UESPWiki talk:Featured Images

Non UESP editor pictures

Can we nominate pictures not created by a UESP editor, or pictures created by devs? For example would say A picture from Skyrim (These are sorta a bad example as they aren't used on an actual article, just a gallery really) be eligible to be nominated for featured status? Or are we just going with the pictures we make? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of featuring Skyrim images. Every game site on the web probably hosts them by now. We should stick to images unique to the UESP. Legoless 21:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How long will these be featured?

After reading through the Community Portal discussion I noticed that we have no policy for how long these will remain on the front page. Since we lack a standing policy on this and the one month featured articles get seems to be too much, I would recommend that we give them one week on the front page until we switch them out. If there is nothing to replace it we will choose an old one at random to replace it instead of allowing them to sit on the front page. Since we don't know what to do with this matter yet (Unless I am missing something that is), does anyone else have any other suggestions or do you like mine? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with one month, and I wouldn't want it to be less than two weeks- unless there's a way to have them randomly generate like the DYKs. That might work really well with the FIs. --GK^talk2me 02:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's actually pretty easy (thanks to rpeh and Nephele).

It picks one each time the page loads cache is purged, which some people might seem as too much, but it generates greater exposure. Elliot (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea! It would be a perfect way to keep the front page looking fresh, without us finding new news stories or anything. I fully support this idea over mine --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

GK, you can use the |seed= parameter to change the frequency of the "picks"; however, I'm not too sure on the specifics. Nephele used {{LOCALYEAR}}{{LOCALWEEK}} in her example, which changes it weekly. Elliot (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Randomly selecting an image is a very nice idea, but (unlike the DYKs) there's no way to guarantee that an image is selected for a while before being moved into the random section. That would mean that a new image added to the featured list might not appear for some time. We could use the seed {{LOCALYEAR}}{{LOCALMONTH}}{{LOCALDAY2}}, which would change the image once per day rather than once per week, which might help. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) We're approaching two weeks since the first image was featured... Are there any other opinions on the length of time they should be featured? --GK^talk2me 00:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as we have multiple images lined up in the voting/discussion area, and we have plenty more images that can be dug up around the site, weekly or bi-weekly switchouts would be a good choice. If we can have around 18 total approved before July (not all at once), we should be at a good pace to keep us held over until Skyrim. I have no doubts that finding, nominating, voting, then approving an image could be carried out weekly, allowing us to maintain an average quota of 1/week. With extra images held in reserve, and the lineup constantly being updated, an image every two weeks might lead to a backlog of approved yet pending images. Once the Skyrim rush happens, mountains of new proposals will flood in, so 1/week is my best guess for an optimal turnout rate that can be implemented now, and still upheld. - Neural Tempest 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually am starting to severely dislike featured images due to all of the nonsense arguing that has happened so far over it, and would sincerely wish to see it go away if we still have this level of conversation going on about it by the time Skyrim rolls around. However I'd recommend that an image gets two weeks on the front page before being swapped out, if there is nothing to replace it we go with the recommended randomly generated system. This way the new image gets a chance, and we have a system to keep the main page looking fresh when things are more quiet. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting on page

This is something that is relatively minor, but I think we should utilize the <gallery> tag in terms of demonstrating the images on either the main Featured Images page or a subpage. It can get pretty big as we get more, but I don't see any issue now. Thoughts? Elliot (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea for the Previews Featured Image page when we have one. We need to keep the images near the votes for the main FI page, though. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of spending all of our time voting and discussing whether or not this image is Modded or not, can't we just work on the Wiki like we did before? The Featured Images section was meant to be a FUN side feature, but as of now, I just spent all morning trying to figure out how to handle this thing. --Krusty 06:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This feature is still in its relative infancy, so some discussions on form should be expected. Once baseline rules are in place, the whole thing will run more effeciently, so less arguments will arise. People are still editing the Wiki regardless of this voting page, so I'm not too worried.

