Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Licensing requirement[edit]

In a discussion on WT:CSD, someone pointed out a paradox between how GFDL-only images are treated between Wikipedia and Commons in regards to their respective Featured Pictures programs...

A GFDL 1.2-only file can't become a featured picture on Commons, but the file may be hosted there. On the other hand, the file may become a featured picture here (unless I have missed something), but it may not be hosted here.

Since the relicensing clause has lapsed, GFDL 1.3-only is almost effectively the same as GFDL 1.2-only, which has been banned by the community of the English Wikipedia. As such, they should not be given recognition. Thus, I propose this change:

4. Has an acceptable free license. It is available in the public domain or under an acceptable free license. Fair use images are not allowed, nor are images solely licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Any questions? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we explicitly say that a pixel count is not required for svgs?[edit]

Cirt You reverted my change.

What difference is there between these statements? Is what I said not a simplified way of expressing what was there before?

Before - status quo -

  • Note that vector graphics in SVG format can have a nominal size much smaller than this, as by their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality.

After - my attempt to simplify -

  • This rule does not apply to vector graphics in SVG. By their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality. Quality is still expected, but it is subjective, and number of pixels should not be considered.

We also talked about this on my talk page. I do not understand this deeply enough to see the difference. What difference do you see?

What exactly should anyone "note"? Is the note that there is no specific number of pixels required for svgs, whereas for other files, a specific number is required? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, the reason I reverted your change is because Crisco 1492 and Godot13 objected to changing the rules so fast. I happen to agree that the prior version is just fine. The prior version says: "Note that vector graphics in SVG format can have a nominal size much smaller than this, as by their nature they can be infinitely scaled without loss of quality." This is just fine. The problem is not the wording. The wording is quite clear. The problem is for some reason some people were finding the wording confusing, and I'm not sure how it is unclear. How do you think we can make it more clear? — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Cirt Instead of saying "note (this fact) and (imagine the implications for yourself)" I would rather cut to expressly stating the implication. It seems to me that the point being expressed is "if the file is an svg, then disregard the rule about the pixel count, and also judge the file by other quality measures than resolution".
I do not find the prior wording clear, because without further thought, the connection between "files must be 1500 pixels" and "svgs can be scaled" was not obvious to me. I must not be the only one, because I was not the only one to make the demand that the svg be a higher resolution. When you tried to explain to me that svgs were scalable, I had trouble making the connection that what you were trying to express was a counterpoint to my request for a 1500 pixel file.
Since the demand is for a 1500 pixel file, I think this exception would be clearer if it said "a resolution count should not be made for svg files" if that is the intent of the rule.
Thoughts from anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm just having trouble understanding why anyone would be confused about SVG files when it says they're scalable to infinity. I think that makes it quite clear, in the original wording, that infinity is larger than 1500, you know what I mean? — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Cirt I think I would rather avoid talking about infinity or any premise and only state the conclusion. Alternate text could be
I talked this through with another user at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Trademark_with_limited_permission_already_granted.3F. The issue there was whether SVGs are allowed as English Wikipedia WP:NFC. One argument is that SVGs are low pixel images, but another argument is that they are infinite pixel images. Is it better for English Wikipedia to have small files of SVGs or bigger files of raster images which are made to look like small images? I would rather avoid the question and just state a best practice in guidelines that raise the issue. Counting infinity is always confusing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I made a change again as described above. The intent of the statement was to say that there is no pixel count required for svgs, and I wanted to say that explicitly. Cirt says that the count of infinity is greater than 1500, which is true, but infinity is also smaller than the number 1500. I would rather avoid counting infinity and clearly say that counting need not be done. If anyone can articulate a resolution requirement on svgs then please help here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable blurbs[edit]

POTD blurbs must be verifiable from the linked article(s)
  • Participants seem rather split on whether to adopt ITN-style criteria for article quality, however it was introduced with the stated intent that requiring those minimal standards would ensure the blurb is verifiable from the article and the supports for option 4 seem to agree with that sentiment.
  • Those who opposed Coffeeandcrumbs' proposal generally were in favor of howcheng's alternative which retained (and so included) the provision that blurbs be verifiable from the article, though the whole article itself need not satisfy the minimal quality requirements like at ITN.

So there seems to be pretty uniform agreement that POTD blurbs should be verifiable from the linked articles. There's no clear consensus on whether it should be verifiable from the bolded article or any article linked in the blurb (or any article on Wikipedia), so that is for the FP coords/local consensus to determine. In all cases, be mindful of WP:SYNTH.

Finally, it may be worthwhile for future and/or follow up discussions to be held at a Village Pump. There was limited participation in this discussion, and the IP editor rightly brings up a question of venue given that this concerned issues of main page content rather than the FPC criteria in general.

-Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been some recent attention to the quality of articles that the featured picture is in. The main issue is that the blurb accompanying the photo is properly verifiable. Since the blurb is written when the article is chosen for a specific day, if the article is of low quality, there is burden on the individual choosing the PoTD. Although the criteria currently state the picture must be verifiable, I believe that is more for information graphics, not for text accompanying the image.

There are a couple of ways we could deal with this.

  • Option 1
    • Require nominators to write and cite the blurb during the nomination process
  • Option 2
    • Remove the blurb from the main page, so it is just the image
  • Option 3
    • Maintain the status quo
  • Option 4
    • Add minimum article standard for bolded article to criteria

Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The quality of the article, in which the image is used, is currently not part of the featured picture criteria. @Amakuru: If an image only appears in unsuitable stub articles, than it should be placed on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, and the file categorised in Category:Picture of the day/Unused. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 1 or 3 would be OK with me. Definitely oppose 2 though. The whole point of FP on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) is to marry high-quality pictures with encyclopedic topics. If we're just going to put up a picture with no blurb or encyclopedic context, then we're not fulfilling WP:5P1.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Why should POTD be the only section on the main page which regularly blurbs unverifiable material? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    Or, even better, insist that the article for which the FP is nominated must be up to at least the standard that we require of ITN, DYK and OTD entries. That way citable material for the blurb should be automatic. This will create more work for the nominee, of course, but ultimately the point of WIkipedia FPs is to highlight the article concerned. Also we're not supposed to earn a "featured" badge without any work, and compared to a featured article this is still a low bar to cross.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    I totally agree with Amakuru on his thought. Earn your pay. The bar has been still pretty low for FP. Fiipchip (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    I, also, am in agreement with Amakuru on this. We generally have minimum standards for ITN, DYK, and OTD for bolded articles; standards that while they are below GA/FA standards, still require articles to be mostly cited, be free from orange- or red-level warnings, not be a stub, etc. We should have the same standard for the bolded article in POTD; while the focus of the section is on the picture, we also should not be directing readers to check out crap articles. --Jayron32 13:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well, pile on then. Option 4 looks like it needs to be written out. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    Added. Sounds like that is what people want to go with, so would one of you be able to word it how we want it in the criteria, and we can officially propose it via an RfC or something? Kees08 (Talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason we don't just adopt Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality as the standard for POTD? If there is a rough agreement that text is acceptable, I or someone else can put it up as a formal RFC. --Jayron32 11:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    The suggestion by Jayron32 looks good to me. As long it has a minimum requirement that we can be compare with, it would be fine.
    Option 4 added by Kees08 sums up everything. Fiipchip (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    That wording seems fine. Might be good to define what orange and red are in that context; other than that the criteria are very clear. Kees08 (Talk) 19:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, it mostly looks good, although we should probably go slightly stronger than one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, and not allow those tags at all. I believe that's the way it works on the ground at WP:ITN/C. As an aside, this wording would be good to incorporate as a general main page standard, not just for ITN. (Although that doesn't affect this proposal, since we're talking about the FP promotion process here, not speficically what happens when it gets to Main Page, and of course the article quality will need to be evaluated again when the FP becomes a POTD).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree no article should make it to the Main Page (in bold) with a citation needed tag. But POTD seems to be the weakiest link with unverifiable info often making it into the POTD blurb. So raising the standard at POTD should be our main priority. Pinging a random assortment of contributors to the POTD guidelines and any other interested parties I could think of: @Howcheng, Gobeirne, Angela, Crisco 1492, Zzyzx11, Art LaPella, Stephen, Fish and karate, Sca, Iridescent, GreatCaesarsGhost, FR30799386, Killiondude, Anomie, and Alex Shih: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
{{cn}} tags by themselves are not a disqualifying factor for SA/OTD. They only are if there are a lot of them, relative to article length, or they are clustered in a crucial part of the article (i.e., the part that is discussed in the blurb). Back in the day I wrote the POTD blurbs, article quality was not an issue because the focus was on the picture, not on the article itself. So I'm fine with holding POTD articles to a lower standard than the other sections, as long as the content included in the blurb is properly cited to reliable sources. It doesn't seem fair to me that people who make the effort to create FPs (and it's a lot more difficult than you might think if you don't do photography or graphics work) should not get Main Page exposure due to circumstances beyond their control. You might argue that the FP contributor should make the effort to improve the article, but it may not be their interest, or their skill set, their expertise, or whatever. Bottom line: we reward those who create FPs with Main Page appearances. We also reward article writers with Main Page appearances. What you're proposing in effect means that FP contributors have to be both in order to get a Main Page appearance for their content, which like I said before doesn't seem fair. howcheng {chat} 05:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I think a counter-argument to that, then, is why not go for FP status on Commons, where they are solely an image repository site? Being that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that we choose to have main page image curation separate from Commons' POTD, I don't see the harm in asking contributors to have citations for the information in blurbs. Killiondude (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
But FP status on Wikipedia is based on both technical quality and encyclopedic value. And I agree that having citations for the info in the blurbs is perfectly fine. What I don't agree with is ensuring that the entirety of the POTD-related articles is of the same quality as DYK/ITN/OTD. howcheng {chat} 02:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
ITNC editors having different opinions on this. Personally, I'll abide a CN or two in an article that has 30 paragraphs, dozens of sources and a hundred citations. But if I can read the whole thing without scrolling, it's got to be spotless. ghost 15:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I prefer another option: just a brief, standard general image caption with no bolded link. Why even have a bolded link? The picture is what is featured, not the article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. We are an encyclopedia; what we produce is stand-alone articles. The MP, in all its variation, exists to bring readers to articles we think worthy of their attention. ghost 15:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Option 1 - There is not much point requiring a special "blurb" to be created when an image is nominated for "Featured Picture" status. Where would the "blurb" be kept until it was needed, perhaps several years later? We don't asked FAC nominators to create a special "blurb" alongside the nominated article.

Option 4 - Is this a proposal to add a new criterion for all Featured Pictures, so an image cannot achieve "Featured" status until it is used in at least one designated article of sufficient quality? If so, will all existing Featured Pictures without such an article be demoted?

(The concept of a process to designate our best images existed long before they were shown on the Main Page. Apart from the need for "encyclopedic value" by being included in one or more articles, the process to select the best images has historically been almost divorced from the article text, so this would be a significant change.)

Or is the proposal to change the criteria for WP:POTD so that some minimum standard must be met for the bolded article mentioned in the Main Page blurb and illustrated by that image before it can appear on the Main Page? If so, shouldn't this conversation be happening at a POTD talk page, not the FPC talk page? The Featured Picture Criteria are mostly about the image itself, not the articles where it might be used.

Given that in practice (like TFA and TFL and SA/OTD, but unlike DYK and ITN) the POTD is selected by one or two people, do we need a formal rule about this? Can't they just do that anyway, if we think our poor benighted readers are insisting on images with footnotes? (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This page has more frequent visitors than WT:POTD.[1] So it is a good idea to have the discussion here. There is a notice and link to discussion at WT:POTD.
--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


  • The article in bold, featured along with the Picture of the day, should meet the minimum quality standards for verifiability as required by other sections of the Main Page like WP:OTD, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. All content found in the blurb should be verifiable somewhere on Wikipedia, preferably the article in bold. If the blurb contains information not relevant to the article in bold but relevant to the image, that information should be verifiable in a citation contained in one of the articles linked in the blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my reasoning stated above. I would support if we limit the verifiability requirement to the content of the blurb itself. FP creators are not necessarily skilled article writers. howcheng {chat} 06:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia FPs are chosen for their encyclopedic value as much as their artistic merits. If the article accompanying the FP is low quality, then the image shouldn't be an FP. And that means a Wikipedian who nominates a picture for FP should make sure the article is up to scratch too. Note that this nominator may or may not be the person who created the work.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportFiipchip (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written, support Howcheng's alternative with caution I support this idea but keep in mind that it will add to the workload of the people who select POTDs and people who want an FP to appear on the Main Page. I have concerns about human resources capacity and volunteer burnout in the Wikimedia ecosystem, including English Wikipedia. --Pine 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Per the discussion above, the purpose of FP is to produce images which add encyclopedic value to an article. If that article does not meet minimum standards though, the FP is wasted, and should not be promoted. Additionally, (and contrary to what Pine says above), this will reduce the workload on POTD because the POTD coordinators won't have to spend so much time rooting around the internet and library for verifiable prose to accompany the image on the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - well this proposal seems to have died a death, which is a pity given that the current system is pushing all the responsibility for patching up poorly-written FP articles on to the POTD coordinators. Which is OK at the moment, it's somewhat interesting for me to go and research topics that I don't know too much about, but I wonder how sustainable it is. Other than the bits of the articles which supply the blurb we're still posting substandard articles to the main page every day, which is a pity. Another alternative would be to simply bar all FP articles from POTD if they don't meet the DYK/ITN standard, but there's a danger we'd run out of POTDs quite quickly in that scenario.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Howcheng. The POTD section highlights the image, and the article just demonstrates encyclopaedic value. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and support the proposal by Howcheng to require the blurb to be verifiable. feminist (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English Wikipedia vs English language Wikipedia[edit]

There unfortunately seems to be some loose language around the featured picture topic. We should always refer to the English language Wikipedia, not the "English Wikipedia". Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Both are the same! what is the difference?! -- Editor-1 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)