This is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates Wikipedia page |
FPCs needing feedback
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Humanist Library of Sélestat |
Feb 2004–Nov 2004 •
Nov 2004–Jun 2005 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hello FP friends, I am hoping to nominate my first Featured Picture, but I wanted to gather some advice as it would be my first nomination. The image I would like to nominate is this one which features on the page Hibiscus Rising. My questions are:
1) I was uploading the images as part of a paid project, is it still OK to nominate them for FP? (It is for DYK, but I couldn't see a guideline for FP)
2) EV: this is a unique view of a unique sculpture - does that reflect encyclopaedic value enough? Or is the fact that there are likely to be other aerial photographs of other sculptures detract?
Thanks very much for your advice Lajmmoore ( talk) 07:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a pointer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#License fee demands for Diliff’s images since he was one of our prolific FP creator. — The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I see one of Diliff's images was nominated for delisting, so I'll elaborate here on what's been going on over on Commons. What we know is that Diliff works with Pixsy, which has a rather bad reputation among free culture communities for "copyleft trolling". It's a process that exploits the "please use this!" signal that Creative Commons licenses communicate by subsequently demanding money anyone who doesn't comply with every aspect of the license. From Diliff's own words, this applies to minor violations and to independent/small-time reusers, and not just e.g. unattributed use by for-profit companies. It's a practice that Creative Commons itself has explicitly condemned as out of line with the principles of the license. There are multiple discussions on Commons about this, and it's unclear what there will be consensus for. Forced watermarking a la Larry Philpot's images ( example) is possible, which would itself raise questions for FPC (do we want FPs with big destructive watermarks). But at least as likely is no action, in which case it will be up to this FPC community to decide if this sort of behavior should factor into the promotion/delisting of images here. I don't see much point in delisting one in particular, unless I guess it's being used as a test case for future nominations. As a related aside, anyone interested in this subject is welcome to provide feedback on a draft document about copyleft trolling on Commons: commons:User:Rhododendrites/Copyleft trolling. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg was designed FP after Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Rushmore. Then it was removed from the article, and replaced by this poor quality image. I reinstated it, but Randy Kryn objects. See discussion on the article talk page. I think a FP should not be removed from the main article for which it was promoted, unless there is a consensus otherwise, and specially for such a bad quality image. Opinions? Thanks, Yann ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Was looking at the recent ITN of the Copenhagen Stock exchange fire and wanted to see if this image, created in 1895 by a Skagen Painter by the name of Peder Severin Krøyer. Do you guys think that this painting is FP worthy?
Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible to nominate two images to be 'one' featured picture? The images in question are shown at Fight-or-flight response. I understand I could edit the images to be a single image but that'd worsen the article quality. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)