An idea- Simply have any alterations listed under the image for voting purposes (not the main page feature, of course), allowing quicker judgements to be made. Any "alterations" listed would just include differences between the specific image and the official games, such as lighting (brightness/contrast) changes (in-game or out), horizontal/vertical compressions, or using console codes to alter NPC/item behaviour/position. Once we standardize the submission/image formatting, I see arguments only involving the aesthetic nature of the pictures themselves. - Neural Tempest 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A good idea, but that is exactly what I'm talking about. These are pretty images we want to show the world and we don't need 200 guidelines and policies to select one. It's a waste of time, to be honest. --Krusty 07:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And listing all alterations would sometimes take far too long. Most of my images these days involve several console commands, plus there's always some colour correction done afterwards. The only rule should be that there are no obvious mod inclusions - like on this old version of Ragbag Buntara's image. 07:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting 200 rules, but merely requesting definitions of "modded", "fake", and acceptable images relative to these definitions. Listing relevant alterations should be simple, just a brief 2-line summary. I just don't want to have images tied up in deliberation simply because they might be a panoramic shot. As long as the image accurately represents a game, it would be acceptable to me. At that point, the aesthetic quality gets voted on. Editors should only have to vote, not argue endlessly about acceptable mods for each nomination. If we settle these concerns with an extra paragraph at the top of the project page, it would make life easier. - Neural Tempest 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I figure I may as well toss in my two cents on this. I still think that we'd be spending way too much time on this page. Compared to before this page, it does seem a bit lonely out here on the Wiki. I understand that it is to be expected considering that it's a new idea, but I also understand that the UESPWiki is meant to be a Wiki; everything else is supposed to be on the side. But, then again, that's just me pointing out a problem that I can't solve; I don't think a solution to this problem will come until the "fad" has passed... just figured I'd get my opinion out there. Kalis Agea 02:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Only thing I believe is necessary is a mention of what mods are visible on a picture. The problem is that the wiki should only use vanilla shots, while refusing them here is silly. If there was a place on the wiki for mod-pictures, then there wouldn't really be a problem. ~ Dwarfmp 02:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting is not required. Elliot (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This topic has certainly gone off in a painful tangent hasn't it? This original point of this discussion appeared to have originally had been a request for us to stop spending so much time arguing over this, and then almost immediately became an argument over whether modded images were appropriate or not. The best, easiest to manage, and most straight forward answer; no obvious mod features should be on display, was offered quickly enough so let us go with that to resolve this. As Elliot said, voting is not necessary. If you are annoyed by this please ignore this page. If you would like to propose a new policy for this instead of re-highjacking this topic to discuss FI policy feel free to start another one, or write it out in a sandbox or something. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread, so let me end it. Stop the pointless arguing and get back to work. Otherwise, this new Featured Image-phenomenon WILL die. --Krusty 03:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not up to you. Wikis run on consensus, not decree, and you don't have one. You can do exactly what anyone else could - start a discussion about whether or not we want to keep this, and try to get a consensus.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 08:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, that was not really serious. Please, feel free to spend your life reaching 100 consensus'es - because obviously, that is what Wiki life is about. Not about having fun, being creative, but discussing endlessly because of that damn c-word. Be my guest and waste your time. Its not like the community "decided" to have a Featured Image-section. WE decided that. --Krusty 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)There's little point trying to achieve any kind of consensus on this thread when everybody seems to be talking about different things.

I suggested that we have a Featured Image because it seemed like a quick and easy way to brighten up the front page, and to highlight the superb pics we have on the site. If it's going to turn out that we'll have regular fights about what images are and are not allowed, then we'll shut it down. The first duty of an admin is to reduce disruption to the site, and so Krusty or I would be well within our rights to simply remove the image from the front page and delete this page if it turns into a fight. That would be an extreme measure, and one neither of us want to have to take, but it's an option. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How do I nominate?

