Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FPC)


FPCs needing feedback


Shortcut

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:JFK limousine.png

[edit]

I've apparently bungled the syntax, could someone take a look? I've extended the date ten days from today, if that's an issue it can be reverted. Thanks. JayCubby 16:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch. JayCubby 20:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust and JayCubby: I've taken the liberty of making a dedicated "delist and replace" template alongside the other nomination types. Report any bugs here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 08:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also took the liberty of rotating the candidates section about .2 degrees. Because, well, April Fools. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I've added {{template:nobots}} to the Sandbox, I'll have to think of what other damage I can do in the hour of UTC AFD remaining. JayCubby 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm sorry if I'm using the page incorrectly or in the wrong format, but I recently saw a stunning photo of what was clearly to me an Icelandic horse proudly featured as a "Zaniskari horse" in an article about the Zaniskari horse breed native to India, and I unraveled a web of lies, copyright infringement, and subterfuge. The article y'all "promoted to featured picture status", File:Zaniskari Horse in Ladakh.jpg, was stolen by Eatcha from photographer Esteban Tieck the day after he uploaded it to Pixabay, and Eatcha apparently did not notice the 'Iceland' tag, created an entirely false narrative (incl. fake metadata) about the image, flipped it, tilted it, changed the colors to make them more Central-Asian looking, and got it all wrong. There is a zero percent chance Eatcha is really the photographer (and license-holder) since the photographer clearly knew he was in Iceland taking photos of Icelandic horses, and not on the other side of the globe in Ladakh taking photos of Zaniskari horses.

It looks like this user has stolen dozens of images, and then they signed out and used an IP to insert all their stolen images into articles. If anyone would care to attempt to unravel this it would be much appreciated.

https://pixabay.com/users/etieck-12033072/ (Uploaded March 29, 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zaniskari_Horse_in_Ladakh.jpg (Stolen a day later March 30, 2019) https://youpic.com/estebantieck/698442469516742/698640373550592 (Same photographer in March 2019, even more explicit about it being Icelandic horses in Iceland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stosseled (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

Just came across a borderline case, where an image is used in many articles through a template (and only in one directly). While there is consensus that an image that isn't used in any article can't be a featured picture, should this also apply if the image is only used in articles only through a template? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 16:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden, Yann, Howardcorn33, VulcanSphere, ArionStar, Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Charlesjsharp, and Sca: pinging some FPC regulars. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would exclude it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote No towards the idea that images exclusively used in templates can be featured pictures. This seems to go against criteria #5. Images in templates serve to illustrate that template in particular and not individual articles. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Templates can be highly useful in articles too. ArionStar (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the template. The usual rules apply - if the use has EV it counts as a usage; if the use is decorative, it doesn't have EV. MER-C 18:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure re the technicalities, but there seems to be a consensus that it wouldn't meet the usual criteria. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vulcan agreed with Howardcorn33's opinion here so No.–Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the template was the first thing on a page, and very relevant to one of the pages. Like, if an author's page started with a template that listed his or her works and had a really good picture of him or her, or a template linking material related to an opera together had a picture highly relevant to the opera.
So I don't think this is a cut-and-dry "No", but it'd need to be an image that'd clearly be in the article anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 09:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of official photo portraits of politicians

[edit]

How should we regulate official photo portraits of politicians? It is quite common for many national governments around the world to create high quality portraits of legislators, heads of state, cabinet members, etc. which would otherwise meet the FA criteria, but obviously these are far too many for us to include all of them. Examples of such countries include US, UK, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. I feel like it is an unwritten rule that such photos are discouraged (see here for example). Should there be a guideline written down in WP:FP? which discourages such images? Perhaps something like: Portrait photographs routinely issued by government agencies are discouraged if they are of uniform composition to most other photos from that agency. (the wording of this is subject to change.) ―Howard • 🌽33 12:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden, Yann, Armbrust, VulcanSphere, ArionStar, Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Charlesjsharp, and Sca: pinging regulars who were mentioned above to get some input. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current featured pictures which could be affected by such a change may include the following:
―Howard • 🌽33 19:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using the same guidelines. ArionStar (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing just on the era being discussed, but noting we should be careful not to write guidelines that effectively deny almost everyone from before, say, 1950 a featured picture, here's how I'd evaluate:
  1. Is this photo genuinely good? For example, a lot of U.S. Senator photos are taken in roughly the same setting, with a US flag to one side, and a formal pose. Even if the sharpness, resolution and focus are good, a cliché background and pose may hold the image back. For those who went to school in America, I'd say we want to avoid anything that looks like it could appear in a yearbook where possible, which leads to the next point:
  2. Is this photo unique? If the subject has a huge number of photographs and could relatively easily be photographed by a Wikipedian, AND the issues with cliché layout and/or pose are present, then the FP is imminently replaceable. There may be exceptions, e.g. the Trump mugshot has its own article, and any image with its own article and a good quality reproduction can safely be presumed worthy of FP status.
    • Likewise, if very few other photos of the person existed, that might raise its value, despite the flaws.
  3. I like to apply a difficulty factor. For example, high-quality images of politicians from, say, Paraguay, are very, very few on Wikipedia. So I'd probably pass a photograph of Paraguayan politician of note with flaws that would block a photograph of a US or UK politician (who are quite a bit easier to find). If we start getting a lot of photographs of these under-represented countries, we can re-evaluate.
  4. Any person with an article can potentially have an FP. But we shouldn't throw out all standards to make that happen: that just discourages trying to get better ones.
Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 01:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the major problem is uniqueness. While a technically HQ photo may exist of a politician as their official portrait, it can tell us little to nothing about the individual politician themselves if the composition is the same as any other photo of another politician of the same rank. I call this kind of photo the Routine Government Portrait (RGP), defined by these criteria:
  • Produced by a government employee
  • Issued for all politicians of a particular government
  • Public domain by law or consistently released under a free license
  • Uniform composition (clothing, facial expression, background, pose, etc.)
  • Easily obtained (eg. through a government website)
I'll walk back my earlier proposal to edit the Featured Pictures Guidelines entirely, because I believe RGPs typically violate criterion #3 anyway, namely: "among the best examples of a given subject" and "illustrates the subject in a compelling way." I don't think these photos should be banned but they should be discouraged. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but obviously these are far too many for us to include all of them."
I don't think there's any reason to think there's a limit. If they meet the criteria promote them. Jahaza (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the problem is really that there's too many. It's that people are responding to clichè layouts without the proper language to explain their dislike. It's not that there's too many, it's that everyone is reduced to looking the same. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think think modern official/promo photos are what FPC should be about (including NASA ones) but I'm not sure we should outlaw them. I just ignore the nominations. Many achive photos which are restored and offered here were exactly the same in their time. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=1294954940"