Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 3

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 3

Just a note

One of our featured pictures has been requested for deletion at Commons. See Image:Reichstag flag.jpg. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 3

Joan of Arc

Wasn't there a featured picture of a statue of Joan of Arc at Notre Dame de Paris? I cannot find it anywhere; not in her article, or her cultural depictions article, or the cathedral article, or in these categories. Have I gone insane, or blind, or was it deleted for some reason? --Masamage ? 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Joan of Arc-Notre Dame.jpg. MER-C 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There it is! Thank you. X) What featured image group was it in, anyway? Not artwork or artchitecture or miscellanious, that I saw... --Masamage ? 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it was in the Artwork group after all. I got too distracted by everything else in there, I guess! --Masamage ? 05:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Inappropriate photo credit on main page

On the main page, Image:Neuschwanstein Castle LOC print rotated.jpg was today's featured picture. In the caption area, there was what I thought was an inappropriate photo credit: "Image credit: Detroit Publishing Co."

We don't give photo credits anywhere else on Wikipedia, other than on the photo page itself if people click on them. Why did we give a photo credit on the main page on this featured photo? Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All POTDs have photo credits for them. This topic has been discussed extensively elsewhere, I think I've seen it on the talkpage for the mainpage. --jjron (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Error in featured picture -- very embarrassing

Today's featured picture, Image:Citricacidcycle ball2.png, has an error in it. That error was pointed out on the talk page. I find it unbelievable that the thing is still featured and the error is still not corrected. With a known error, the featured status must be removed immediately, and featuring it on the main page when there are known issues with it is unacceptable. It is hardly surprrising that so many people have their reservations about the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia if such egregious things happen all the time. -- Timwi (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the inclusion of intermediaries (FADH2, cis-aconitase, oxalosuccinate)? They are indeed quite misleading, as the reader is led to think they are dissolved rather than short-time enzyme-bound species. And FAD⁺ is an obvious error. Narayanese (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Valued Images on Commons

Just to let the WP:FP regulars know. A new project called Valued Images has been in progress for a few months now on Commons. It is converging to mature state now. The purpose of the project is to promote images which has unique value for Wikimedia projects, for instance, encyclopedic value for the Wikipedias. Feel free to stress test or comment on the project, which I think can be of interest for the Wikipedias. Another novel aspect of the project is the introduction of Valued Image Sets. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Video standards

Wikipedia really has some problems with video standards. While the image ones are very high (which is good), the video standards are very very low. I mean, looking at most FP videos, they're all very small in size, among others. diego_pmc (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have previously commented on this - see here for example. Others agree also. If you want to get some discussion on this though bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates - there's way more traffic there. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A delightful image worthy of reward?

Here is a most beautiful and painterly photograph taken by Mr Joopercoopers which I would like to nominate, as I am sure he is far too modest to do so himself. Unfortunately the nomination procedure is quite beyond me. Could any of you charming people assist? One would be most grateful.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stretton water mill. --jjron (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template

I've added a navigational template to help make moving around the pages easier. Epson291 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Russia History

[[ ]] --Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.27.10 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Maybe we should rather call it "today's featured animal photography?"

since 6 out of 8 pictures so far in June has been of those fury/hairy/skinny little creeps :p

Smithsonian Images

The Smithsonian Institute has just released a number of images to Flickr, with the tag "no known copyright restrictions". Many of them are eminently featurable. See here for more. 150.203.230.27 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Former Featured Pictures/Review

Is there a way to demote featured pictures as there is for featured articles?Greener Cactus (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nominations_for_delisting. --jjron (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FPs not monitored for vandal - can this be resolved

Hi., i just noticed that Red Panda, a FP was vandalized[1] in April 2008 and was not discovered for more than 2 months.

When i checked current FP count (1240), it doesn't match with the count in the category listing (1237). Which means that there are 3 FP images that lack the Bronze Star.

I am sure that the bronze star has been removed due to vandal attacks & unlike Featured Articles where content can be added, FPs don't change unless there is a better picture added. I propose that we semi-protect all FPs to avoid vandalism or have a check mechanism installed to ensure that vandalism is prevented. --192.8.222.82 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (User:Vimalkalyan)

Now that uploads appear in watchlists, I'm not sure that's particularly necessary. Besides, most of our FPs are hosted on Commons, so there wouldn't be much we could do here anyway. As for the bronze stars missing, a more prosaic explanation is that they were transferred to Commons but the admin who deleted the local copy forgot to restore the local description page which has {{FeaturedPicture}} on it. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured video, featured audio

Per this discussion, there might be a problem putting video and audio under "pictures" in the future. I am not very sure how things are right now, but if there are no featured video, audio or media categories, I sugggest to create them.--Kozuch (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Featured sounds

Featured sounds

Would it be alright if I transcluded Featured sounds to the bottom of this page for a bit, just to give it a bit more traffic? Things are very slow there, which is a real pity, as we have so much good content in that line. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Animals? Aug 17

The reindeer photo is lovely, however there are nearly as many people in that photo as animals. Is there a way to reflect this? This reinforces the treatment of indigenous people as part of the natural landscape, themselves close to animals. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. The closer was an irregular closer. This should have been in the Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle subpage, not the animals subpage. I have moved it. Thanks for your vigilance. --jjron (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the alchemist's laboratory still featured?