Do I nominate by just putting it on the page with the picture name and why I wanted to nominate it?--Iamgoofball 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, you put a thumbnail on the right and add a reason, like the other nominations. Though there is quite a line, so if you're going to nominate, you have to be convinced it is worthy of getting the feature tag. ~ Dwarfmp 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

10 days instead of 14?

Looking at the same image for 14 days is a bit long, in my opinion. We have plenty of images waiting in line, so I hereby propose that we make it 10 days instead. Opinions? --Krusty 01:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we never got a definitive answer the last time this was brought up but I can see this time frame working. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary that the current queue of images is down to the page still being new. If we start speeding things up we might start running out when the enthusiasm wears out. Having said that, I have no real objections to the change. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the queue isn't showing any signs of going down yet, I think it's worth adopting this change. Or perhaps -- given the previous discussion where 7 days was being discussed -- should we say "every 7 to 14 days", at the admins' discretion. If the queue is long (and an admin remembers), 7 days is used. If we start to run low on queued images, we let it drift towards 14 days. --Nephele^Talk 21:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I like this suggestion; works for me. --GK^talk2me 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done a 10-day rotation for the current image, given that there have never been objections to the proposal. --Nephele^Talk 00:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing FI

I've been meaning to ask this for a long time, but just haven't gotten to it. What better time to ask than during the whole Skyrim preparation which requires a lot of attention? Anyway, I was wondering what the policy is on replacing featured images. Are they never to be replaced? Or should permission be granted beforehand, or some sort of comparison of what is to replace the image? ~ Dwarfmp 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What reason could there be to replace images that have been deemed to be of superior quality? Any other images that could be needed would only have to be named something slightly different... right? --GK^talk2me 00:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I've seen images being granted the FI status while the quality isn't at its best, but worthy of the status for what's in it. So basically, I wondered if it was allowed to recapture the same shot, but with the best quality possible ~ Dwarfmp 00:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: An example would be the Belmyne Dreleth shot (of which a thumb is displayed a few sections above this one), which is FI, but doesn't even meet the minimum requirement of 800px, which means actually it has to be replaced. As cool of a shot it may be, it's not at its best quality ~ Dwarfmp 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it would be acceptable to recapture the same shot with a better quality; however, the argument could be made that its FI status would need to be reevaluated if it were replaced. I would be satisfied with a guideline that an FI should only be replaced with an image as nearly identical as possible while improving its quality. --GK^talk2me 01:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GK. Incidentally, there's no minimum image size, it's just that larger ones are generally preferred where possible. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bumping Images?

Would anyone be opposed to featuring an image before it's time? Specifically, images for Skyrim. Once Skyrim is released, we're likely to get a load of uploaded images, and a few will almost surely be worth featuring. The reason I suggest this is that as of now, we won't be able to feature a Skyrim image until roughly three months after the game is released (estimate, of course). As the wiki is going to be focused on Skyrim in the coming days, it may be worthwhile giving a Skyrim image the opportunity to go before it's time would come in the current order.

I'm not opposed to extending this suggestion to featured articles, but a high quality Skyrim article will likely take a lot longer than it would for a number of high quality images to show up on the wiki. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The more unique Skyrim content we show off, the better. --Legoless 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that featuring Skyrim content on the main page is a good idea. --Nephele^Talk 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Or change the current month long FI status. To say 3 weeks? I know it's more awkward to remember but would get through the list quicker. Still bump any good SR images up a bit though. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 21:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good idea. Bumping them to the top of the list should be no problem, even if it's slightly against the (unwritten?) rules - and there's no doubt that we should feature SR images, provided we get some good ones, of course. --Krusty 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) Isn't the current waiting time fourteen days? It was suggested that we change this to ten, but I'm not sure if that was ever accepted as a change. The easier solution would be to just give Skyrim content precedence when it comes to being featured (which is a good summary of this suggestion). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Readers are going to be expecting Skyrim content, so it's only natural we feature it on the main page. --GK^talk2me 02:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear requests? ~ Dwarfmp 07:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An additional thought I just had is whether we should try (within reason) to rotate games when a new image is posted. Specifically, looking at the current queue, we're supposed to show three Shivering Isles images in a row. (Assuming no intervening Skyrim images), it seems like it would be better to tweak the order a bit, and show the Morrowind image in between two of the SI images. I suppose a more general way of putting all of this discussion is: should the admin who rotates the image have some discretion in choosing which image to display next? --Nephele^Talk 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Whenever I've the one changing the image, I've tried to go for something else than the image I'm replacing. I don't think anybody would object as this is all about making the main page more appetizing - and posting three NPC images is just a bit.... repetitive? --Krusty 18:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we should try to do this. But we don't want to be stuck with a whole bunch of Oblivion images at the end either. elliot (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Why do we even have a next featured photo listing if it's not even gonna be used? I've been waiting to see the Sheogorath pic up there for awhile.--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the above discussion. It was agreed that we'd hold off on non-Skyrim images as Skyrim related images and content is expected. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Publicly displaying FI status?

I know that we put the FA icon for featured articles, but what about putting them in the captions for the images? See User:Elliot/Sandbox/12 for an example. This might be a way to expand the whole FI process as a whole, and it can get more views for such images. Thoughts? elliot (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea. Our Featured Images could use some more exposure, and this would be a convenient way of doing just that. • JA^Talk 05:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that extra star a lot - definitely a support vote from me! --Krusty 06:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Same. I used this site for a long time before I even knew there were featured images, so maybe this would help a little bit with giving them a little more recognition. ABCface^◥ 06:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a fantastic idea. Let's do it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 06:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Now that I look at it, maybe it is about time we get rid of that small, annoying thumbnail icon in the lower right corner, if possible? The icon seems quite aged (these days, everybody clicks automatically at small images) and it often ruins the layout of captions. --Krusty 06:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support this. As you can see from my earlier test, it's a simple fix to remove it. elliot (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Support, but only on the condition it gets placed next to the enlarge icon. Or preferably delete the almost useless enlarge icon altogether. --kiz ^talk_email 17:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) I support it, but is it possible to either have the star link to the featured image page, or display hover text to the words of this is a featured image or some such. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 17:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd support both of those (with the caveat that support for the latter is contingent on my understanding of what is meant by the thumbnail/enlarge icon being correct).--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the same stipulation Kiz brought up. It should be beside the thumbnail icon or in place of it, not below it, where it causes the margin to be wider and look bad. (And could potentially mess up the layout in some places.) I'm also curious how this would be affected by pictures placed by templates (NPC Summary and the like). Would all such templates need to be altered to support the feature? That seems like it might be really annoying... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's no way to put it next to it (at least, no simple way), so we should just remove the enlarge icon. And no, no templates need to be adjusted. {{fi}} would need to be placed in whatever description parameter is in the template. elliot (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Grok Nomination?

Okay, so this isn't an actual nomination, it's more akin to a primary (I don't know if that terminology is common outside the US; it's like a vote to see who gets a political party's nomination for an election, not the election itself). We've got two pictures of Grok the Giant from A Night to Remember. They're very similar, and both I find excellent, but frankly, I don't see much point in having them both on the FI, and I don't know which to nominate.

So, if you were to support a nomination for a picture of Grok, which would more easily garner your support? We have:

Grok the Thinker

Grok the Goat-killer

Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:18, 13 December 2012 (GMT)

The first one, it shows that not all "creatures" are dumb animals that attack on sight. Plus I'd probably vote for it in the "secondary." Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:20, 13 December 2012 (GMT)

Also the first. — ABCface^◥ 01:24, 13 December 2012 (GMT)

I also feel the first is a bit better. --HalfStache 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 05:16, 13 December 2012 (GMT)

Gallery for old images

I made a gallery at UESPWiki:Featured_Images/Old_FIs on the suggestion of Krusty, I propose sending people there instead of the old list. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:31, 1 February 2013 (GMT)

That looks great, Silencer! A perfect overview of the past featured images, giving them the respect they deserve. I’ll say – let’s get rid of this list and put up a link to the new subpage asap. ☺ --Krusty (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2013 (GMT)

I don't think this would get any opposition, if we're voting on it. Removing the list and adding a link to the gallery page will save this page from growing infinitely as you pointed out in the IRC, and a gallery is definitely preferred over a plain list of links ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (GMT)

Word. I don't see any reason not to go this route. — ABCface^◥ 18:50, 3 February 2013 (GMT)

One month to two weeks

I changed the wording to reflect standard practice and the agreements in the two discussions held before. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:27, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

Since it's been brought to my attention that this change was made, and there hasn't actually been any actual agreement on this, can we sort this out belatedly? I'm in support of two weeks, as the official time for FIs going forward. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:45, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Two weeks. --Krusty (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Making it clear that I support two weeks. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:49, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

2 weeks -- SarthesArai ^Talk 18:51, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

We had talked about it in the chatroom, people all seemed to agree on two weeks, so Silencer changed it and mentioned it here, in case someone disagreed. We'd been doing two weeks for a long time before it was officially changed, so no-one seemed to mind the change or even notice it for that matter ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Wait AKB, you support two weeks? Then why did you put on a new one after just one week in the first place? ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) I don't have a problem with two weeks, since that's the easiest one to get approved here. There's no reason for further arguing at this point as it's clearly the preferred option. I don't think I need to explain to anyone that the chatroom can't be used to make binding decisions. If people wanted to make their support of this known before, they should of said something the first time around. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:46, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Well now the poor werewolf has had his time on the main page cut in half. I don't suppose putting it back on is a plan? ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

No, I don't think the image's feeling are going to be hurt by this, and the editor who uploaded it hasn't been around for four months, so I don't think he will mind that much either. Either way, when I made that change before, it wasn't against any actual policy. There is no reason to go flip flopping on FIs in response to a policy being accepted after it was taken down. If you want to, I'm not going to stop you, but I think that it is entirely unnecessary since the current one has already been up for an entire day. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:55, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Just adding my two cents: I think a 2-week period makes far more sense than a month or a single week. However, despite the fact that the latest FI has been up for a day I don't see any reason why it can't be replaced by the werewolf one to get its full time first. If we're after any amount of consistency, then that's the only logical option; really, a single day isn't that long, but getting a week cut off one's feature time rather is. --_¿Vulpa^? 00:17, 27 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) I'll throw in my loose change as well... I see no problem with two weeks. As large as the FI image backlog is, shorter times so we can move through those images isn't going to hurt anything. And, I'm indifferent to the werewolf picture. It can stay off, it can be replaced, it really makes no difference to me. What matters is that from this current FI forward, we have something consistent. One or two images that aren't timed right because we lack consistency or consensus won't kill anyone, and I see a rather large, pointless argument in the making here. ES^{(talk•email)} 00:25, 27 July 2013 (GMT)

Agreed. Leave the current FI, set a 2 week standard run for future FIs. --Xyzzy ^Talk 01:07, 27 July 2013 (GMT)

Nominating Featured Images

I'm bringing up this issue now because three times or so during the past week or more, the user Tiberseptim2 has made consecutive nominations to three separate images. Two or more of the times, he has failed to even include the thumbnail image, let alone sign his own nomination with tildes. Not including the fact that the images themselves have mainly been opposed, but merely bringing up this issue as it is seemingly cluttering up the nomination section of the page with a multitude of nominations from one user who doesn't necessary even edit frequently on the wiki, let alone the fact that they clearly do not know how to appropriately nominate an image (causing several other editors to fix his unsigned nominations as well as adding the image thumbnails where they've failed to include them), I would seriously propose that only administrators at least have the main ability and oversight to the nominations towards this page (as Minor Edits also mentioned in IRC earlier). Although I'd like others contributions and thoughts towards this proposal as well. -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 06:20, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I wouldn't mind if it was just admins nominating images, though the actual limit could vary (for example, it could be limited to people having at least userspace patroller status). We could also explore implementing a limit on the number of nominations made by one person within a certain amount of time, or banning a user from making further nominations until a certain amount of nominations have been successful since his/her last nomination. A restriction on nominations could take on many, many different forms. It could be tailored to give a smaller group increased control over nominations, or it could do the opposite, and encourage a wider variety of people to make a limited amount of nominations. Both approaches have their pros and cons. But currently, there are no limits on nominating, and that seems to me like something which is begging to be abused, so something should change. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:37, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I don't see a problem with keeping nominations open as normal. It's so very rarely an issue, and the only time it's an "issue" is when the nominator is new or just isn't sure what to do. No one has to vote on a nomination, and any admin (or any user, really) can talk to a user about a nomination that pretty obviously won't go well about why it won't go well, and get him or her to just withdraw the nomination. There's a learning curve to everything here, and failed nominations are pretty harmless, especially when they're more or less unanimous.

The only real problem I see here is that people aren't always sure how to correctly format a nomination, and there's an easy solution to that: we stick an example on the page, like on Image Requests, to show people what to do.

Example

File:SR-quest-Dragon Rising 05.jpg This is another great image. It appears cinematic, which is rare for the TES series. Support as nominator. elliot (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We can stick it under a showhide on the page, or if we're concerned that people might still miss it (I would be), we can just leave it out there for the whole world to see. We've had very few formatting problems on the Image Requests page, so I think this should solve the problem here as well. ⇠eshe^talk 14:33, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I agree with eshe. I think that it would be a huge overreaction for us to limit FI nominations just because some people were annoyed by some admittedly sub-par images being nominated by someone who is obviously not familiar with the process. --Xyzzy ^Talk 14:56, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

A simple no to limiting possible nominators (an ill conceived thought that shouldn't have progressed to a post, no offense to anyone), a quick run through the archived nominations reveals 10 users, 1 userpatroller, 7 patrollers, and 6 admins nominated (current status only, as in I counted all my noms as 1 patroller etc), and it is not counting ones not archived as this isn't a requirement. A simple post on how a nomination is supposed to be done on the users talk page would've sufficed. I wouldn't be opposed to including an example nomination, and I'd suggest it was "hidden" under the process Nomination header. Also a limit would not be bad, but I'd suggest it as a page limit (not to one user), and at 5 (the most I've really seen at one time). The voting section can get quite long when a disputed image comes forward. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 15:01, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

As a very active FI voter I feel the need to throw in my two cents on the side of keeping things more or less the way they are, as I think that limiting nominations to only a select few users goes against the base principles of a wiki. I do, however, feel that Tiberseptim2 has shown us a need for some oversight. Basically, I have nothing to add, other than to fully support the "example option" and throw in my support on the side of Silencer's suggestion of limiting nominations to five at a time. --HalfStache 00:09, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

I would be happy with implementing Silencers suggestion by having a guideline example to the basics to nominating a particular image to the page itself. However, this edit has added towards a total of four nominations by a single person alone during a small timeframe. If it were two or more weeks apart, it would be perfectly acceptable. However because these have all taken place within the space of a week or more, I seriously do consider implementing some sort of a limit to nominations within a particular timeframe. -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 06:45, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) I disagree. This is one user who is excitedly nominating every image he sees. He's been given a reminder in one of his votes, and if this continues to be a problem, we can warn him on his talk page. This has been a one-time occurrence, and we shouldn't be freaking out over it by unnecessarily restricting users. It's like being the teacher that forces all the kids to stay in from recess because one of them was being bad. Many normal users nominate images in batches, myself included, and limiting the number we can upload just so that one user doesn't overdo it is insane, in my opinion. • JA^T 17:23, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

Non UESP Editor Pictures (Again)

After the current nomination for File:RG-creature-Dolphin.jpg was shown to be taken from another site, I'd like to formally change the requirements for FIs to include one automatically forbidding any taken from another site. All in favor? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:16, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

I say Aye. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:23, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

Aye. —Legoless (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

I. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:55, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

J. And also, I agree with this policy change. --Nocte|Chat|Look 02:13, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

Yep. — ABCface^◥ 02:19, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

KK. Jeancey (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

(←) Yes. Vely^►t►e 02:28, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

I agree. --Xyzzy ^Talk 03:45, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

FI's has nothing to do with it - it would be more helpful to create a category with images from other sites, so we can avoid this sort of thing in the future - or at least mention it more clearly in the summary. --Krusty (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

Well that's awkward. Yeah, we should probably avoid using screenshots taken from other sites (except official ones, obviously) whenever possible, and they don't belong in FIs, in my opinion. ⇠eshe^talk 15:09, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

Of course there should only be featured images taken by wiki members, but there has to be a method to easily spot out copied Images, as Krusty said. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 15:43, 11 June 2013 (GMT)

Nomination

Howdy all, now I am going to be perfectly honest, I have no clue how to nominate an image, I just haven't spend enough time editing on the wiki to be able to do it - noob I know, however I saw this image http://www.uesp.net/wiki/File:DB-place-Edla%27s_House.jpg and found something pleasing about it and thought maybe it deserves a nomination. Maybe it doesn't. However check it out, and if you too think it is worth a nomination will you stick it up? Thanks :) and if someone wants to also relpy with a template below to help me and show me what goes where then I will also try again myself. Love from --Mog 09:40, 24 July 2013

Hi Mog. Did you take a look at the article associated with this talk page? There's a section titled Nomination that tells you exactly what to do (see here). Just add a new section at the bottom of the page with a heading (you can copy-paste this: ===[File:DB-place-Edla's_House.jpg]===), put a brief explanation of why you nominated it right under it, then sign it with: * '''Support''': as nominator. --~~~~ . Sound good? :) --_¿Vulpa^? 12:18, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

Thankyou friend, I will do my best haha Mog 20:31, 24 July 2013‎

"No clear consensus" nominations

According to the Decisions section of the article, "UESP Administrators will periodically make decisions on image nominations. Decisions will only be made if.... A clear consensus has been reached (either supported or opposed for featured status)." This is a guideline which I noticed has been ignored a few times recently, and I was wondering how editors feel about this. Personally, I'd prefer to follow the guideline, rather than archiving guidelines which are close, but I don't feel very strongly about it. And if the consensus is to continue archiving nominations which don't have a clear consensus, we should remove the guideline from the page (there's no point in having it there if it's consistently not followed). So I'd like some input from others, should we start following the guideline, or remove it? Looking through archived nominations, it seems we've been ignoring this for a couple years. So I guess I'm leaning towards removing that line. — ABCface^◥ 21:09, 29 September 2013 (GMT)

There are enough good images that we don't need to drag nominations on endlessly. My choice would be to reword/remove it so that an unclear consensus equals a rejection, but wouldn't prevent it being nominated again (though that's unlikely anyway). Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:16, 29 September 2013 (GMT)

We've been doing that since at least 2011, why is that even on this page? This page gets enough nominations so that it couldn't take the clutter of having a dozen nominations that are sitting on the brink between being supported or opposed that it'll likely never escape from. Just to point out, this is something that I believe only happens with feature nominations. People requesting patroller rights or similar important nominations do get a firm consensus formed first. In fact, I have only ever done this once on FA, to a nomination that had fallen in the gap between support and opposed for a month before I closed it. It just doesn't matter here as much, and is better to archive split nominations so more successful possibilities may arise. With that said, and there being clear evidence that this hasn't been followed in literal years, I'm just going to remove it unless their is a serious outcry for firm responses here. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:26, 29 September 2013 (GMT)

I don't intend, and never have, to close nominations in which the consensus is not clear, as the guideline says. Just like now, the consensus of this discussion is not clear, yet it's been removed ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (GMT)

In practice, that guideline had never been followed (this has been done since the fourth nomination to this page, ever), with three of the more prolific admins who make decisions here clearly being in support of this due to them ignoring the guideline. So removing it after a few users have come out in favor of the change makes sense. This guideline had never been diligently followed, and never enforced. There is no need to for a prolonged discussion for what amounts to a typographical error due to parts of this page being copy pasted from FA (it is worth noting that the edit that added those guidelines was installed after the common practice of ruling their being no consensus came about on this page). Either way, all saying "No Clear Consensus" really is is a nicer way to say it is being opposed when their is some more significant support for it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:40, 29 September 2013 (GMT)

Images Using Mods: Yay or Nay?

This is something that comes up every once in a while... Someone nominates an image that uses a line-of-sight increasing mod, or something otherwise inconspicuous. Half the people vote against the image based on this, while the other half doesn't seem to mind too much.

In my opinion, this isn't something that should be voted on; mods have nothing to do with whether an image looks good or not, which the voting ought to focus on. I feel that it would be good to have a clear ruling on the matter: either images using mods of any kind are always out, or certain mods, such as those that increase the view distance, should be allowed.

Personally, I lean in favour of just disallowing featured images using mods, period. It would keep things nice and simple (no wiggle room, is an image too modded?), and would ensure that featured images are always representative of what the games really look like. Weroj (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2013 (GMT)

We don't use images with mods in articles. That's where the problem lies, because we would only feature images that are being used from what I know. I couldn't say why view-distance mod pictures were featured before, though they are being used somewhere, so I guess that's where we should discuss the matter: whether to replace them or not. Off the record, I feel "distance mods" are different than other types of mods, I think a lot of effects are possible through the ini files alone, such as enhancing distance view and such, and that wouldn't be using mods (but is that still considered vanilla?) ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2013 (GMT)

Questions on the Queue

The current queue of nominated images which have yet to be featured will last until at least May, assuming every pic gets at least two weeks. ESO is due out sometime in Quarter 1 (last time I checked). It's easy to see that if we continue nominating the way that we have been, we just might be able to fill out the rest of 2014 before ESO is even released. Based on past practices and common sense, my guess is we will allow the first successful ESO nominations to jump to the top of the queue and be featured asap. But what exactly is the protocol after that? How long would the pre-ESO images be delayed, and in what order would they eventually be featured? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:52, 20 November 2013 (GMT)

My guess would be about 3 would jump the queue, then we'd have a couple of older pics, then have ESO pics back up for the console release in June. About 3 more jumps for ESO pics, then back to the order of nomination. There is no strict guideline that all images must go up in order of nomination, there have been occasional jumps to break a series of like images (whether that be all one game or one "subject" (eg Daedra Princes). Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 03:25, 30 December 2013 (GMT)

I would support a priority for ESO pictures around the time of release, but no longlasting priority. The pictures of the older game should be there for those who come new to the UESP as ESO players in order to raise interest for the older games among those being new to Tamriel through ESO. —MortenOSlash (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2013 (GMT)

Featured Image size on Home Page

I accidentally landed on this Jak Atackka's Sandbox page and saw that the Featured Image in the mobile preview is way bigger than the small thumbnail we have in desktop. As an architect (we tend to meddle), I couldn't help but wonder if maybe this kind of display could be done for desktop preview too, as it showcases the image and makes the page design more appealing to the reader. I don't know if the page layout allows it, or if it's possible at all, but it would be cool, right? (also applies to the Featured Article image) --Manu (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)