Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

FPCs needing feedback

Grounds for delisting?

File:Chicago_Skyline_Hi-Res.jpg dates to 2006. There have been multiple changes to the Chicago skyline since then, including the construction of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), the vertical expansion of Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower, and probably much more. Is this grounds for delisting? I rather think it is, as the image's encyclopedic value is much diminished. Thank you for your consideration. 199.66.14.55 (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just being dated is not sufficient to delist. We do have historic and semi-historic FPs after all. The photo shows the skyline in 2006. There is value in that. The photo can serve and enhance various articles as is, for example in sections describing the history or the development of metropolitan Chicago. Bammesk (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone got anything that needs restoring that falls under {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}?

Kind of want to get away from Commons for a bit. Things are very, very broken over there just now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

I think we have more than enough to split this into separate artist and writer groupings, and it's probably the case that few people are near enough the middle of this continuum that there's going to be much doubt where to file them. It's always been a weird pairing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 03:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:  Done, see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Writers. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:FPCnom

I've made it so that the FP category page, as put in when starting a new nomination, can fit any of these patterns. This fixes some changes in February that caused the weird [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures/ Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military]]-style issues that have been causing problems.

1. The bit after Wikipedia:Featured pictures/ e.g. "People/Military"

2. The full link to the category, e.g. "Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military"

3. 2, but in brackets, e.g. "[[Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military]]"

(The longstanding expected input was 3, the February changes made it so that only option 1 would work properly.)

Technical information
Let's get complicated!
Specifically, it uses #ifexist to determine which one to use, so the processing of what gets put into the category block ("[Text]") is: 1. See if "Wikipedia:Featured pictures/[Text]" exists, if so, put that in brackets to link to the page. 2. If 1 fails, see if [Text] is a valid Wikipedia page. If so, put it in brackets to link to the page. 3. If 1 and 2 fail, return [Text]. This has the following minor consequences: Since Military is a Wikipedia page, if you forget the People/ part of People/Military, rule 2 will cause it to output Military. However, while Other is a Wikipedia page, Rule 1 is processed first, so "Other" will output Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other. There are few redirects for featured picture categories, so attempting to use option 1 and getting it wrong may give slightly odd results in edge cases. Most notably, while "Other" will link to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other, "Others" will instead link to Others. That said, I think that's the only case where it's at all likely to matter, since in most other cases you'll be linking a subcategory ("People/Military", "History/World War I", etc.), mistaken versions of which probably aren't going to be valid Wikipedia pages. This is all subst:'d, so, for most people, you can just use whichever of those feels right to you, like how you can put in "File:" or not for the link to the image and it won't matter.

Let me know if any weirdness comes out that isn't, well, the expected weirdness from trying to accept truncated category names. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)