I would like to know whether Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg is still featured.

The image is listed on Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings and seems to have been promoted according to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alchemist's Laboratory and moved/deleted according to Image:Alchemist's Laboratory, Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae, 1595 3.jpg.

- Ilse@ 09:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. MER-C 10:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an image

I am still rather unsure (shy??;)) of the nomination process. I have read the criteria and I believe the picture in question meets it. The image in question is Image:Gold state coach.jpg. Does anyone have any advice/encouragement? --Cameron* 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too small and the subject is cut off, so a FP nomination won't succeed. You can get advice, encouragement and more at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. MER-C 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A trend I've noticed

Okay, I'm now quite sure I'm not imagining it. There's a higher-than-average proportion of FPs whose content can be described as "Stuff that photography geeks find interesting." Just FYI ;) DrVerlucci (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New Featured content IRC channel

Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL ^connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC ^connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards (talk o contribs o email) 20:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlisted picture

Having survived a delist nomination with relative ease Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg (currently the lead image in Glamour photography) does not appear to be listed in the directory of featured pictures, is the a mistake or have I just overlooked something? Guest9999 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the image under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment. Guest9999 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bronze stars lost to deletion

Going through April 2007 alone, I found three images (Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg, Image:Large brown mantid close up nohair.jpg and Image:Capitol Building Full View.jpg) which have had their image pages deleted and not restored according to CSD I8. I would notify the deleting admins, but seeing as this may be a large-scale problem, perhaps something else should be done to locate and fix the missing pages, and to prevent this happening in the future? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Bronze stars lost to deletion instead. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Starry Night

The Wikipedia page with the template {{FeaturedPicture}} was deleted for Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg that was featured on March 1, 2007. User Gatoclass that deleted the page is not familiar with the policy of keeping the Wikipedia page in order to mark the image as featured picture in this project. I would like to receive some feedback on this issue on my talk page User talk:Ilse@#Starry night. Thanks, Ilse@ 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. - Ilse@ 07:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for images

Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture: Bugs and Birds bias

I have noticed a certain bias in the selection of featured photos in the wildlife realm. Not including today's picture (3rd Feb.) I have looked back at the featured pictures for January and of 8 pictures of flora and fauna there were: 3 birds, 3 insects, a cactus and a lizard/cameleon (didn't look too carefully.) This seems to be a long running bias in the selection of pictures. Remember there are other animals without wings and apart from those pesky humans. Comments? --Kayakboy (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured/Valued picture series

Has there been any thought to creating a featured/valued picture series, which would be analogous to the featured/good topics?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have featured picture sets, for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early flight 02562u.jpg. howcheng {chat} 06:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Though some oppose the idea and hence will oppose all such nominations. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I was thinking more like a set of pictures that illustrates a series of articles. Suppose there were a set of individual images of the first family that were all FP/VP or a set of images of the Wonders of the World that were all featured. I did not mean a literal picture set like you showed, but rather individual images a that are nominated separately that form a set. That could encourage picture taking much like FT and GT spur editorial activity to complete sets.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WT:FPC#Featured/Valued picture series for a bigger audience. MER-C 11:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture statistics

Is there no page for their statistics? Need to know how many pictures are promoted, or nor promoted monthly. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You'll have to trawl through the archives. MER-C 05:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Featured picture process

Maedin\^talk 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

About Value vs Quality (Who's number 1?)

After the MfD on valued pictures(VP) was closed with no consensus/keep followed by a change to the lead sentence of VP[2], I want to see some discussions on the issue that are raised on some of the featured picture delist nominations, such as this one, and to a lesser extent, this one. While most suggested that value outweighs quality, others disagreed saying that those with inferior quality should be delisted and be considered for valued pictures.

For myself, I believe rarity and the value of the image outweighs the quality. Besides, even if everyone agrees to delist an image from FP and nominate it at VP, there is no guarantee that it will pass VP nom as a result of FP delist discussion. In that case, the image would have fallen through the cracks and become have-not status. In short, I want to see confirmation from the crowd so that there won't be (hopefully) any pointy delist nomination in the future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ohana, I'd suggest moving this to the featured pictured candidates talk. Many participants don't have this page on their watchlists or otherwise won't see it here. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, I could point them to here =) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The way things used to be weighted a year ago seemed to be fair: the rarer and more encyclopedic an image, the more leeway it received on esthetics. Within limits, of course. A few months ago I blogged about the search for a potential FP of Booker T. Washington.[3] That's just one of many experiences too numerous to recount. Only about 1 in 1000 archival images has the potential to become featured even with the best restoration. Perhaps because those long fruitless searches occured out of view and a steady stream of nominations kept coming (a few of which were serendipitous and turned out especially well), expectations changed. Expectations changed beyond what was reasonable or possible, and reviewers were resistant to feedback. The most frustrating thing about it was how they first seemed to ignore (and later openly disbelieved) feedback that their direction was actively hindering efforts to gain access to more material. Quality archival images aren't easy to come by: free access is rare, and a network of volunteers are working to coax open the doors to more library and museum collections. The resources that are currently available do not have equal depth in all subject areas, so in order to interface with curators it's important to make the most of the material we have: for an archive in the Netherlands, people and scenes from the Netherlands; for a library in Egypt, Egyptian and African themes; for a museum in Indonesia, Indonesian material. Much of this is scarce (in terms of quality material) when one's principal resource is the Library of Congress. The sensible course is to feature the best we can actually get, then replace it if and when better material becomes available. Yet by moving the goalposts and changing the standards--rejecting nominations that easily would have passed twelve months earlier--reviewers have lost touch with what is feasible and acted against the project's best interests. Have a close look at recent restorations that have been getting promoted and rejected: it often looks like my work in particular is held to a different standard than other volunteers'. One hopes that the dividend of prolific volunteer work would be trust and respect; but sometimes the opposite result occurs. Durova^Charge! 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think EV should outweigh TQ. You are right, this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. But I think if an image can be restored without damaging the essence of the the image, then it should be restored (the Nagasaki bombing photo for example). Scratches, hairs, and other unwanted artifacts are not part of the EV. I had a similar issue over on the commons with File:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg vs File:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450.jpg, where the reflection of a window and the lower part of a cross were removed to improve the focus on the subject. Some objected to the removal of the cross, but the photoshopped version was passed and featured on the main page. I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis as to whether an image should be photoshopped, but highly educational images should be preferred over "pretty pictures". I'm no FP regular, but from what I have seen it seems TQ outweighs EV in some nomination discussions. --ErgoSumotalkotrib 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, EV = Quality in importance. Neither is number one; they share the distinction. If we feature the best quality historical images that are restored well, I think that would start a bit of chatter between curators, librarians, etc; word of mouth basically. I'm on the verge of getting a donation from my local historic society; not a big one, but one nonetheless. And I'll be doing all the digitizing myself, gratis. Some images are not meant to be FPs. Many locations and buildings cannot be photographed properly to meet FP standards (like this - no clear view except across the street). Same goes for historical images. Some can't be restored enough. If it's some major historic event, yes, leniency is offered, but if it's something like this, then it really has to be good to pass. wadester16 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know you were talking to a historical society. If you'd like to plug into our little network, please email. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of my own nominations, I'd say value. Most failures are for EV reasons. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

EV weighed against the availability of making new images are the most important factors to consider. If they are so rare that it is almost impossible to replace or will not be replaced for many years to come, then the EV will weigh alot higher that the quality. If an image can be readily retaken, then quality should be weighted more. Sedd?n ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget better quality => better enc as well - sharpness => detail, correct exposure and tonality means subject is depicted accurately, etc. MER-C 09:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I suppose EV = (Quality + Historic Value) x Difficulty of Reproduction in some way shape or form. Sedd?n ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

heheh I was wondering when someone would come up with a formula. Surely FP is best expressed with EV as a multiplicative factor of Difficulty relative to HV-Q? In any event, without a constant anywhere in sight there's no chance of it having any function... and surely the whole expression should be divided by opinion..? --mikaul^talk 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

FP = EV Sedd?n ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Section title

Just a thought following todays sound clip. Should this section be renamed from Featured Picture to Featured Media? (I know 99.9% are pictures) -- SGBailey (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We also have a separate process for featured sounds OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Panos as featured pics

So a general thought - we've had a couple of ultra wide Panoramas as POTDs recently. (see Image:Dar_es_Salaam_Panorama_edit2.jpg as an example). Personally i do not think they are great images from the point of view as enclyclopedic entry components. I feel they do not meet the "Adds value to an Article" criterion given that, they are practically unviewable within an article, and have to be blown to max size before they can be seen (so effectively a short while and a few clicks away from the article). Not dissing panos as a whole, but those that are so wide (i.e. short) that their subject matter is hard to determine without maxing it out. Anyone agree/disagree? Simon. --Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

For discussions such as this you're best to post to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates. --jjron (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

I just noticed, that an FP isn't listed in the archive of August 2009 and not among the FP's in the gallery: File:Munttoren Amsterdam.jpg --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Has been taken care of. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Featured Pic...

The featured picture of January 14, 2007 appears to have been deleted. Super Mario Bros. (Talk | Contributions) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Victoria crater from HiRise.jpg was featured on January 14, 2007, and it has not been deleted. howcheng {chat} 06:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed upload behavior

I'm trying to re-upload a better, color-corrected picture (here at File:The Milwaukee Road-Rosalia.png). I used to be able to do this much much more simply. I am registered at both en.Wikipedia and at Commons. When I click on "Upload a new version of this file", it takes me to the standard upload form. I used to be able to choose the new file to upload, click the "upload file" button, and it would ask me if I really wanted to replace it. When I affirmed that I wanted to upload a replacement, it would comply. Now it just takes me to a 100% blank Commons page. The original is on en.Wikipedia--not Commons as far as I can tell--and I'm not sure about this new behavior. Is it working correctly? Greg L (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right. On the original image page, click "edit" and copy everything you find there over to the blank commons upload form - use the "basic upload" one. Don't forget to fill in the "other versions" field if you're keeping the original. --mikaul^talk 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

interwiki

Could somebody add a interwiki link to the hebrew wikipedia features pictures ([[he:????????:????? ??????]]? thanks, Adiel lo (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC) done. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

History subsections

The history subsection does not conform to the neutral point of view. It preferentially exposes American history, WW1 and WW2 more prominently than the history of other parts of the world. Since the English Wikipedia is not meant as a USA wikipedia, it should have a more global character. Therefore I suggest that we change the categories to be defined regionally - African History, American history (this should include both North and South America), Asian History, Australian and Oceania's History, European History (as ordered here alphabetically). This would also encourage more submissions and featured pictures of places other than USA. Meznaric (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories tend to get split off whenever we get enough to do so. Unfortunately, the U.S. has laws - mainly {{PD-USGov}}, that mean we get more material related to it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New Userbox

Just out of the pipes, a userbox for non-uploaders and non-creators that nominate pictures for FP status.
It is {{Template:User FP Nominator|##}}. Looks like this...

Enjoy,   Nezzadar ?   16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps change to "helps"? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this userbox ? Is it for someone who provided an edit based on feedback at PPR/FPC ? Or is it only for the mere act of putting a Support vote ? If it is for the latter, I think this userbox is "dangerous" : award-whores will try to put as many support vote they can to make themselves looks good. Ksempac (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am using it to indicate that I have found two images that met the criteria and nominated them. People with no photography or illustration skills should still be encouraged to find images worthy of FP status. This is my reward. It is for nominators.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed wording. Don't worry, I am the only current user, so it won't affect anyone else.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Due to coding issues the template is not singular/plural identified, and a number must be put in place of the ##, as it does not function blank.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Better placement

I think this one should be placed among People, rather than Others. Brand[t] 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The practice is to categorize the photos by the associated article. Since we don't have an article about this individual, it doesn't belong in People. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to Main Sections of Featured Pictures?

At the top of the screen, one can select a section in which to look at featured pictures on the page, i.e. Animals, Art, etc. This moves one down to that section. However, once in that section, one can not choose the main page associated with that section; instead, one has to select the subpage. I would like to be able to choose to go to the Art page, (not the Art/Paintings subpage) which does exist (I think).

However, I don't know how to edit projects, or if I am qualified, and after my last few help experiences, I request that someone else, if agreed, do it, or tell me how. Please excuse any misuse of Wikipedia jargon.

Thanks. Peacedance (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You can go back to "Art" in the upper box. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Featured pictures on Finnish Wikipedia

There is a discussion on the possibility of a Wikipedia: Featured pictures in the Finnish Wikipedia. However, there is no "Pic of the Day" on the front page, and some have argued against the adoption of Featured pictures unless there is a "pic of the day". I noticed that on the English Wikipedia there was over a year of gap between the adoption of Featured pictures and the adoption of Pic of the day. A question arose in the Finnish Wikipedia "What if Featured pictures aren`t shown on the front page?" I would like to ask you, fellow English Wikipedians, what did you use your Featured pictures for before adopting the pic of the day? 101090ABC (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I can't say for sure what we 'used them for' prior to picture of the day, as I haven't been around that long, but the point of featured pictures isn't just for POTD. It's to maintain a collection of high quality encyclopaedic images. It does seem slightly self indulgent if there is no practical and immediate use for the featured pictures other than where they were already used in articles though. I suppose it's similar to featured articles, except that the featured article process often results in improvements to the article, whereas it isn't quite as common here (although can still happen, when faults are identified and corrected). Not sure if this helps to answer your question though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• A featured picture process is more about searching for, sourcing, improving, and maintaining the images that illustrate articles. As with a featured article, vetted work of recognised quality has some automatic right or "authority" to stay in its present form, and with a featured picture, to stay in an article. It's also an impetus to simply place the best illustration of a topic in an article, where it most benefits the encyclopaedia. I cannot say for certain how the Finnish Wikipedia operates, but I've often been surprised by the number of Wikipedias (not all of them small; the Spanish Wikipedia is a good example) that have hugely inferior images in their articles, when FPs on Commons and EN Wiki are available of the subject. Without the impetus of a featured picture process, many users would have no motivation to find the best available. Also, Wikipedia is criticised for the quality of its images, and that criticism isn't without some truth; we have many subjects which are only illustrated by very poor quality photographs, and many more topics that aren't illustrated by anything at all. A featured picture gallery goes some way towards correcting that, showcasing the best of what the Finnish Wikipedia has to offer. On one final note, I would like to think that a featured picture process local to the Finnish Wikipedia will inspire Finns to go out and photograph their own locality, and that, selfishly, can only benefit the rest of us, too. I'd love to see more nominations here of Finnish landscapes and people and wildlife! To sum up, no, it isn't about just the Picture of the Day. Featured pictures (and the process) have their own inherit worth, regardless of whether or not they are shown on the main page. Hope that helps! Maedin\^talk 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"I would like to think that a featured picture process local to the Finnish Wikipedia will inspire Finns to go out and photograph their own locality". I believe this point has been taken into account in the discussion. I at least believe that we should not just copy the criteria from other wikis. One suggestion has been that to qualfy the picture must have been taken/loaded into Commons by a Finnish Wikipedia user. 101090ABC (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but keep in mind that if you restrict the creator to that degree, you risk having a dead, or at least very inactive project. I mean no disrespect to the Finnish Wikipedia, but I suspect that there are not many photographers there who will be uploading featured quality photographs. That's true here at the English Wikipedia: if it weren't for 4 or 5 prolific and regular English contributors, our featured picture gallery would be decimated and the project would possibly languish and die. You have to give editors enough content, and enough interesting and varied content, that they keep coming back and voting. A handful of nominations from a few Finnish photographers of subjects in Finland is unlikely to inspire contributors. I'm not sure in what way you could give preference to Finnish content, and I like the idea of doing so, but I'm not sure how viable it is. Does that make sense? Maedin\^talk 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo Maedin's sentiments. I think it may be counter-productive to limit Finnish FPs to only those taken by Finns. For one thing, the encyclopaedia is intended to be all-encompassing and broad in scope. To only feature the images taken by Finnish wikipedians would push the Finnish wiki towards systematic cultural bias. Obviously each language wiki is entitled to its own processes, but I would imagine that countering systematic bias is something that should be important for all of them? You could still encourage grass roots contributions while being open all images regardless of origin in my opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note two things: 1. I also mentioned "loaded into Commons". 2. There are also Finnish -born people abroad that use the Finnish Wikipedia. This should give a nice variety in the pictures. 101090ABC (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did note these things, but I am not convinced, personally. There are about 5 million people in Finland, and according to the Finns article, approximately 1 million people of Finnish descent living around the world. How many of those people outside Finland actively contribute to the Finnish encyclopaedia, or even still speak the language, I don't know. But at best you would have an extra 20% of contributions from outside Finland based on those numbers. Given that the English wikipedia has about 500-600 million people to recruit from (or possibly a lot more if you consider that many Indians speak english as a second language) and we accept that we are not able to completely counter systematic bias even when we don't limit our Featured Pictures to those taken by English speakers, I am just not convinced that Finns would be able to do so with only Finnish contributions. If you want to only feature Finnish-created images, that's a decision that you're entitled to make, but I think you would like have the following result: systematic bias in the images (as per above) and a smaller/lower quality set of images (due to the relatively small contributor base). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Golden W Award

The Golden W Award goes to editors who succeed in having content featured in every area of the main page: Featured Article, Did You Know, In the News, On This Day, and Featured Picture. It is currently proposed as a WikiProject. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Golden W Award if you are interested in making this WikiProject a reality. Time commitment is minimal, less than an hour a month at this point. ?o??f? ^Talk! 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Please see WP:VPP#Featured whatever. Simply south (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow.

I'm appalled. How is that a vanity fair poster made it as a featured picture on Wikipedia? --Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk o contribs) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I take that back. How is George Clooney's picture worthy of being a featured photo on Wikipedia?? LaRouxEMP (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious question to ask is, what do you think makes something "worthy" of being a featured picture? Our main goal with the Featured Pictures project is encyclopaedic value; if it's a good illustration of a topic that we cover as part of the encyclopaedia, then it's already half way there. Are you suggesting that a clear, detailed, high-resolution, quality, free portrait of a major celebrity is not feature-able?

I think it goes without saying that if you want to object to what we feature, the best place to do that is over at the candidacies page; we rely on people with differing opinions to help us select the best, :) Maedin\^talk 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies good sir. I had no idea the picture was free. Can you check this picture out and tell me if it's worthy of being a featured picture? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Vulva_labeled_no_tags.jpg LaRouxEMP (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a sir, I'm a lady, and I am also at work, so will not be clicking on the link. Maedin\^talk 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies madame. I had no idea you were of the opposite gender until I visited your user page. When you do find the time however, can you please examine the photo I've presented to you as I think it is of remarkable quality? LaRouxEMP (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, :) I'll have a look tonight and comment, although (for the future) the formal venue for such things is Wikipedia:Picture peer review. Maedin\^talk 12:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this user has apparently been blocked indefinitely. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Lovely, :) I guess that means I get out of commenting! Maedin\^talk 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me how is this not redundant to Commons Featured Pictures?

I am sure I am missing something obvious. But since all freely licensed pictures should be moved to Commons, which has its own Featured Pictures vote, is Wikipedia Featured Pictures only for fair use images? If not (and I think it is not, from what I have seen), why duplicate what Commons FP does? Do we recognize all of Commons FP as our FP? Why or why not? Does it go in the other direction? Why or why not? Thanks for the explanation, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't participate in Commons FPC, so take this with a grain of salt. My understanding is that the criteria to be a Commons FP do not include the EV requirement we have here. Because of this, many Commons FPs don't pass FPC here. The point of FP here is to promote images that do a great job of enhancing the encyclopedia. Commons FP seems to be more about the highest quality pictures regardless of whether they are particularly encyclopedic. I hope that helps. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Makeemlighter is right, the fundamental difference between the two projects is "encyclopaedic value" (EV). At Commons, featured pictures don't have to be used in any articles, and plants and animals don't have to be identified scientifically. Here FP candidates must be used in one or more articles, illustrate the topic well, and animals and plants must have a species ID (if possible). Many pictures that pass on Commons wouldn't pass here because they don't illustrate an article topic, they're just "beautiful". Some of the duller but very encyclopaedic images that we feature here would never pass on Commons because they have no "wow". Hope between us you've got the answers you need, :) Maedin\^talk 10:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and two more things: the requirement for images to be freely licensed is the same here. Although Wikipedia allows some fair-use images, they are not eligible to be FPs. Also, from your comment I got the impression that you haven't yet seen our candidacies page. It's here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Feel free to contribute; we're always happy to welcome creators, nominators, and reviewers. Maedin\^talk 10:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Actually En Wikipedia allows some pictures that are not fair use and are not acceptable on Commons. On Commons, an image must be "free" in the US and in the country of origin; En Wikipedia only cares about free in the U.S. Rmhermen (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons FPs

• I have found the following fivesix images for WP:CHICAGO that are commons FPs and not WP FPs: File:CTA Night.jpg, File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg, File:Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007.jpg, File:Gary Sinise on stage 1 crop.jpg, File:Chicago.jpg and File:Pulaski Skyway full view.jpg. How can I tell if any of them have been previously nominated for WP FP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • When you look at the file links on the image page, there would be a link to an FPC nomination page, something like Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates/something. Looks like two of them were nominated Patti Smith and Pulaski Skyway. You're welcome to re-nominate either of those or nominate any of the others. You'll want to check out the FPC criteria first, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Would the two that have failed at FPC already have a chance at WP:VPC?
      • I think the Pulaski Skyway image would have a chance at VPC. -- bydandotalk 05:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Delphine Chanéac cropped.jpg

Do you think I could nom it, and get it passed, maybe with some photoshopping? It's a pretty cool pic. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Try picture peer review. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump." So I'd say it's got 40% chance of passing, it's pretty cool, I like the composition, but the problem is that when you view it at full size, there's some strange noise, and that's exactly the kind of thing that people here at FPC tend to focus on. Give it a shot though, why not? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this promoted?

It's a good image, much work went into it and I did think it should be promoted, but there were three distinct vote types at odds with each other: Gut Monk's opposition, a few votes in support only for the original and mine only for one cropped version. How is that a consensus? --I?d?<3???? (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I count 7 supports for the original, a few of which only support the original. Not much support, and some opposition, to the crops. Seemed like a pretty clear consensus for promotion of the original. BTW, you're better off posting at the FPC talk page: a lot more people watch it so you're more likely to get a (timely) response. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Original had 8 supports, 1 general oppose, multiple opposes for the crops, and only 1 support for just the crops. Consensus is black & white plain as day. -- raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a general consensus, I thought FPC aimed for unanimity, BTW this is linked to the FPC talk page. --I?d?<3???? (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oop, I meant this is on the FP talkpage. --I?d?<3???? (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, consensus is the key. We'd be passing much less if unanimity was required. From WP:FPC: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Jujutacular ^T · C 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wallpaper

Template:Wallpaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Waltham, The Duke of 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Check this out please:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assorted_044.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yas_Italy_Fair-Cape_Cod-Aquarium_039.JPG --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimono1997 (talk o contribs) 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sport

I noticed alot of sport images are under People-Entertainment instead of the Sport subcatagory. Spongie555 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be an independent category. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 08:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:FeaturedPicture update

I have made a small change to that template, adding a | parameter for "video" or "animation" as files like File:Bombing of Hamburg.ogg are not "pictures". I hope this is OK. /?ETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued pictures MfD

Your input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures (3d nomination) may benefit the discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Images at Presidential portrait (United States)

There is a gallery of what I would say are high quality images portraits of the US presidents most of which I think would be suitable as featured images. There are a couple of low quality exceptions but for the most part I would say 90% of them meeet to the requirements for FP. Before I submit a large group for Featured image status would someone more experienced with images take a look and tell me if I am out of my depth in thinking these are high quality and Encycopedic? Here are a couple things that I noticed on a couple: A couple include the artists autograph on the portrait, a couple have what look like cracks in the painting, minor artifacts or other slight defects but again since these are paintings I am not sure what sort of changes would be appropriate to keep its historic appearance. Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page proposals

Dear FP community, a note to make you aware of an existing proposal and a future proposal for main page inclusion.

• Featured sounds inclusion where a second featured picture is added five days of the week but two featured sounds are added at the weekend.
• Future proposed FL inclusion where one of the second featured pictures is substituted for a featured list on Wednesdays.

Overall, this would mean 7 FAs per week, 11 FPs per week, 2 FSs per week and 1 FL per week. Please head to Talk:Main page for the current FS proposal and shortly where the FL proposal will be listed. Many thanks, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for iconic 20th century architecture

Just a note to let you know that as part of the National Register of Historic Places Fall 2011 Photo Contest a barnstar is offered for any FP of an iconic 20th century building on the US heritage register. As the scope of that contest is geographically limited, additionally I'm also offering the same award worldwide. --Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is local "Featured Picture" template redundant to Commons "Assessments" template?

Quick question - when the description page of a Commons image uses the "Assessments" template to show that the image is a Featured Picture at en Wikipedia, is the local {{Featured picture}} template considered redundant? Kelly ^hi! 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is not watched heavily. To answer your question: No. Since the enwiki community only controls enwiki pages, we would like to keep our own records. Commons is somewhat inconsistent on keeping that template up to date. Jujutacular ^talk 00:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I watch it! And I could have sworn that I responded to it. Juju is mostly right. I'll add that English FPs aren't always marked as such on Commons, and many English FPs that are marked on Commons have incorrect links to nomination pages. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Main Page affecting April Fools Day Tradition

There is a discussion on the Main Page relative to the April Fools Day tradition that would affect this page---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Layout

I don't get the layout. When you click in you see 2-3 photos per category all the way down. Then you see these subcategory links and it opens up to a larger page with many photos -- so my question I asked myself why are there only 3 photos, why those photos, and why not a list of categories with no photos... It just doesn't really seem organized or purposeful. Mkdw^talk 19:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The latest three photographs to be promoted in each category are the ones shown on the main FP page. And each category has its own page, showing all of the pictures promoted in that area of interest. The three photographs are shown because it's a guide to the content of the categories and is also a simple showcase of the very latest we've promoted. Julia\^talk 19:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disqualify promotional pictures from Main Page FP slot

I propose a ban on professionally taken promotional pictures that are supplied by agencies/promoters or TV/film/music companies appearing as the Main Page TFP for a period of time sufficient that the promotion is a long way from being current. This does not prejudice the possibility of such pictures being given FP status.

The rationale is that the Main Page is an exceedingly widely seen of internet space, with c8 million hits per day. As such, it could be perceived as of great value to advertisers/promoters, and we should avoid any possibility of the perception that images produced purely for the purposes of promoting a personality or production are gaining such a high profile spot free of charge, when an equivalent spot on a page of equal traffic would be of high pecuniary value. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Such images certainly shouldn't receive preferential treatment, but I see no valid reason to discriminate against them either.
  How is it problematic for users to (accurately) perceive that the pictures are appearing free of charge? We should be concerned about the mistaken impression that promoters are paying for the placement. This is a real issue, but it exists to a far greater extent (and arises far more frequently) when featured articles about commercial entities appear. --David Levy 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  Because getting services of high financial value for free looks either exceeding dodgy, or invites speculation about the reasons for preferential treatment. They have "paid", by allowing a licence to photos that they could otherwise have retained copyright on, but the cost in lost potential revenue is minimal compared to the advantage that is gained. Kevin McE (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  We aren't providing preferential treatment, of course. I agree that mistaken perceptions to the contrary and "speculation about the reasons" are problematic, but as noted above, they usually take the form of the belief that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation has been paid for the placement (and this is far more likely to arise in relation to TFA).
  Any living photographer or artist stands to benefit from his/her work's credited appearance as TFP. This reflects the reality that we showcase material available under free licenses, and it encourages the contribution thereof (which doesn't require the relinquishment of copyright, incidentally). --David Levy 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, neither WMF nor any of us editors receive any financial remuneration for promoting promotional pictures to FP status or for scheduling them as POTD, so there's no quid pro quo taking place. I suppose it's possible that someone might get paid to nominate it, but there's no way a substandard photo is going to make it past FPC unless every participant were to be paid off somehow. Anyway, I realize this proposal is in response to the Alexz Johnson pic, but were you aware that the proposed criteria would not be applicable to that photo? Instant Star ended in 2008, after all. --howcheng {chat} 04:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with caveats. There's no reason that these sort of images shouldn't just be featured at Commons, after all, there's no encyclopedic background to the images there, they're just great images. Having said that, if a high quality image can be used on the main page, associated with a quality-controlled article (i.e. one without maintenance tags, without serious quality issues), then I see no issue at all. To claim one image to be more "promotional" than another is entirely subjective, we'd need another layer of bureaucracy to decide (by "consensus" I suppose?) on what is and what isn't "promotional"? Could the proposer provide instances, objective evidence etc where the main page has been "perceived" as promotional, other than in his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  OK, it was a concern that I was not the only person to observe on the other day, so I thought it worth checking as to whether it was a wider concern. Of course, Howcheng, I had no intention to suggest that you or any other individual was gaining financial advantage, but there is, I believe, legitimate concern that companies would receive something very valuable (high profile exposure) in exchange for something of negligible cost (licensing of an image), and that some people might speculate as to whether there is more to the issue that meets the eye. It is correct to assert that no favours are asked or expected, but sometimes assertion is not enough, and people must avoid any grounds for suspicion that it could be the case: particularly in the Gibraltarpedia era, I think it behoves us to edit on the side of caution.

  Rambling Man puts forward two questions: one simply addressed, the other rather unfitting. " To claim one image to be more "promotional" than another is entirely subjective": my proposal referred specifically to "professionally taken promotional pictures that are supplied by agencies/promoters or TV/film/music companies", and identifying that requires no bureaucracy, simply a glance at the source of the image. As to your other question, it is not incumbent on somebody putting forward an idea for discussion to prove the weight of concern: discussion reveals that.

  If it turns out that the concern is not widespread, the proposal will go nowhere, and will be forgotten in a few days: opinions will have been aired, and consensus will have been established. At present it looks like the proposal is likely to fail: no harm if so, and I will simply hope that those who are confident that doubt will not be cast on the propriety and integrity of Wikipedia will be proved correct. I think the possibility that that will not be so is worth the minor restriction on ourselves that I propose. Kevin McE (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, images supplied by agencies etc still have to undergo the WP:FPC process, if you have a problem with that, propose something different. Also, if you have an issue with the criteria for featured pictures, that would be an appropriate location to start a debate. As for the "unfitting" question, could you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  I have specifically stated that this would "not prejudice the possibility of such pictures being given FP status." It refers to them appearing in the TFP slot.

  I'm not sure what remains to clarify: you challenged me to " provide instances, objective evidence etc where the main page has been "perceived" as promotional, other than in [my] opinion", and I replied that I consider myself under no onus to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  That's true, but it would strengthen your argument.
  We often receive such complaints when TFA's subject is commercial (e.g. a profit-making company, film, music album or video game). Conversely, most complaints about TFP relate to concerns that the images' subjects are violent, disgusting or sexually explicit. --David Levy 17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: There have been several instances in past where content on Main page has been restricted for seemingly being promotional. DYK hooks are asked to change or altered for being promotional. Bulk appearances of similar topics, like the Gibraltar case, are scattered to avoid promotional effect. Articles related to elections are on hold for post-election appearances. I support that some discussion should be done before featuring the image as TFP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  DYK hooks are asked to change or altered for being promotional.
  TFP blurbs can be (and are) edited too. Banning these images from the section is the equivalent of banning articles from DYK.
  Bulk appearances of similar topics, like the Gibraltar case, are scattered to avoid promotional effect.
  Howcheng scatters similar images, regardless of whether they're "promotional".
  Articles related to elections are on hold for post-election appearances.
  We can do exactly the same thing if a featured picture of a standing candidate (or something similarly relevant to an election) shows up in the TFP queue.
  I support that some discussion should be done before featuring the image as TFP.
  That isn't what's proposed above. --David Levy 17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  We have in fact delayed pictures before due to elections. There was a John Edwards picture that was moved when it was pointed out to me that it was right before Super Tuesday (it was rescheduled to some time after he dropped out of the election). --howcheng {chat} 17:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia