Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

FPCs needing feedback

Wiki Loves Pride featured picture drive

Comments and feedback on the planned international LGBT+ Wiki Loves Pride featured picture drive are welcome on the discussion page, see link.

The competition encourages high quality photographs from Pride events and other LGBT+ cultural related images to be released to Wikimedia Commons. The goal is to see a jump in the numbers of LGBT+ cultural related photographs nominated for Featured Picture status on all Wikimedia projects.

Help is needed to prepare a banner in your language! See banner translations.

Thank you! --Fæ (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Strange

I've cleared my cache, tried two different browsers (Safari & Firefox), closed them & restarted, but my vote is not showing up on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Cassius_blue. Oddly enough it shows in edit mode. Any thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC) ^{It's showing up now. 14:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)}

Consensus

The rules say five reviewers in support and the consensus of two-third in support. This produces a mathematical anomaly where an image with 4-0 in support (see my damselfly) is rejected whereas an image with 5-2 or 6-3 would have been promoted. This should, in my opinion, be changed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominations and voting

This project is dying unfortunately due to a lack of contributors. There are few nominations and few votes cast. No responses to my comment above. This means that my nominations fall by the wayside as they don't reach the threshold. I can think of two possible improvements. The time allowed for nominations could be longer. I don't think it makes sense to reduce the number of votes needed although there is an inconsistency - see above. Another possibility would be to publicise the FP process under the POTD on the home page. Can that be done? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To an extent, yes, and a message accompanying the POTD seems like a nice idea. That said, I suspect there are also already quite a lot of people like me who read but don't vote much - either because it often seems clear which way votes are going; or because they just don't have particularly strong feelings on a lot of nominations.

I can see your grasshopper recently failed to reach threshold with only four votes; however, at least five people voted on other nominations during the nomination period and didn't vote on that one.

I think this might be part of the process, if not one that was deliberately designed. Some people will vote on everything; others will vote when they have strong feelings. There seem to be easily enough voters currently to take nominations over the line when people are excited by them; if other nominations fail, not because people oppose them, but because not enough people support them, I'm not sure that is necessarily the process not working. TSP (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You might like to consider submitting your images to the corresponding project on Commons, Commons:Featured picture candidates, where there is a much more active voting community. The criteria for acceptance are slightly different, with more emphasis on the image itself and less on how useful it would be on an English Wikipedia page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

All my nominations here are FP on Commons already MichaelMaggs Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Charlesjsharp, true that. It's been almost two years that I was away from Wikipedia and coming back to see just four or five noms in the page. Felt sad enough. Back in those days, we used to have 10-12 noms always, even for holidays like current time. We got to do something to bring it back to life. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps an encouragement alongside the POTD? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)