repeatedly told them our opinions are, they are trolling, and any further encouragement of them is feeding the trolls. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• That quotation is entirely Adam's fabrication. I checked the nomination page. Adam has made a patently false claim that the rationale to delist was based on "this didn't appear in an American source". No such statement was made by anyone. Frankly, once someone starts claiming that I, or anyone else for that matter, nominated the picture to be delisted because "this didn't appear in an American source", he is trolling. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I shan't be available for a bit. In unrelated news, I just stumbled upon something very upsetting, and am going to relax at a freind's for a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's make this perfectly clear, no one except Adam ever suggested that any rationale to delist was based on "this didn't appear in an American source" and absolutely no one except Adam ever suggested that the term Upwind is used internationally for the climb-out leg. Therefore, the nominator's rationale was NOT based on upholding an American bias, and Adam was mistaken in his objection on that basis. The problem with it not being in an American source (the FAA) was that it does not appear in any reliable source in English anywhere in the world. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• No one has ever brought forth even one source that showed that the climb-out leg is referred to as Upwind in the USA or any other country on earth. Examples from the USA and other English-speaking countries show that the image is based only on a faulty understanding of the US traffic pattern and is markedly different from that for Australia and from that of New Zealand. The 'European' source was actually a safety study done by NASA. The British source was for a flight instruction school, not from a source known for its reliability (e.g., CAA). The first revision (in response to the delist nomination) changed Upwind to Departure. So if Adam is correct, the current revision of the image uses American terminology for the climb-out leg (in Australia, Initial). So sure, Adam, amend your vote to 'oppose' for the record. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really?

Can we have a bit less lying? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please cite the lie. Specifically, where is the source of the quote that you attributed to the nominator?
• (1) Upwind is a different activity from departure. But no one denies that pilots sometimes use the wrong terminology. Hearing it does not make it correct for an encyclopedia.
• (2) The EASA document was produced by NASA as I stated above. The diagram is for a safety report. It is not instructive.
• (3) The Purple Aviation document is from an insignificant flight school using slash terminology. As I stated above: "The British source was for a flight instruction school ..."
• (4) You snipped where it was shown that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia) does label the leg in the document cited and labels it as Initial as I stated above.
• (5) The quote you cited from auburnpilot states his assessment:

User auburnpilot goes on to cite differences between the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. So if this quote is the basis for your claim that Upwind was proved to be international terminology, you need to re-read it a few more times.

• So please, Adam, stop lying and accusing me of lying. Just work on getting the facts straight. If you have new information, I want to see it. But just because a "reliable" source from Belgium (not officially English-speaking) uses Upwind for the climb out, that does not make it global/international terminology.
• If there is global terminology (e.g., from ICAO), so far no one has produced reliable evidence of that, whereas irreconcilable differences have been shown between the sources cited so far.

To avoid a straw man argument from Adam, I also note that no one denies that the term Upwind is used in the US and throughout the English-speaking world. The issue is where that term is applied on the diagram. On the original diagram, The leg (segment) labeled Upwind was in fact the 'climb out'/'initial'/'departure' leg, not the 'upwind' leg. So for the diagram at issue, one controversy is over how to label a particular leg. In other words, the term Upwind is used globally; it just is not use to label the same place in the pattern in each usage. As soon as you try to pin down precisely where that leg is, then there is an obvious conflict between sources; the real Upwind leg is unlabeled or omitted in the diagrams which (mis)identify the climb out leg as Upwind. It's actually more complicated than this. That's why it really takes informed voters. 75.210.33.243 (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, really. Nominator believed that picture has solely American perspective and should be delisted. 75.208.132.31 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we get this resolved as to whether User:Adam Cuerden has any reason to oppose delisting this image (besides baseless, vitriolic personal attacks)? 75.210.11.206 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't really matter, whether Adam Cuerden has any reason to oppose delisting the image. The fact remains, that there was not enough support for delisting the image, and therefore it's automatically kept. If you think it's still problematic, than feel free to renominate it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • More so for the fact the offending image was "corrected" some time ago. As a former senior ATC in the RCAF I can say I never used upwind even if I knew what it meant. It certainly wasn't the departure corridor. And ceejayoz should get himself back to Relicnews. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The "corrected" image contains errors and unnecessary details. Many of its problems are listed on its Talk page. But what you are really saying is that the original image was technically wrong and should never have been featured in the first place. 75.210.11.3 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The point being that there are so few voters that one person's questions were more than enough to prevent the image from getting the votes to be delisted even though if it weren't already featured, it wouldn't garner enough votes to be listed. Trying to get this image delisted over the objections of someone as active and influential as Adam Cuerdan is a fool's errand. If anyone has any objections to delisting, those should be addressed before anyone else bothers to re-attempt delisting. Had Adam supported delisting, I am sure that the outcome would have be to delist. His vote does make all the difference. 75.208.126.20 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're allowed to renominate things for deletion after an appropriate time. However, you can't dictate how other people should vote. And throwing a four-month hissy fit is not a good way to get people on your side. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am not throwing a fit. Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not telling anyone how to vote. I am saying that if you do not support delisting, then a nomination to delist is a waste of everyone's time. 75.208.9.202 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• If I nominate the picture for delisting, will you support delisting? I am sure that if you nominate it for delisting that it will be delisted. 75.208.9.202 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just go ahead and relist it. Note that Adam is neither in favor or against delisting at this point. All he was doing was enforcing the rules. -- King of ? ? ? ? 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Adam raised the red herring: "Are we certain we're not just enforcing an American bias, by insisting on American terminology, or is upwind called departure worldwide?" Insisting that the delist rationale was US-centric goes beyond enforcing the rules. 75.208.47.227 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you really cannot tell people how to vote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Adam wrote: "... the nominator's rationale WAS based on upholding an American bias, and I was right to object." (emphasis mine). I am not telling anyone how to vote. I am inquiring as to whether all Adam's objections have been resolved to his satisfaction. 75.208.47.227 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well. No. They have not, but I had been willing to let you just renominate the thing and stand back. But if you'd rather argue for another four months, just go away. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not wish to argue. I wish to learn precisely what Adam's objections are (assuming that they have to do with why the image should continue to be featured even though during the previous voting period it was edited to enforce American terminology). Even if Adam would graciously refrain from raising any objection, someone else might raise the same objections. If I cannot overcome such objections, then another nomination is a waste of time. I am not trying to win anyone over to my side. This is about improving Wikipedia. I am trying to delist as a featured picture a diagram which I believe clearly is not the best representation of the subject matter. 75.208.187.245 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia