Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process

Is the page in the correct format to get something to happen?

because I've never started something like this before. Maedin\^talk 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maedin for the initiative. That was a courageous action and might well work, for the benefict of the project and all of us -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic material

An early submarine design: restore as vector graphics? for printout? or for onscreen viewing?

Restored for onscreen viewing. Other possible restorations would be incompatible with the choices that produced this result.

Getting to the point where this belongs on the talk pages, so a few more comments here. When it comes to the matter of objections there are also situations where different aims or esthetics play a role in restoration. Paper grain is one example. Many of Shoemaker's Holiday's restorations have no trace of paper grain; that's a legitimate goal when the aim is a clear visual effect and good printout capability. In the example at right I regarded the material as a historic document; the goal was to get as close as possible to the appearance of the design when it was new, as if the viewer lived in the early nineteenth century and saw it on Robert Fulton's desk. Spent many hours recreating the paper grain to get that effect. Engineers and programmers viewed this primarily as a design and asked for vector graphics. All three are legitimate yet incompatible goals.

So when reviewers disagree on a historic restoration, sometimes it's not a binary matter of the nomination being 'right' or 'wrong', but rather different people whose tastes prefer different tradeoffs. And in cases like this submarine design, any result other than the nominee would virtually require starting from scratch. There are times when the reviewers themselves don't fully recognize the separate validity of their ideal v. the nominator's intention. And closers, who have to make the binary promote/don't promote decision, often miss that distinction. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may try to paraphrase - different approaches made to restorations may be viewed differently by various reviewers; you can't please everyone, and if the majority say they would have preferred something else it's usually not a simple task of going back and making changes. If I'm roughly correct that's good, but not sure of the relevance other than at the end some closer has to make a call on it. Also not sure where there was any controversy with this in it's nom. --jjron (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page unwatchlisted

I've unwatchlisted this page. I'm no longer convinced that FPC is worth saving in the short term, and wonder it letting it die then rebuilding it may be a far better option. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To let others know . . .

This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.

Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!

Maedin\^talk 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this template here. If you don't think this is the right place for it, please feel free to move it. If you think the template can be improved, or the wording changed, or anything else, please do so! I am not very good with creating such things and generally not very clever, so I am sure some aspects can be improved.

Within the next couple of days (hopefully after some feedback) I intend to add the template to:

Do you disagree with any of the above? Do you have more suggestions? Maedin\^talk 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Maedin, put it now. No need for a consensus on this... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. Maedin\^talk 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major collapsing

I decided to collapse the beginning discussion down to the current polls. As Maedin said, "At this stage, please try to limit your comments in the sections below, or it will quickly become unnavigable, like the mass of text above." So I decided to collapse it. Feel free to revert if it's bad, I really do not mind. Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]