moving images from candidate to Featured pictures status
Who is supposed to move approved candidates from Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates into Wikipedia:Featured pictures ? Bevo 17:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- In the case of non-self-nominations, then the original nominator seems like the best idea, or any interested party once consensus seems apparent. For self-nominations, I think it should really be one of the seconders, and not the artist him/herself. --Gaz 14:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand as well the process. My pictures who have been approved after 1 week should i move them Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the pictures that doen't have a second on it, can i moved to "Current nominations without objections (so far)" ? ---Chmouel Boudjnah 10:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I am not the authority here, but I do have an interest in seeing that this process works. As I understand it, you can't move a self-nomination without at least one seconder. Inclusion should be without any objectors i.e. consensus. At some stage we must revisit early inclusions and pass them through the approvals process again. (including my photo of Brisbane!!). --Gaz 14:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks this is much understandable. Chmouel Boudjnah 23:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- For Image:Indonesia-Bull.jpg and Image:operahouse.arp.600pix.jpg there is 3 yes again 1 and 2 again 1, what should i do ? Chmouel Boudjnah 13:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department?
Why the text "Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page!" in the article? Bevo 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Dunno. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'll rip it out. - Gaz 13:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Purpose of this page
I suggest that a paragraph similar to the following be included at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below.
Opinions, anyone?? - -Gaz 06:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- looks good for me Chmouel Boudjnah 16:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I think this page needs that type of clear purpose statement. Bevo 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Done - Gaz 13:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Poll on future of this page
A poll on combining this page with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is underway at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Should this page combine with Featured Pictures Candidates? (poll). The poll closes on March 2. Gentgeen 17:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Expiraton period for entries here
I think there should be an expiration time for entries listed on this page. Maybe 90 days from the day they were first listed. Bevo 17:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Proposal to merge with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
I have placed a proposal to merge this page with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates on that page, if you have anything to add to this idea (agree, object, etc) then go to that page and have your say. It has been requested that the pages not be merged until after February 20th, when Featured articles candidates will have worked through a backlog of votes taking place on articles from the old Brilliant Prose page (which were added before the current system of voting was implemented). fabiform | talk 00:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Object! That page is already too long. --Gaz 12:34, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Is that voting still in progress? Bevo 23:58, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, till March 2, but it's unlikely to change the result. Currently two in favor of the merge, seven against. :) Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Should_this_page_combine_with_Featured_Pictures_Candidates?_(poll). fabiform | talk 00:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Voting has ended, the final tally was 2 in favor of merging, 9 against. fabiform | talk 17:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Visible images of candidates
It just struck me! This page (W:FPC) exists to nominate images for W:FP and yet we don't show the images. :-/ I'm working through the reformatting of each image to make it visible and to clean up the comments. I'm having trouble with the bullets in the lists. If I just use one level of bullets they overlap the image. Why is this so? - Gaz 08:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I like what you've done to show the images. - Bevo 21:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I compliment as well, nice work !!! -Chmouel Boudjnah 23:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I must acknowledge that I had an "accomplice" (Fabiform) - Gaz 00:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We may want to separate the page into sections in the style of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, to allow for section editing.—Eloquence
- Agree - I'll do it later (if Fabiform doesn't beat me to it) - Gaz 00:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This page is still quite small compared with Featured article candidates, do we need that extra level of organisation yet? What would we make the heading titles by the way? On FAC they are links to the articles in question, but since we just went "visible" we don't need that. (testing Eloquence's pipe tip). fabiform | talk 00:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'd use the format "Media:Foo.jpg from bar". That gives us two advantages: 1) a link directly to the image file, which is useful for high resolution pictures (more space for the image in the browser window), 2) the context where the image is used, which can only currently be seen on the image page.—Eloquence 01:04, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
- (1) makes sense, it complements (2) which is what we have at the moment. I suppose my objection that this page is too small to require this organisation is a little fallacious. We might as well start as we mean to go on, and I for one would love to see this page to grow as large and frequently visited as the article candidates page. fabiform | talk 01:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- One thing we might want to copy from Featured article candidates is their rules on the length of time nominations stay here, and what to do with nominations that don't make the grade. We say they have to be here at least a week, but we don't give a time for how long nominations with objections should remain here before being archived. I don't see an archive either. And, should we adopt the new FAC rules of every picture needing two "second"s, regardless of whether it's a nomination or a self-nomination? fabiform | talk 00:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I am really comfortable with the new visible images, section headings and table code. Really comfortable. I concur with Fabiform on the need for a set procedure from nomination to acceptance. I would hate to see this page cluttered with good-but-not-brilliant photos. Move 'em up or move 'em out. We will also (eventually) need some procedure to cull the slightly-less-than-brilliant photos from W:FP when we get too many in a category. Regarding number of votes I think we need consensus or near-consensus. Regarding length of time awaiting acceptance I think 14-90 days depending on how quickly it becomes bleeding obvious we have consensus (or not). - Gaz 13:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Joke: Do you think this would get voted in?
- We could start with 90 days and work down from that if we get cluttered. - Bevo 02:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Removal
Is a nomination for removal from the list appropriate on the candidates page? - Hephaestos|§ 01:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Out of curiosity, do you want to remove a recently added picture which was voted in, or one of the pictures which was added before the voting procedure was set up? I don't think we have a policy on dealing with removals at the moment, perhaps we should borrow that from featured article candidates as well?
- I've been thinking that once this page is well used, we should go through all the images which were added before this nomination and voting procedure existed and vote on them all. What do people think of this idea? fabiform | talk 01:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- One of the legacy ones, specifically USS Port Royal.
- Yes, I think this page is being set up well. It probably can borrow a lot from the featured articles procedure. - Hephaestos|§ 01:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose that the various subsections within the main Nominations section be abandoned in favour of a simple chronological list. This means that self-nominations are treated the same as normal moninations, and that no resequencing is performed if a nomination becomes the target of an objection. New nominations go at the TOP (more easily seen). Nominations stay for at least 14 days and percolate to the bottom. Obvious "winners" can be popped from the middle of the list when their time is up. It is up to the nominator to clear up the "failed" nominations. (but I'm sure I'll end up doing some). - Gaz 10:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)